Sitting of 1 March 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (BY ORDER)

    PRIVATE BUSINESS
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered further on Wednesday 8 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Development Banks
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If she will make a statement on the role of development banks in her Department's policies. [111173]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The Government are a major shareholder in, and work closely with, all the key multilateral development banks—the World Bank, the Asian Development bank, the Inter-American Development bank, the African Development bank, the Caribbean Development bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. I am the United Kingdom governor of the development banks, and an alternate governor of the EBRD. UK representatives sit on the boards of all the banks, which have the capacity to contribute significantly to development. The regional banks have special authority in their regions. Since May 1997, we have worked to ensure that all the development banks focus their efforts on achieving international poverty eradication targets.
    Mr. Swayne: I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply. The state of the road network in Mozambique has significantly impaired relief and rescue efforts. However, a 30—month programme for rehabilitation of Mozambique's roads is due for appraisal by the African Development bank at the end of May. What can the Department for International Development do to pressure banks to develop infrastructure in countries prone to natural disasters?
    Clare Short: The African Development bank went through a bad phase of overlending and inefficiency, but has become much more efficient under the leadership of President Kabbaj. I believe that the public sector should
    408
    contribute to road building where private finance cannot work. In Mozambique, that idea applies largely to rural roads, which make a difference if people are to improve their livelihoods by getting their crops to market or to get their children to school.
    Africa has suffered because roads have been built but not maintained. We must encourage the private sector to become involved and the public sector to organise itself to maintain roads. The African Development bank should help to achieve a network in collaboration with the private sector, and the public sector should help rural people to have basic roads. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that Mozambique needs masses of them.
    Mr. Tony Worthington: It is greatly to the Government's credit that we can talk more widely about organisations in which we are major shareholders. Particularly welcome is the Asian Development bank's recent commitment to the eradication of poverty as one of its major purposes. Does my right hon. Friend welcome that commitment, and does she hope that other bodies will follow suit?
    Clare Short: I do, indeed, and I admire the leadership given to the Asian Development bank by President Chino. My hon. Friend's point is similar to that made by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne): we need feasibility studies and regulatory systems that will bring private sector investment into major infrastructure, and we need to use the development banks to strengthen social sectors and focus on poverty. President Chino has done that effectively, and I am very impressed.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that the African Development bank can play a vital role in the eventual reconstruction of Mozambique. Does she agree, however, that the clear priority today is to save the lives of the 100,000 people stranded in trees, on roofs and on high ground in a fellow Commonwealth country? I thank the right hon. Lady for what her Department has already done, but is it not obvious that too few helicopters are flying in Mozambique? Why will she not combine forces with the Ministry of Defence, charter heavy-lift aircraft and fly a batch of British helicopters and pilots to Mozambique before it is too late?
    Clare Short: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's praise for my officials, who are working enormously hard. I fear that the situation in Mozambique is terrible, and that it is going to get much worse. Another cyclone is on the way, another river is about to overflow, and Caborra Basso must be allowed to overflow if it is not to put more people at risk.
    Since I made my statement to the House on Monday, we have found some more helicopters. On the point about the Ministry of Defence, however, I must say that my Department's duty—the instruction that I have given my officials—is to find, from whatever source, the most rapidly available equipment and people who can be sent into theatre as quickly as possible. If the Ministry of Defence can help, that is good, but we must not delay just so that we can have equipment or personnel from our own Ministry. We must deploy whatever we can.

    409
    We have found two extra helicopters, which will be working tomorrow. We are sending to Mozambique tomorrow two planes and 30 UK volunteers who are expert in emergencies—including fire brigade personnel. We are sending 79 boats with engines: even with all the helicopters we could get, we could not get people out without boats. We need helicopters and boats. We will drop boats so that people can get into them, and we will need bigger boats to pull them in. We will do everything in our power to put in whatever equipment we can as quickly as possible. If the MOD is the best source, we will use it; if not, we will not.
    Mr. Streeter: I am sure that the whole House welcomes what the Secretary of State says, but our responsibility is to do all that we can today. If it takes two days to fly helicopters down there from Europe, surely the sooner we get them flying, saving lives and distributing food, the better. It was obvious from the response on Monday that co-operation between her Department and the Ministry of Defence is not all that it might be. Will she make it a key priority to co-operate with the Ministry of Defence and get more helicopters working to save lives today?
    Clare Short: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. There is absolutely no problem about co-operation with the Ministry of Defence. He may remember that, when Hurricane Mitch struck, we happened to have a British ship full of helicopters in the area. We have to be opportunistic in emergencies and make use of what is available as rapidly as possible. Even if people manage to cling on to their trees, they will not have water and food unless we get to them. We are talking about human lives that need to be saved very quickly. I have no preference for any source, and that is my instruction to my officials.
    The problem is not shortage of money, either, but getting resources deployed in theatre quickly. If the Ministry of Defence can help, we will take that help; if not, we will go elsewhere. We should use MOD forces when they can get there quickly, but we should not be biased towards them and make things slower and more expensive. That would be very foolish.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: My understanding is that the Royal Air Force has hired an Antonov, which is on its way carrying helicopters that will be deployed within 48 hours. Is that correct?
    Clare Short: I hope that my hon. Friend is right, but I have not heard that, and I think that I would have if it were the case.

    Development Education
    Mr. David Heath: What steps she is taking to encourage the promotion of education on development issues in schools. [111174]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): In the White Paper we said that all children in the United Kingdom should be educated about development issues so that they can understand the key global issues that will shape their lives, so our Department has participated in
    410
    curriculum reviews throughout the UK and secured enhanced opportunities for development issues to be included in the mainstream curriculum. We are working to ensure that teachers have the back-up to achieve that.
    We have also doubled support for school linking projects, which I know that the hon. Gentleman is particularly interested in. There are now 822 recorded, and we are ready to consider further support for such schemes.
    Mr. Heath: That is extremely welcome. The Minister obviously understands the huge value in helping young people to understand the enormity of events such as those in Mozambique by learning about the everyday life of people in developing countries. Will he celebrate with me the work that is going on in schools throughout the country? May I renew my invitation to him and the Secretary of State to visit Ansford community school in my constituency, which is doing outstanding, and now nationally recognised, work with Zambia?
    Mr. Foulkes: I certainly hope that one of us can take up that offer. We really enjoy visiting schools. I went to Holy Cross school in Croy in Lanarkshire, where the children had been studying Victorian times in history. When they read about child labour, they suddenly realised that the same thing is happening in our world today, and we need to do something about it.
    I then went to Tunbridge Wells. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, we go anywhere: there are no no-go areas for new Labour. There, the kids had accessed the DFID internet site. They knew all about me, including my age, and they had accessed photographs of me. They had also accessed the House of Commons website, and they had a photograph of you, Madam Speaker, which was much better than the ones of me.
    Madam Speaker: Perhaps Mr. Pike can do better than that for me.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not most encouraging that the two things about which young people most often write to Members of Parliament are the environment and international development? Does not that show that there is a great future for our young people and that education in those areas is already working?
    Mr. Foulkes: I agree. When I visit schools I am greatly encouraged by the depth of knowledge and understanding of such issues, but we are not complacent: we inherited a budget of £750,000 for development education, and next year it will be £5 million.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Minister consider how his Department can encourage schemes whereby the increasing number of young people who have a gap year after school can visit third world countries and contribute directly to development there?
    Mr. Foulkes: Yes, I am certainly happy to look at that—we look at all sorts of things. I have met with my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), who is the Scottish Education Minister, and with Martin McGuinness when he was the Minister

    411
    responsible in Northern Ireland, and I intend to meet Welsh Ministers. We shall discuss all those opportunities for school and post-school activities.

    Poverty Reduction
    Mr. David Drew: When she last met her EU counterparts to discuss the issue of poverty reduction. [111175]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last discussed poverty elimination with her EU counterparts at the Development Council in November, at which she introduced a specific agenda item on improving the poverty focus of European Commission aid. I, too, met Ministers at the informal Development Council in Lisbon in January. I assure my hon. Friend that we are working to improve the contribution of EC development programmes to the international poverty eradication strategy.
    Mr. Drew: I thank my hon. Friend for that good news. Does he agree that it is vital that the EU speak with one voice? The Government have a clear strategy on poverty alleviation. Anything we do to pull countries along with us is to be welcomed.
    Mr. Foulkes: I agree. We are spending more than 70 per cent. of our development assistance in the poorest countries of the world. The EC did the same in 1987, but by 1997, the proportion was down to 54 per cent. That trend must be reversed. We are pleased that, at our suggestion, the Commission is to make proposals on improving the poverty focus. We expect the paper to be produced later this month. We believe that it should include a target of at least 70 per cent. of expenditure going to the poorest countries in the world.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the Minister make it clear to his EU counterparts that the eradication of poverty is not furthered by corruption, military adventurism overseas, or the expropriation of private agricultural holdings, as is happening in Zimbabwe? Will he ensure that there is a moral dimension to the EU's aid programme?
    Mr. Foulkes: I agree with all the hon. Gentleman's points. We are especially concerned about Zimbabwe's proposals on land acquisition. We are in favour of land reform in that country and would encourage proper land reform. On his other points, the hon. Gentleman and I spent a couple of hours this morning in European Standing Committee B, discussing them in detail. I am sure that he knows that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Government as a whole and I are all committed to improving the poverty focus of the European Commission's programme.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Is my hon. Friend aware that Poul Nielson, the European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid, visited Mozambique yesterday? Is he also aware that, at lunchtime, Glenys Kinnock criticised the EU's lack of speed in delivering assistance to Mozambique? Given the excellent response of his Department, will he join me in
    412
    appealing to the EU to give as much aid, in every sense, as it can, while remembering the greater need for long-term development?
    Mr. Foulkes: I understand that the EU has already pledged 1 billion—[Interruption]—sorry, I almost increased the figure substantially; the EU has pledged 1 million euro for humanitarian assistance in Mozambique and is considering ways in which that sum can be increased. Contrary to the words of the Opposition, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the British Government are taking a lead in providing humanitarian assistance in Mozambique. I hope that other European countries will follow our example.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Last month, the Commission representative in London confirmed to me that aid programmes in Africa will show more cases of irregularity and fraud, that corruption is endemic, and that, when money is given directly to Governments, it is difficult to ensure that it is well spent. Despite that, last year, the Minister gave almost £1 billion of aid directly to foreign Governments, whereas only half that sum was delivered through non-governmental organisations, such as the British Council, the programmes of which have been slashed by his Department. Will he now admit that his policy has misfired and adopt the policies advocated by the Opposition to increase the use of NGOs and reinstate the British Council, which can deliver aid far more effectively than most Governments?
    Mr. Foulkes: I am not sure how that question relates to the one on the Order Paper, but I can assure the hon. Lady, as I did in Committee this morning, that we are determined to ensure that the EU has procedures to prevent fraud and, if it does occur, to root it out. This morning, I gave the hon. Lady the example of the Côte d'Ivoire, where fraud was discovered and the money paid back. We do ensure that that takes place. Under the Labour Government, the delivery of assistance by the EU has improved year by year, and we aim to ensure that that progress continues.

    Debt Relief
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: If she will make a statement on the action taken by her Department to ensure that debt relief is linked with poverty eradication. [111176]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The Government contributed a paper to last year's review of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, a copy of which is in the Library. We argued that, to qualify for debt relief, countries should develop a national poverty reduction strategy. The strategy should set out the Government's policies and actions to tackle poverty, and demonstrate how all resources will be allocated, including those arising from debt relief. Governments should consult their public and the international financial institutions in formulating the strategy, so that it commands broad-based support. I strongly support this approach, which was agreed at the annual meetings of the World Bank and the International

    413
    Monetary Fund in September, and is now being implemented. In this way, debt relief will help to achieve a stronger commitment to policies to reduce poverty.
    Mr. Cunningham: Given the number of natural disasters, particularly that in Mozambique, what practical steps have been taken to help to restructure and rebuild those economies that have been affected; and can my right hon. Friend give some examples of poverty relief schemes?
    Clare Short: Debt relief on its own cannot help countries to restructure their economies. It can remove the hangover of debt that prevents Governments from using their money well, and we can give such countries further support to help them to manage their economies better. In Mozambique, we have a crisis and we need to save lives, but there will be a massive reconstruction effort. The reduction of poverty requires good macro-economic management to attract domestic and inward investment to help the economy to grow; children need to be educated and basic health care needs should be met. The poverty reduction strategies that are developing alongside debt relief will help to achieve such policies.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Under the HIPC2 initiative, Mozambique was due to qualify for more debt relief this year, but that would only have reduced its debt service bill to $62 million a year, which would still have been more than its total spending on health and education. That fact, combined with the destruction of its infrastructure due to the floods, means that it will be years before Mozambique ever reaches the level that it was at even two weeks ago. Will the right hon. Lady reassure the House that she will press the international community to strengthen long-term aid for Mozambique and press for immediate 100 per cent. debt cancellation?
    Clare Short: As we said on Monday, Mozambique has been a star reformer since the end of the civil war, and that is admirable for one of the poorest countries on earth. The present crisis is a tragedy because it has been driving its economy forward. However, at the moment, it has big reserves because its Government's capacity to spend is so weak. We must get it through this crisis. Yes, it must have its full debt relief and the debt overhang must be removed. As the hon. Lady knows, Britain is committed to 100 per cent. debt relief, for which Mozambique has qualified. It will repay no more money to the UK, and yesterday the Chancellor pressed other Governments to do the same. After the immediate crisis in Mozambique, the big job will be to help with the reconstruction when it will draw down on many of its reserves, but it will need more support.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the rapid response of sending two plane loads of small boats to Mozambique. Does she agree that, while, of course, corruption must be rooted out for the good of those who suffer poverty, it can far too easily be used as an excuse by those mean people who do not want to give money to good causes and simply refuse to cough up?
    Clare Short: I agree that we must find ways of helping. In countries with grave corruption we should not allow
    414
    the poor who are the victims of that to become victims twice over by denying them help from the international community. The poor pay the price for corruption in the loss of economic development and by having to pay bribes for basic services. We must root out corruption to obtain faster development and eradicate poverty, and the international community is now, at last, addressing that.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Last week, when the International Development Committee visited Malawi—one of the poorest countries—the Finance Minister told us that with HIPC, for which the country does not yet qualify, it would receive a reduction in capital repayments and interest on its indebtedness of only $30 million. Therefore, the reduction per year would be from $120 million to $90 million, which is insufficient. Is the right hon. Lady satisfied that HIPC is generous enough and that, when there are savings, those will be concentrated on poverty reduction in the spheres of health and education?
    Clare Short: It is my view that the enhanced HIPC, which will cancel $100 billion of debt—the highly indebted poor countries have $145 billion of debt—is about right. Countries have to be responsible about their borrowing, but HIPC will reduce it to reasonable proportions. Malawi is a desperately poor country, which inherited limited capacity from a dictatorship. The United Kingdom has a large and growing programme. My view is that HIPC2 is the right balance. Beyond that, we should help countries to get their debt down to manageable proportions and to drive forward by borrowing wisely and receiving aid, not focusing on ever-increasing amounts of debt relief. HIPC is about right and we should speed up implementation.

    Kosovo
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: What assessment she has made of the progress made by UK non-governmental organisations funded by her Department in rebuilding the education system in Kosovo. [111177]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Our main support to education in Kosovo has been through the United Nations children fund—UNICEF. We made £2 million available to UNICEF as soon as the refugees had begun to return, most of which was allocated to educational support. That helped UNICEF to get 75 per cent. of school-age children back in school by 1 November 1999—the figure is now 85 per cent.—which is a considerable achievement given the widespread destruction of buildings and the fact that, from 1990 on when the Albanian language was banned in schools, the state school system crumbled. We also provided £600,000 to KFOR to support emergency repairs to school buildings.
    Mr. Coaker: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging response. I also pay tribute to the work that she has done along with UNICEF. Does she agree that, in the sort of environment that exists in Kosovo, education

    415
    is essential? It gives the children stability and teaches them the value of tolerance, which will be essential for the rebuilding of the various communities in the region.
    Clare Short: I agree. Many people who comment on Kosovo have now forgotten the build-up. For 10 years before the conflict, Albanian teachers were expelled from schools, the children could not speak their language in schools and they did not have a normal education system within which Serb and Albanian children met. Now, it is difficult because of the bitterness. We are trying to reconstruct a normal school system within which children will learn to treat each other as equals. That is important.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Is the Secretary of State aware that of the 300,000 school children in education in Kosovo, fewer than 0.3 per cent. are of Serbian extraction, which demonstrates that almost all Serbian families with children to protect have left the province? That shows that the product of our policy there will be an ethnically pure Kosovo of Albanians only.
    Clare Short: I agree that those matters are a worry, but no one should be surprised. Ten years of persecution of Albanian-speaking people before the conflict and all the killing have led to bitterness. It is crucial that we stand up for the principle of equal treatment, as KFOR is doing. We are inching forward, but the situation is bad because the seeds of bitterness and hatred have been sown for 10 years and, sadly, it takes time to put that right. We are doing our very best.
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: In welcoming the excellent work of UNICEF in Kosovo, will my right hon. Friend also warmly welcome the launch today of its Growing Up Alone Campaign, which, in the next 18 months, aims to improve dramatically the lot of children throughout the world who face the problems of poverty, war and AIDS-HIV?
    Clare Short: We welcome the campaign. We work strongly with UNICEF in trying to develop policies that reach all children, not only some children, and that is the way in which UNICEF is moving. That campaign is focusing, for example, on child soldiers and AIDS orphans—children who have no one to protect them. We should be particularly responsible for them.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 1 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    I should like to pass on the condolences of Labour Members to the Leader of the Opposition and other Conservative Members on the tragic deaths of the
    416
    Member for Romsey, Michael Colvin, and his wife. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family at this difficult time.
    Mr. Pike: I endorse the Prime Minister's comments on Mr. and Mrs. Colvin. I am sure that all hon. Members associate themselves with those comments.
    In the week when the Labour party celebrates its centenary, and when we have a Government who are so keen on combating and eliminating poverty in the United Kingdom, is the Prime Minister not ashamed of banks' plans to charge customers for using cash machines? Does not the fact that the Nationwide is prepared to impose a lower charge demonstrate that mutuality is better and that we should have stayed with building societies? What are the Government going to do to address the issue?
    The Prime Minister: First, I share my hon. Friend's concerns. However, it is important that we should try to establish the facts. There are indeed legitimate concerns: in particular, we need to know how such charges might impact on pensioners and lower-income customers, and what assessment has been made of the impact on small rural communities, where there may be only one cashpoint. We shall also be receiving shortly Don Cruickshank's report on banking efficiency and competition, which examines some of those issues.
    I also remind the House that, today, the Competition Act 1998 comes into force. It will give Britain one of the toughest competition regimes in the world, with new powers to crack down on cartels and other anticompetitive practices that harm the consumer.
    Mr. William Hague: I thank the Prime Minister on behalf of the Opposition for his kind remarks on last week's tragedy and the death of Michael and Nichola Colvin. Michael Colvin was a fine Member of Parliament, and Nichola Colvin was a wonderful lady. The whole House is absolutely united on that.
    Last night, the Prime Minister said:
    clinical need is supposed to determine whether people are treated or not. If that is not happening, that is wrong.
    Can the Prime Minister assure the House that doctors never have to distort clinical priorities to meet the Government's waiting list target?
    The Prime Minister: The actual guidance that we issued—it is important that we repeat it—states:
    clinical priority must be the main determinant of when patients are seen as outpatients or admitted as inpatients.
    Mr. Hague: What seems to happen in practice under the Government's waiting list initiative is quite different. The chairman of the British Medical Association said:
    The Government is obsessed with waiting list targets that distort clinical priorities to the detriment of patient care.
    Yesterday, Dr. Wilde, from Bristol, told the Prime Minister that the
    crisis in heart surgery was deepening,
    and that treating urgent cases first would save lives.
    We also read stories such as that of the man who died after waiting 72 weeks for a heart bypass. If clinical need was paramount, how could those things happen? Will the Prime Minister accept that the waiting list initiative,

    417
    as implemented by the Government, is distorting priorities, and that we need a policy on waiting lists in which the patients who most need treatment are treated first?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the principal problem with waiting and heart disease and heart operations is the shortage of heart and cardiac specialists and specialist nurses. That is why we now have 400 extra cardiac specialists in training, which will deliver by 2005—of course it takes time to train them—a 50 per cent. increase. That is a significant increase.
    In relation to the Bristol Royal infirmary, which is where Dr. Wilde practises, additional funding will allow seven high-dependency beds to open in October 2000. That, too, will be of some assistance. The new cardiac centre in Plymouth also will help.
    Mr. Hague: Is it not a fact that priorities are distorted? Is it not time that the Prime Minister gave all the facts? I have here the briefing that the Department of Health sent to No. 10 for Prime Minister's questions a few weeks ago. [Interruption.] Labour Members should listen, because the Prime Minister does not read it out. Under the heading "No. 10 Briefing for PM Questions" its fact number one is:
    At the end of September 1999 there were 264,000 more patients waiting over 13 weeks for an outpatient appointment than at the end of March 1997.
    We have asked the Prime Minister several times for that information, but he never reads it out. We now know that the civil servants give him the facts, but he does not read them out because he dare not do so in the House. Is he not in danger of being the polaroid Prime Minister who turns up for photocalls at hospitals, but does not listen to what is happening and blames doctors and managers and now the media? Is it not time that he took the blame and made sure that clinical priorities are dealt with first? Otherwise he really will be all mouth and no delivery.
    The Prime Minister: First, on cardiac services, the national service framework is being published on Monday. I have pointed out the number of extra cardiac surgeons in training. Nobody disputes that there are problems that need to be sorted out, but we are taking action to sort them out: the £21 billion extra investment, all the accident and emergency departments being renovated, 37 new hospitals—the largest capital programme ever—4,000 more nurses, 2,000 more doctors, a 60 per cent. increase in cancer specialists, NHS Direct, the new primary care groups, which handle three times the budget of the old two-tier fundholders, and half a million more operations. That is not to say that there are not still many other problems to be sorted out, but we are trying to sort them out. The difference is that we see those problems as a reason for action. The right hon. Gentleman sees them as an excuse for undermining the health service in principle.
    Ms Rosie Winterton: I welcome the steps taken this week to boost volunteering, but will my right hon. Friend accept that, particularly in less prosperous areas such as South Yorkshire, the networks set up to support volunteering can be successful
    418
    only if they are properly funded? Will he also assure me that employers will be encouraged to allow staff to do voluntary work without it affecting their pay or prospects?
    The Prime Minister: We are already funding the millennium volunteers scheme. I want to see how we can do more to give opportunities to people who want to volunteer. I also entirely accept my hon. Friend's comment that employers can do more. A number of major companies intend to embrace the scheme to allow their staff to take a paid day off once a year to work in the voluntary sector. I intend to do that myself, both as an individual and as an employer, with people in Downing street and the Cabinet Office able to take a minimum of one day's paid leave a year to do voluntary work. I hope that many will take up that opportunity throughout the country.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I associate my colleagues and myself with the proper expressions of condolences to the Colvin family for the truly terrible experience that they have endured. I also take this opportunity to welcome back warmly my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones). We are all very pleased to see him restored to his parliamentary duties. He has told me of the case of his constituent, Mr. Bob Howes, who has suffered two heart attacks, yet he is still waiting an inordinate length of time for the cardiac treatment that he needs. Dr. Wilde's remarks have been well reported. Is it not a deplorable state of affairs, three years into a Labour Government, with all the expectations that were generated at the general election, that he is citing the fact that 10 of his patients have died who could have been saved had the medical procedures been available?
    The Prime Minister: I welcome the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) back to the House of Commons, as we all do. I am delighted to see him back here.
    In relation to waiting for heart surgery, there is no doubt that this is a serious problem, although it is always as well, in the interests of balance, to point out that some 46,000 operations are carried out. It is precisely for that reason that we need to deal with the root of the problem. The root of the problem is the absence of sufficient specialist nurses and specialist surgeons. That can only be cured, I am afraid, over time. That is precisely what we are doing.
    Mr. Kennedy: Does it remain the Prime Minister's intention over five years to get health spending in this country up to European levels? If so, does he believe that the tax cut in April will assist that process? Does he not acknowledge that the pledge that he and his party were elected on was to save the NHS before cutting tax? Is it not the case that we are getting tax bribes from the Government instead of saving lives from the Government?
    The Prime Minister: The £21 billion is extra money for the national health service. It is also infinitely more than the Liberal Democrats have ever promised. Indeed, we have already put more money into the health service than the Liberal Democrats promised. The plain fact of the matter is that yes, we can get additional money into the health service if we manage the economy properly.

    419
    It is important that we do that, which is why we have pursued policies that have given us 800,000 extra jobs in the economy, that have given us the best record on inflation of any European country and that have managed to cure the appalling debt that we inherited from the Conservatives. If we followed the recipe set out by the Liberal Democrats, and spent and spent and spent without any idea of where the money came from, we would not be able to maintain the funding in the consistent way that the country needs.
    Ms Oona King: Is the Prime Minister aware that I have never started a question by congratulating him? Is he further aware that I have to break the habit of a parliamentary lifetime due to the astonishing work being done by himself, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development in combating world poverty? Given that Britain is spearheading the relief effort in Mozambique, and given the scale of that catastrophe, which I saw for myself a few days ago, will the Prime Minister or Members of his Government undertake to contact Heads of State in the European Union and, indeed, President Clinton, so that our allies take the lead that we have taken in saving lives around the world?
    The Prime Minister: We are certainly in touch with our allies. I am sure that the whole House will be appalled by the terrible scenes in Mozambique. We have now found and chartered five more helicopters locally, making, I think, a total of nine. We are sending two large transport aircraft with 69 inflatable boats and motors, 39 self-inflating rafts and Land-Rovers, and there is a team of 30 expert volunteers going with this equipment. We are also sending more shelter material and sheeting. The United Kingdom has, in fact, already committed £4.2 million to help people in Mozambique. That is more than any other country, but it is what is necessary, and we hope that other countries will join in with the effort.
    Mr. John Butterfill: Could the Prime Minister confirm the rumour that is circulating in the House that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is resigning as Labour's candidate for London mayor?
    The Prime Minister: No, I cannot.
    Mr. David Stewart: The Prime Minister will be aware that more than 1.5 million people in this country suffer from diabetes. It is the main cause of blindness in the under-65s, and half of lower limb amputations are because of diabetes. Does the Prime Minister share my view that the decision today to make pen needles free on prescription will benefit the 400,000 diabetics who inject insulin and will continue our battle against a condition that kills, maims and blinds?
    The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done as secretary of the all-party group on diabetes. This is an issue, as he says, that affects more than 1 million people. We take the burden of diabetes very seriously. I am therefore delighted that from today,
    420
    people who treat their diabetes with insulin will be able to get pen needles and reusable pens on prescription from their GP.
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: What would the Prime Minister say to my constituent, Mr. Thomas of Loughton, who faced the choice of either a long and dangerous—[Interruption.] I do not know what was funny about my constituent. It is a tragic case. What would the Prime Minister say to Mr. Thomas, who faced the choice of either a long and dangerous wait for a heart bypass operation or spending his life savings so that he could have the operation more quickly? At the same time, the health authority was carrying out many minor operations. Today, the Prime Minister has been glib with his statistics. Does not he realise that, in the real world, people like Mr. Thomas know that clinical priorities are being distorted just to make the Prime Minister's waiting list statistics look better?
    The Prime Minister: Obviously, I do not know the individual case of the hon. Lady's constituent. As I have said, the only way to deal with these matters is to deal with the root of the problem—insufficient specialists and insufficient specialist nurses to carry out those operations. I hope that she will agree that what is necessary in the health service is additional investment. I hope, therefore, that she will also agree that any political party that had the policy of cutting taxes before anything else would have the wrong priority for the country. The one group of people who cannot say that they would do more for people in the health service are the Conservative party.
    Mr. Eric Martlew: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the massive hospital building programme that has gone on since he came to office. In fact, he has given the go-ahead for 37 new hospitals at a cost of £3 billion. Is he aware that the first hospital to be completed will be the new Cumberland infirmary in my constituency? We waited 20 years for that hospital under the previous, Conservative Government. Will he join me in congratulating all the staff involved in the construction and design of the building? I understand that it will be delivered 13 weeks early and on budget; that is probably a first for the NHS. Does he agree that that is another example of the Government delivering for the NHS?
    The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend campaigned for many years for that hospital. It is worth pointing out that, although about £30 million was spent on consultancy fees under the previous Government, not a single hospital was built under the private finance initiative. This is the first acute private finance hospital to be completed; it is on time and on budget. It will provide a state-of-the-art hospital with more than 400 beds for the people of Carlisle and the surrounding area. However, we know that in many other parts of the country the same thing is wanted. We shall get there and deliver them their hospitals too.
    Mr. William Hague: Which of the Labour candidates for mayor of London supports the Government's policy on the tube?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should allow me to run the Labour party and he can run the Conservative party.
    Mr. Hague: This is a question about the Government's policy. Which of the Labour candidates for mayor of London supports the Government's policy on the tube?
    The Prime Minister: The policy on the tube has been well set out and is, in fact, supported; it is the policy that will be carried through. I repeat that I will take care of running the Labour party and the right hon. Gentleman can run the Conservative party.
    Mr. Hague: So the answer is that there is no Labour candidate who supports the Government's policy on the tube. Was not it all summed up by the Labour spokesman? He said:
    Basically, Frank can say what he likes about the tube, but the policy is the policy.
    Then he added:
    Of course, Frank's going to be his own man.
    Did not the Deputy Prime Minister say that unless a candidate agrees to support the party manifesto, he cannot stand as a Labour candidate? Now that the official Labour candidate is not going to support the Prime Minister's policy, is he going to change the policy or is he going to impose a new candidate?
    The Prime Minister: What the right hon. Gentleman says about the policy is nonsense. The real difference is between the Labour party, which supports a public-private partnership, and the Conservative party, which will privatise the whole tube system. People know, if they vote for the Conservative candidate, that the same privatisation that happened with the railways will happen with the tube. That is not the case with us.
    I repeat what I said to the right hon. Gentleman. I suggest that he look after the problems of running the Conservative party. I notice that, as there has been a lot of talk about independent candidates, he has decided to appoint an independent as his shadow Chancellor.
    Miss Anne Begg: I have just returned from being a patient who received excellent care and attention in two NHS hospitals, so I have to pay tribute to the hard-working staff—both medical and non-medical—of ward 9B of Aberdeen royal infirmary and of ward 10 of Woodend hospital. Will my right hon. Friend promise me that he will do everything in his power to ensure that all NHS patients get the excellent care that I received? Will he also continue the Government's policy of making sure that there are above inflation increases in the wages of all NHS staff?
    The Prime Minister: We will certainly do that. First, in relation to NHS staff, we have now got the large starting pay increase for new nurses and that has resulted in a 25 per cent. increase in the numbers taking nursing degrees. Of course, the number of nurses in training was cut before we came to office under the previous Government. Secondly, the almost 8 per cent. increase for grade E nurses will mean that more than 60,000 of them
    422
    will get a decent pay increase. I can tell my hon. Friend that 4,500 extra nurses have come back to the health service since we began our recruitment campaign.
    My hon. Friend is right. There are many problems in the health service that we need to deal with. However, as I said yesterday and repeat today, we need a sense of balance. The vast majority of people get treated very well in the health service; we have fine staff in the health service who treat them well. For example, 99 per cent. of operations are carried out on time. That is no excuse for the 1 per cent. that are not, but it is simply a plea to get balance in the debate. If we carry on with both the reform and the money, we will improve the health service and make it once again what it should be, but failed to be under the previous Government: the pride of Britain and the envy of the world.
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: Will the Prime Minister say why council tax payers should have to pay more to house the nation's asylum seekers?
    The Prime Minister: In fact, we provide help to local authorities that face the pressures of asylum seekers and we are trying to make sure that, in circumstances where they face additional costs, we do what we can.
    Of course, the problem is the asylum system. That system requires fundamental reform. That is why we are introducing a new system from April this year in which cash payments are limited simply to £10 a week and people do not get the old benefits payments that they used to get under the system that the hon. Gentleman's Government introduced. We are now imposing a penalty of £2,000 on hauliers carrying illegal entrants. Those measures will help us separate bogus asylum seekers from genuine asylum seekers. The measures have one other thing in common: both were opposed by the Conservative party.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Is my right hon. Friend aware of Beach Radio, a local radio station that serves the far eastern part of East Anglia, including my constituency? If he had been able to listen to Beach Radio yesterday, he would have heard our local hospital, the James Paget hospital, announce that it had just taken on 20 new nurses. In the millennium period the hospital said that it was managing extremely well, it is on course to meet its waiting list reduction targets at the end of this month and it is having a £700,000 refit of its accident and emergency service. Is that not proof on the ground that the NHS is being rebuilt, unlike under the Conservative party, which would just privatise it?
    The Prime Minister: Of course that is precisely what the Conservatives intend to do. They want to force all people who have conditions that are not serious or life threatening to go for treatment outside the national health service. That is absolutely wrong and we will not go down that path at all.
    On new nurses, it is important that we recruit extra nurses and that we retain them. It is important that we invest in accident and emergency departments, but it is important also that we reform the system. By the end of this year, at least 2 million people will be able to get a booked appointment without any system of waiting at all. In time,

    423
    we will have to extend that throughout the health service. If we recruit the right staff, make use of the best technology and have proper co-operative partnerships between the various players in the NHS, we can radically improve the whole concept of waiting lists and waiting times.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: In the spirit of good will, will the right hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) on being elected to the House for the first time 50 years ago and serving his constituency since then? I know that my right hon. Friend will be as concerned as I am that in the past two and a half years the number of operational officers in the Metropolitan police has been reduced by 793. What hope is there that in the next two and a half years the trend will be reversed, let alone the number increased? Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, I remind him that under the previous Government, Metropolitan police numbers went up from just under 22,000 to more than 28,000.
    The Prime Minister: I understand that from March 1992 the figure fell by 2,000. As a result of the additional money that is now being put into the crime fighting fund, we can start to recruit extra officers. I am delighted to join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). He has been not only an outstanding politician and leader in this country, but an outstanding parliamentarian. The whole House is delighted to welcome him here today and to pay tribute to him.
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: Is the Prime Minister aware that the viewing figures for the ITN news at 11 pm are much lower than they were when the news was at 10 pm? Will he join me in calling on ITN to review its decision and to put the news back to 10 pm, to restore the national institution that we all loved?
    The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's views on that issue, and I know that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee will take evidence on it later this week. Although this is obviously a matter for the Independent Television Commission, I liked "News at Ten" and I had concerns about the likely consequences of moving it, as did many Members, and I am afraid that those concerns have been largely borne out by what has happened since. "News at Ten" had developed an important place in our national life, and I fear that the decision to move it eroded that position, so I very much hope that ITN will think again.
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: I thank the Prime Minister for his kind words about Stockport council's crime and disorder fight. Will he instruct the Home Secretary to make available the £335,000 required to implement the strategy to which he gave great praise?
    The Prime Minister: I am taking urgent instructions from the Home Secretary, but I think that a bid has gone in to the relevant fund that finances those projects. Far be it from me to admit that I did not know the answer, but I shall certainly look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman about it.
    Mr. Bob Russell: With a cheque.
    The Prime Minister: I shall not say that the cheque is in the post. I shall say simply that the decision is with the Home Secretary.
    Dr. Desmond Turner: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is now a year since the royal commission on long-term care policy, which was chaired by Sir Stewart Sutherland, reported its conclusions and recommendations? Since the problems addressed by that report are still very much with us and are a matter of urgency, will my right hon. Friend give an indication of the Government's response to the report's recommendations?
    The Prime Minister: The Government's deliberations on the report have taken some time, because of its importance. Also, there are obvious cost implications that must be examined and worked through. My hon. Friend will be able to see the results fairly shortly. We are well aware that it is a major issue that must be considered in the context of the health service as a whole.
    One of the other problems of management in the health service is to ensure that we have the proper system of long-term care in place so that the acute beds that are needed for acute care in the health service are occupied by people who must have them. We are trying to make sure that any proposals that we produce on long-term care tie in with what we are doing with community hospitals and social services, to make sure that we have adequate levels of care for everyone. That is why I say, once again, yes, there is a problem of finance, but we also need to change the system under which that money is used.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: When the Prime Minister last answered questions, he informed the House that there had been a fall in the number of midwives under the previous Government. The Health Minister subsequently confirmed that actually the figures increased by 7,760. In the past, there would have been four occasions when Back Benchers could have challenged the Prime Minister on that inaccuracy. Will he clarify the situation now?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that during the previous Parliament, the number of midwives did fall. If that is wrong, I am happy to correct it. There has undoubtedly been a 79 per cent. increase in the numbers registering for midwifery as a result of the changes introduced by the Government. That is in addition to the additional numbers of nurses now registering for nursing degrees and the extra nurses in the health service. There can be no dispute about the overall direction. When we came to office, we inherited a situation where the number of nurses in training was cut, and we are now putting extra resources into the health service.

  BILL PRESENTED
    SCHOOL CROSSINGS (AMENDMENT)
    Mr. Michael J. Foster presented a Bill to amend the law relating to school crossings: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 April, and to be printed [Bill 75].

Telecommunications Masts (Development)
3.32 pm
Mr. John Bercow: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the development of telecommunications masts in the United Kingdom. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Mr. Bercow, I know that you have a very good voice that carries, but please wait a moment. Will hon. Members leaving please do so quietly and quickly? We have an hon. Member on his feet.
Mr. Bercow: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mobile phones are here to stay. There are now 24 million subscribers in the UK, the business turns over £6 billion a year, and more than 20,000 base stations exist across the country, including no fewer than 40 in my Buckingham constituency. Furthermore, the industry confers real benefits in terms of economic efficiency and personal convenience.
Nothing in the Bill that I advance today seeks to hamper the legitimate growth of that industry, or would, in my assessment, be likely to do so. However, the House will recognise that there is widespread concern on both health and environmental grounds about mobile telephones in general, and the frenetic proliferation of masts in particular.
That concern has been reflected in the House, since the general election, in 96 written parliamentary questions, five oral questions, four early-day motions—notably that of the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), which has so far attracted 168 signatures—and three Adjournment debates, the most recent of which was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on 18 January this year in Westminster Hall.
I referred to anxieties about the threat to human health. The Government contend that there is no conclusive proof of a threat to health. Nevertheless, studies undertaken in Australia, Poland, Sweden and the United States have raised the spectre of dizzy spells, fatigue, headaches, memory loss, skin irritation, damage to the immune system, brain damage and cancer.
Anxiety about those conditions is such that, in the United States, no fewer than 39 states have so far decided to prevent any further erection of mobile telecommunications masts pending the generation of greater confidence in the technology, while in Australia a ban has been imposed on the erection of such masts fewer than 500 m from homes, hospitals and schools.
The House will also be conscious of the widespread anxiety about the threat to, above all, children under the age of 12, whose brains are not fully developed, whose skulls are less resistant to radiation, and who are therefore more susceptible to the damage to health that might be entailed.
I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will appreciate my legitimate anxiety on behalf of parents—not least Mrs. Lyn Pasqua—of children at the Acorn pre-school nursery in Winslow. It should be noted that there has been a telecommunications base station in an adjoining building for two years.
426
A distinguished academic, Dr. Gerard Hyland of the physics department of the university of Warwick, maintains that there is a possible threat to human health from the non-thermal impact of radiation.
In the light of those concerns, I make just two requests of the House at this stage. The first is that the National Radiological Protection Board should be instructed to study the possible non-thermal impact on health; the second is that the House should undertake to debate fully, at the appropriate time, the reports that will in due course be forthcoming from the United Kingdom childhood cancer study, from the NRPB's independent expert group on mobile phone technology, from the European Commission's expert group on mobile phones, and from the World Health Organisation' s international project on electromagnetic field radiation. These are all important concerns, and we need to consider and respond responsibly to them.
The nub of the problem, however, derives from the planning policies that apply in this country. I make the point on no party-political basis whatever—the matter is far too serious, and we know that hon. Members in all parts of the House are concerned about it—but the fact is that planning policy guidance note 8 contains a presumption in favour of development. Under that note, it is expected that local authorities, in responding to applications from licensed operators, will do so positively and without questioning the need for the erection of new masts.
That difficulty for the environment is compounded by the fact that, under paragraph 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, a general permission is conferred on licensed operators to erect new masts, subject to the caveat that they should be less than 15 m high and should not be situated in areas of outstanding natural beauty, conservation areas, national parks or sites of special scientific interest.
Apart from that, the position for the local community and its elected representatives is very difficult. The councils have only a short period in which to object, meagre grounds on which to do so, and, judging by the record, limited success in the process. The effect of the arrangements, whatever their intention, has been to give a green light to companies such as Orange plc to ride roughshod over the wishes of local residents in the village of Long Crendon in my Buckingham constituency, where the company proposes to erect a new mast a mere 130 m from the boundary of the local school—with scant, if any, serious consultation with the local community that will thereby be affected.
Despite the company's advertising slogan, "Find out what people want: give it to them", and its explicit commitment to open dialogue, I am sorry to say that indifference, disdain and contempt have been the hallmarks of the company's treatment of my constituents. They are fighting back. Mrs. Penny Garrett, Mrs. Jean Gower and Councillor Mrs. Cecile Irving-Swift believe that such behaviour is unacceptable. It will not do, and it needs to change. The only light on the horizon is that a public meeting will take place, courtesy of an agreement with Mr. Richard Rumbelow, the organisation's sensible public affairs manager.
The rules that were appropriate for generating a national network need radical adjustment because such a network now exists. Respect must be shown for the

427
environment, human safety and the tranquillity of communities. That is why we should amend planning policy guidance note 8 to ensure that proper account is taken of community concerns. Full planning permission for masts on greenbelt land, listed buildings, wildlife sites, and sites near areas already protected by law is urgently needed.
Full planning permission is also needed for sites near homes, schools and hospitals. It should be obligatory for mobile phone operators to provide one or two-year plans to local councils detailing their mast intentions; it would thus be possible for councils to know what was sought and to assess its validity.
More encouragement of mast sharing is required through linking it more integrally with the planning process. We should examine cross-network roaming and the opportunities for greater convenience and ease of use for consumers that that would entail. We need an acceptable method of ensuring that masts are sympathetically blended into the environment in which they are situated.
The proposals that I have outlined are practical, constructive and forward looking. They will enjoy widespread support in the country. Confident in that knowledge, I appeal to the House for its backing for the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Bercow, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Crispin Blunt, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Mark Fisher, Mr. James Gray, Mr. Gerald Howarth, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. Laurence Robertson, Mrs. Marion Roe, Dr. Howard Stoate, Mr. Phil Willis.

Telecommunications Masts (Development)
  TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTS (DEVELOPMENT)
  Mr. John Bercow accordingly presented a Bill to regulate the development of telecommunications masts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 April, and to be printed [Bill 76].

Standards and Privileges
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House

(i) approves the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (HC 260); and

(ii) accordingly suspends Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Member for Billericay, from the service of the House for one month.—[Mr. Clelland.]

3.43 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to say a few words about the report of the Standards and Privileges Committee. I want to begin by saying how sorry I am that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) suffered a serious health problem when he collapsed recently. I am happy to say that he is mending. He has been extremely helpful and courteous to me as the events that we are considering have developed.
I want, for my constituents and my friends on both sides of the House, to try to put matters in context because the report is long, complex and often contradictory.
The complaints deal with events from 10 to 15 years ago, before I even entered Parliament. We all lead busy lives in our job, and I had long pushed many of the events that we are considering to the back of my memory. In my initial discussions with the commissioner, I tried to answer her questions about events of long ago from memory. I do not consider that the answers that I gave her were dishonest, but I admit that some were very muddled. My explanation for that is that memory is sometimes mixed and failing after so long a period.
I accept, of course, that, as a Member of the House, I must deal with allegations made by newspapers or members of the public, but I was quite clear in my own mind that these allegations related to my husband's interests and that I had no beneficial interest in them. That is why I had not initially declared them in the Register of Members' Interests. They were originally raised in 1994 and dealt with by the former Committee, which dismissed them. They were then resurrected, in addition to other matters, by The Independent newspaper.
I strongly resent the amount of intrusion on my husband's life. He is not one of us and is—or at least was, once upon a time—a very private person. He is not in the public eye in the way we are here. I cannot find a single example of a Member who recorded a spouse's job, assets or financial affairs in the register. That may change because, in the post-Nolan period, we live in a completely different ambience in relation to the register. Nowadays, one is in danger of being in difficulty if one does not register having a doughnut at some entertainment or other.
The register says that
the scope of the Register seeks to balance on the one hand what should be publicly known about Members and on the other, the proper degree of privacy to which they and their families are entitled. They are not required to disclose the interests of spouses or children.
Much of the inquiry, and certainly its length, represents, to some extent, an attempt to link me to my husband's property and therefore to justify a complaint that I failed to declare an interest when I introduced a ten-minute Bill in 1990—10 years ago. If I had thought that I had an interest to declare, why would I not have entered that

429
interest? If I had something to hide, why would I have presented the Bill in the first place? Clearly, in my own mind I did not have an interest to declare and everyone in the House knows that ten-minute Bills are mainly a way of airing a point of view. In this case, I was airing a point of view that I had formed as a result of being a member of the housing committee of a local council on which I saw the problems of housing through the eyes of those young people who were trying to find accommodation, particularly in the private sector. That was my reason for introducing the Bill.
The report says that I failed to co-operate with the commissioner. That is untrue. I dealt, in great detail, with almost 30 letters from the commissioner—many of them relating to long-forgotten events—until I was forced to take legal advice. At that stage, my solicitors called a halt because they considered by then that the inquiries had little or nothing to do with the original complaints. Far from my failing to co-operate, the commissioner wrote to me on 22 July 1999 to say that
I do appreciate the effort and time you are putting into answering my inquiries and I very much share your hope that I will be able to conclude them in the near future.
I have never sought to mislead the commissioner. I have admitted that my earlier answers to her may not have reflected a clear picture of the situation as to those properties, which are the focal point of the inquiry, but once I had obtained the advice and help of a solicitor I was able to discover the original documents, which backed my claim that I was not required to enter those assets in the register. I hope that the House will eventually adopt the recommendation of the Neill committee that Members who find themselves in a similar position should be given legal aid or advice to deal with matters in an orderly fashion. I repeat: we live in a completely different world from 10 years ago, before the Nolan report. In today's circumstances, it is imperative that people who are going to be involved in such a situation speak to a lawyer before they speak to anyone else.
These Benches are littered with barristers and solicitors. Most of them, I am sure, would not approve of the system that we have devised for ourselves. There is no independent judge, no independent jury, no defence counsel and no appeals system. All those are recommended in the Neill committee report for change. I hope that, when the Government introduce the Neill recommendations, colleagues will support them.
In the House, we are here not just to make laws, but to protect the rights of citizens to a fair trial before an independent judicial system. Although I am not criticising the Committee's decision, I believe that, in the long term, it is imperative that we adopt that procedure for our system in the House when we deal with complaints.
I hope, from my experience and from bringing it to the attention of the House, that we will draw some lessons from it. I can see in retrospect that I have handled matters less than satisfactorily. Of course I could have done better, but I draw the line at being called a liar, which the report states. I find that offensive, quite unnecessary and unreasonable.
I quote from an interview in The Daily Telegraph that was given by the commissioner, Ms Filkin, on her appointment to her present role. She said:
I am aware that all of us can make mistakes and look foolish. One can always reflect on how things could have been done better.
I rest my case.
3.52 pm
Mr. Alan Williams: The House will well understand the reason why the Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), cannot be here today. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) for her good wishes. I know that the good wishes of the whole House are with him for a speedy recovery. No one wishes more than I that he were here today, because he understands better than anyone—he has had to do it more often, sadly, from his point of view—how unpleasant it is to move to suspend a longstanding parliamentary colleague. It is not a pleasant experience. I suspect that I regret nearly as much as the hon. Lady the fact that we are in this situation.
I apologise to the House that I am going keep, as the hon. Lady did, rather closely to my remit and to my brief because of the complexity and the personal sensitivities of some of the issues involved.
I am here to ask the House to approve the fifth report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges on complaints against the hon. Lady, and its recommendation to suspend her for one month. That is the longest period of suspension that the Committee has ever recommended in its five years of existence. The sadness is that, as the report says, many of the complaints against the hon. Lady
could have been dealt with swiftly, and without the need for extensive inquiry, if she had co-operated properly.
I should remind the House of the findings of the commissioner and of the Committee and explain why the Committee decided unanimously—I must emphasise that—that such a serious penalty was justified.
The Committee upheld three complaints about registration and declaration of interests. The first is that the hon. Lady failed to register her interest in various properties in south London, which she owned jointly—it is not a point that she brought out in her comments—with her husband and which were let to tenants for rent between 1987 and 1994. Secondly, she failed to declare that interest when she introduced two ten-minute Bills about rented property. Thirdly, she failed to register her interest in an offshore trust. Several other complaints were made about properties in Portugal and Germany, but the Committee has dismissed those complaints.
The hon. Lady's failure to register would inevitably be a source of criticism in its own right. However, the Committee felt that the other complaints against her were far more serious. We upheld four further complaints. The first was that she provided seriously misleading and inaccurate information to the Registrar of Members' Interests, the Parliamentary Commissioner, the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee and the Committee itself. Secondly, she made false allegations against a member of the public. Thirdly, she improperly contacted a witness during the investigation. Finally, she failed to uphold the code of conduct for Members by not observing the principles—
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Williams: No, I am sorry, but I will not.
Mr. Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Williams: I have said no. This matter is too serious for the playing of games.
Mr. Howarth: In that case, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Williams: Let the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) carry on his Hamilton vendetta somewhere else.
Mr. Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman has outrageously accused me of waging some kind of vendetta when I had sought only to obtain information. Can the right hon. Gentleman's words be accounted parliamentary?
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that tempers must cool. I quite understand why the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) wishes to put the Committee's case before the House. If the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) seeks to catch my eye during the course of the debate, I will try to call him.
Mr. Williams: The hon. Member for Aldershot may want information, and I intend to give information. That is why I intend to stick closely to my brief.
The hon. Member for Billericay failed to uphold the code of conduct for Members by not observing its principles of honesty and accountability—principles at the centre of our debate. The Committee considered that her behaviour was a breach of the code of conduct and a contempt of the House. It is for that reason that the Committee recommended such a severe penalty.
Let me turn to the south London properties to which the hon. Lady referred. She implied that those properties belonged entirely to her husband. As long ago as 1995, allegations were made that the hon. Lady had owned properties in south London that were let to tenants for rent when she had sought, in 1990, to introduce a Bill to repeal the Rent Acts. There were further allegations that the properties had been sold to offshore companies with which she was connected.
The hon. Lady denied those allegations in the most unequivocal terms. In a letter to the Registrar of Member's Interests on 23 May 1995, she wrote:
It is not true either of the two properties were let to tenants in 1990/91 …
It is not true that I have any connection with an offshore company as alleged.
Four years later, in April 1999, the hon. Lady told the commissioner that there were no paying tenants in either house while she was the owner. Subsequent events have shown all those statements to be untrue.
Despite the allegations made against her in 1995, which led to lawyers being instructed, and despite the matters being raised again by the commissioner and the Committee in April 1999, it was not until June 1999 that the hon. Lady told the commissioner that each of the south London properties had, contrary to her previous assertions, been let to tenants until sold.
There were originally thought to be only two properties. It was not until the commissioner discovered that a third had been owned by the hon. Lady and her husband that
432
she revealed her connection with it. Only when she discovered that the commissioner was preparing to contact previous tenants of the south London property did she admit the existence of those tenants.
One of the papers in the case is a sworn statement from a man who said that he had rented a bedsit in one of the houses. The hon. Lady told the commissioner that neither she nor her husband owned property in which the man was ever a tenant, and that his sworn statement was false. She went further, and told the Committee that the statement had been
falsified for a cash payment.
That is a serious allegation; it is even more serious when a Member of Parliament makes it under the protection of parliamentary privilege, as the hon. Lady did. Later she had to admit that there was nothing in the statement that she knew to be false. She could produce no evidence of any cash payment. We concluded—the House must decide whether we were right—that her unfounded allegations were intended to mislead.
When the south London properties were sold, they were bought by offshore companies, and two flats in Portugal, used by the hon. Lady and her husband as holiday accommodation, were also owned by offshore companies; but all those companies were owned by the Queenstown Trust, itself an offshore discretionary trust, which was established in 1986 on the instructions of the hon. Lady and her husband. There was a network of offshore companies—although she denied any contact or connection with such companies—involved with the properties.
The hon. Lady was deemed to be the settlor of the trust. I had never come across that term before, but we have been assured that the settlor is the person who sets up the trust and provides it with assets. She asked the trustees to regard her husband as the prime beneficiary of the trust but that, should he die before her, she herself was to be regarded as the prime beneficiary. Again, that hardly fits the picture of someone with no connection with offshore companies.
Sadly, the Committee did not get any of that information from the hon. Lady herself. Eventually, we got it last November from the management of the offshore company, who insisted that we apply for it in writing. In April last year, she told the commissioner that she had never had any connection with the offshore companies that bought her properties, and as late as last July she wrote to the commissioner:
I confirm that my husband and I have no connection with off-shore companies.
I will not comment on that: it speaks for itself. The statement was simply untrue in relation to her husband and disingenuous at best in relation to herself.
The Committee expressed the opinion in our report that the hon. Lady's denials of any connection with offshore companies were intended to deceive. Again, the House must make its mind up whether we were right. She claimed in her evidence in January this year that she had no registrable or legal connection with offshore companies. That was not what she was asked about. She was asked about a completely different point. The commissioner and the Committee had asked whether, as alleged, she had any connection with offshore companies.
We were hoping for—it could have foreshortened the whole situation—a straightforward and honest answer. If the hon. Lady had been straightforward and open with the

433
commissioner and the Committee, she would have explained at the outset the nature of her connection with the Queenstown Trust and its connection with the other offshore companies, and not sought to conceal those connections as she did. I should like to draw the attention of the House to paragraph 40 of the report. Its effect on all Members of Parliament is intended to be cautionary. It states:
Members should not seek to mislead by keeping information from the Commissioner on the ground that they do not themselves consider the interest to which it relates to be registrable. Many of the complaints against Mrs. Gorman could have been dealt with swiftly, and without the need for extensive inquiry, if she had co-operated properly. Mrs. Gorman should have been open and helpful in her dealings with the Commissioner at the time when the complaints against her were first made, especially where a number of these complaints rested on understandable assumptions about Mrs. Gorman's personal circumstances.
It is a sad feature of the inquiry that, with the possible exception of today, the hon. Lady has throughout been quick to assign blame to almost anyone but herself for the situation that has arisen. According to press reports, our Parliamentary Commissioner has been accused of bias. The Committee has been accused of
behaving like the Spanish Inquisition,
and, even more devastating, of being
a tool of the Labour Party spin-doctor industry.
I look at the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) and I wonder whether the hon. Lady sees the same Committee that I see.
I am sorry to go on at length, but I was asked for information and I believe that the hon. Lady deserves to have the case spelled out in full. I hope that the House will allow me to continue and to consider the claims that the hon. Lady is reported to have made. She has claimed that the investigation went unnecessarily into her personal life. We did not want to investigate matters relating to her personal life. Members of the Committee recognise, as would any Member of Parliament, that Members have the same right as anyone else to privacy in their personal life and that that privacy should be protected wherever possible. We, as a Committee, would never want to intrude unnecessarily on any hon. Member's personal affairs.
Our problem however was that the hon. Lady's evidence to the Committee was founded on the proposition that, between 1986 and 1994, she and her husband were separated and she had no knowledge of and no involvement in his business activities. Her entire argument for non-registration rests on the personal and previously unpublicised agreement between herself and her husband. Her claim is that, according to a draft agreement dated 1986, she had no beneficial interest in the south London properties because, she claimed, although she remained the legal joint owner of the properties—the crucial admission—her husband was granted complete control over their use and disposal.
The commissioner and the Committee felt that that separation agreement made no difference. The hon. Lady admits that she continued to be the joint owner of the properties and the land registry entry still listed her as such. Furthermore, the Committee seriously doubted that the agreement had ever been put into practice. No formal deed of separation was ever executed; there was only a
434
draft. During the alleged separation, the flat in Portugal was acquired as a second home for the hon. Lady and her husband. The hon. Lady set up two companies with her husband as joint shareholder; he had only one share, but that is a normal arrangement. Throughout that time, the hon. Lady's husband was on the electoral register and on the community charge register for her Westminster home. The house in the hon. Lady's constituency, which she purchased in 1993, was registered in the joint names of the hon. Lady and her husband.
Perhaps one of the most convincing points, and the final one, was that the tax liability on the sale of one of the south London properties would, if what she has claimed was correct, have been met by her husband, but, in fact, the tax liability was met by one of the hon. Lady's companies.
Therefore, for the Committee—the hon. Lady may say that we have it wrong—the evidence was overwhelming. It took the view that, if the hon. Lady owned the properties, they should have been registered. After all, the main purpose of the Register of Members' Interests is
to provide information of any pecuniary interest or other material benefit which a Member receives which might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions, speeches or votes in Parliament, or actions taken in his or her capacity as a Member of Parliament.
Given that the hon. Lady's arguments for non-registration rested on the document and the alleged separation of assets, the Committee could not in all conscience—I invite hon. Members who have not had a chance to read the evidence to do so—have omitted the evidence, however unhappy it was about disclosing elements of the hon. Lady's personal life. It was a defence that she used; it was a defence that either had to be accepted, or certainly had to be explored, and possibly had to be rebutted. In our case, we did not accept it.
As the Committee stated in its report,
The evidence about their separation is crucial to Mrs. Gorman's explanation for her actions, in particular her failure to register certain interests. Its omission would be misleading and would undermine the basis of this Report.
That evidence—I re-emphasise this—need never have been published if the hon. Lady had sought advice in the first place, and if she had registered the property as early as she could after she discovered that she had an interest.
The hon. Lady has claimed—she has repeated it today—that fresh allegations were raised during the course of the investigation which were not in the commissioner's original memorandum. Hon. Members are too busy to read everything in detail and the document is voluminous, but anyone who has read it will have noted that the Committee's conclusions mirror completely the commissioner's memorandum and do not raise any fresh allegations against the hon. Lady. I shall come in a moment to her knowledge and the nature of the allegations.
The hon. Lady has also said that she wants to appeal against our finding. It is important to emphasise that it is not the facts in the case that are in dispute—the facts, sadly, are clear—but the conclusions to be drawn from them and the propriety of the hon. Lady's behaviour in the course of the inquiry. It is beyond dispute that she remained joint legal owner of the three properties until they were eventually sold. It is beyond dispute that she is connected with the trust in the way described in the

435
Committee's report and as I have outlined. It is for the House to judge whether the hon. Lady has broken our rules, as the Committee believes that she has.
All the evidence that has been relied on in constructing the report has come from, or been confirmed by, the hon. Lady, her advisers or her business associates. We have therefore done everything we can to ensure that she has been treated fairly. However, and this is the most serious allegation, the hon. Lady questioned the fairness and impartiality of the commissioner and the Committee. Other Committee members who are not Labour Members may wish to say whether they think that she was dealt with fairly.
The hon. Lady made play of the recent report of the Neill committee, which makes proposals for the handling of disciplinary cases in the House. Obviously, the Standards and Privileges Committee and the House will have to study those proposals. Importantly, the report states that appeals should be allowed in serious cases—I regard this as such a case—in which facts are in dispute. I do not regard this as a case in which the facts are in dispute, other than by the hon. Lady. Anyone who reads the evidence is forced, however reluctantly, to that inexorable conclusion.
The fact remains that the Standards and Privileges Committee is a creature of this House: it set us up, gave us our remit and laid down the rules by which we have to decide. We can only work by the rules that are in force. Far from being as frivolously arrived at as the hon. Lady tried to suggest, the Committee is only five years old because it was set up in the light of the Nolan committee's recommendation. We have amended—we may not yet have got it right and I am open to discussion about that, as I think that we all are and have to be—but none the less we have done our best to meet what Nolan requested of the House.
The Standards and Privileges Committee has always been acutely aware of the need not only to be fair to the hon. Lady but to be seen to be fair. We bent over backwards in our attempts to do so. Uniquely, we provided the hon. Lady with a copy of the commissioner's memorandum, which is not our usual practice—I am sure that she will acknowledge that we did so—so that she could be fully aware not only of the evidence that the commissioner had received, but of the conclusions that the commissioner had arrived at and was putting before the Committee for it to discuss with her. We also wanted the hon. Lady to appreciate the seriousness of her position.
I hate to say this, but there were times when we doubted that the hon. Lady fully realised how serious her position was. We suggested that, in her own interests, she should take proper advice about how she should proceed. Indeed, when it came to taking oral evidence from her, although we started to consider the allegations made against her, and to her, in June, we agreed to her request to adjourn the hearing until mid-January to give her the time that she wanted to retrieve documents, take legal advice and prepare her arguments.
In January, the Committee received substantial written submissions from the hon. Lady and took oral evidence, which lasted most of a morning and the major part of an afternoon. Throughout those hearings, she was
436
accompanied by a solicitor, who was allowed to advise her. She and her solicitor subsequently had ample opportunity to correct the transcript of the minutes of the hearing and to clarify and comment on the evidence given, which they did at length. The Committee considered those corrections and comments at length.
As far as impartiality is concerned, I can only reiterate that the report before the House is unanimous. It was agreed after careful consideration by every member of the Committee, including two hon. Members from the same party as the hon. Lady. Perhaps it is not fair to single them out in that way, but I do so to reassure her colleagues. The independence of mind of those two hon. Members is well understood and respected throughout the House. Of course, I think that everyone would agree that the Chairman of the Committee is one of the most respected and fair minded people—there are not many of them—in the House.
Members of this House have a duty of accountability, under the code of conduct, to
submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
We have a duty of honesty to provide full and accurate information to the Parliamentary Commissioner and to the Committee. Sadly, the hon. Lady has fallen short of the standards that the House is entitled to expect. The way in which she responded to the complaint against her was both a breach of the code of conduct and a contempt of the House.
We believe that the House can uphold its standards only by imposing a substantial period of suspension on the hon. Lady. I ask the House to note that, as stated at paragraph 50 of our report—which also was unanimously agreed—the suspension would have been "considerably longer" were it not for the fact that we recognised the embarrassment and distress that inevitably would be caused to the hon. Lady by the publication of "sensitive personal information".
I ask the House to support the Committee and approve our report.
4.21 pm
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I should like to make only a brief contribution to the debate. I was asked if I would look very carefully at the Committee's report, and I have done so. I have also had conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). I stand here neither to condemn her, other than in the terms of the Committee's report, nor to make a plea in mitigation. I shall simply give my opinion on the way in which the Committee has conducted its affairs concerning my hon. Friend, and make one or two suggestions for the future. I do not want those suggestions to be thought in any way to be reducing the work of the Committee.
I have read the report very carefully. In my view, the Committee's proceedings were conducted fairly and properly according to our procedures, and the penalty—although undoubtedly severe—is within the range of penalty that reasonably is available to the Committee. Although I thought about it, I do not think that I would have done my hon. Friend a service if I had really considered tabling an amendment suggesting a shorter penalty.

437
I agree with the whole substance of the comments of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) in summarising the Committee's report. I believe that the report—the House would expect no less—is entirely accurate and balanced.
There is no doubt that, sadly, my hon. Friend—I know that she will understand this—has brought upon herself the great majority of what is said about her in the report. There is no doubt that a Member in that situation, from the very earliest moment, should first have consulted the registrar, and explained privately and exactly to the registrar the background facts. The Member should then have taken the advice of the registrar, who is extremely fair minded and helpful in these matters, on whether the matter was or was not registerable. Similarly, when the commissioner comes along, the Member should take exactly the same attitude.
To be fair to my hon. Friend, if she had done that, she would not really be in a difficult position at all. When it comes down to the basic facts, had the interests been registered, there is nothing very remarkable about them at all. There must be very many hon. Members who own let property, and many hon. Members who hold sincere views on either side of the argument on the Rent Acts in relation to which, 10 years ago, she introduced her ten-minute Bill.
The fundamental problem in this case has been the way in which my hon. Friend has sought to defend herself, and the extra difficulties that she has brought upon herself by the manner of her doing so.
I do not know my hon. Friend all that well as a private individual, but I respect her courage, as most of us do. We know that she is exceptionally combative. It is not just, as the old adage says, the lawyer who represents himself who has a fool for a client. It is very difficult to represent oneself when one is in a spot. Criticisms of a partly political nature inevitably intrude in our business and in the newspapers. Someone of a combative frame of mind can easily go in at the deep end and make matters worse for themselves, although not normally as badly as did my hon. Friend, who managed to go as far as possible and further, plumbing the depths in almost every respect.
To give some balance, there is one respect in which that is not necessarily the case. I do not criticise the Committee, but I have some doubts as to whether my hon. Friend's contact with a particular witness mentioned in the report was improper. I know that that is not a major part of the report, but if someone who is left to defend themselves wishes to speak to a witness, there is nobody else to do it. I say that only to ensure that I give as much balance as possible.
What is the point of my speech? It is simply to ask whether we should consider any reform of our procedures. I shall make some suggestions for further consideration, but I do not wish to deprecate what the Committee has done. I shall not oppose the penalty. According to our present procedures, the whole matter was conducted openly and fairly and I have no criticism to make. It was well done.
I emphasise that it is difficult to defend oneself. I have read what was said in the Neill committee and the report as well as the views of Lord Nicholls—a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary who took particular care to consider the issue. Most of his recommendations are not at all contentious. Everyone agrees that one should know at the outset
438
exactly what charges one has to meet. By and large that was true in this case, although I have one comment to make about that.
I should like to emphasise one point made by Lord Nicholls that deserves serious consideration. Many cases are not serious, but, as the right hon. Member for Swansea, West said, this one developed into a very serious case and is producing the most serious penalty for many years. In such serious cases, there is a strong argument for allowing legal advice and, when necessary, legal representation to be provided by the House. It is incredibly difficult to cross-examine and argue one's case and to give the facts at the same time. The two inevitably get muddled up. Very few people can do themselves justice in those circumstances.
Although we are right not to wish to become over-legalistic, not to over-encumber our procedures with legalism and lawyers and to maintain the maximum amount of self-regulation, we should reconsider our rule about entitling people to legal advice. Once the Committee considers that the case against an hon. Member is serious, as opposed to substantially administrative and routine, a halt should be drawn temporarily in the proceedings. The hon. Member concerned should be warned of the seriousness of the position, be invited to obtain legal advice—and given assistance in that if necessary—and be able not merely to have the legal adviser sitting beside them in the Committee, but to have some representation before the Committee. I think that doing that would improve our procedures.
This is a sad day. A difficult matter has been well handled according to our present procedures. The result is sad but not unjust, and there are improvements that we could make for the future.
4.30 pm
Sir Peter Tapsell: Having read the whole report, I regard the penalty proposed by the Committee as disproportionately severe. I do not wish to make party political points of any kind, but there have been a number of cases of so-called sleaze on both sides of the House. One, not very long ago, was connected with a property matter. For us to be told that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is to be suspended for a longer period than anyone else for what she has irregularly done seems an unfairly severe penalty.
Outside the House, to be suspended without pay for a month does not seem a matter of great severity, but inside the House, even to be suspended for three days involves an element of public disgrace. If that sentence were imposed upon me, I would be deeply mortified. So we must not lose sight of the fact that a very severe penalty is being proposed for my hon. Friend. Unlike my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), I wish—to use his words—to put in a plea of mitigation.
When I first came to the House, and for many years afterwards, we had none of these rules and tribunals. I have always taken the Enoch Powell line that it is very much better to treat each other as honourable people and not have a tremendous number of codes, commissions, and outside bodies looking into things. Unfortunately, many of my colleagues—particularly, I am ashamed to say, in my own party—behaved so disgracefully in the

439
previous Parliament that we were inevitably drawn into the present situation. There is no reversing that, and it is going to get worse. The thrust of my right hon. and learned Friend's speech was that we will gradually move away from the position of controlling our own affairs and hand it all over to judicial supervision.
Let us not lose sight of the object of the exercise, which has been to avoid the corruption of the House and of public affairs. I do not believe that my hon. Friend has sought to corrupt anybody. The offences of which she is accused, although technically correct, are of the utmost triviality. They happened a great many years ago, and she has never been secretive about her interest in property matters. Not long ago, for weeks on end, it was almost impossible to open a newspaper without seeing her defiantly trying to defend a charming gothic porch which she had added to one of her houses and which the philistines in her local planning committee wished to demolish. Everybody knows her views on rent restriction. There has never been any suggestion that she was being corrupted or that she was seeking to corrupt anybody else.
Then we come to the extended nature of the inquiries that were made of her. The discussion about overseas trusts, although not one of the criticisms of her in the report's conclusions, takes up quite a lot of space in the cross-examinations that are published. For the uninitiated, the mere mention of the words "overseas trust" raises the suspicion that some skulduggery is going on.
Unfortunately, I have never been the beneficiary of an overseas trust, but they are entirely legal. There are hundreds of thousands of them. If one visits a lawyer's office on any island in the Caribbean, he will proudly talk of the tens of thousands of overseas trusts that he runs from his little office—including those for some of the world's most famous companies and personalities. Whether such trusts should be more carefully supervised is another matter; they are legal.
One aspect of the report that seemed to throw an element of discredit on my hon. Friend related to the fact that her properties in Portugal were held in an overseas trust. However, it was legal for her to do so. Indeed, if one tries to buy a property overseas, one is invariably advised by one's lawyers—I have always taken the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire and surrounded myself with the highest-paid lawyers before I do anything at all in life—to put such property in an overseas trust.
I have some overseas properties. I hasten to add that I have never let them to paying tenants. I have not put them into overseas trusts, because overseas trusts have two great snares. The first is that one has to trust one's trustees. The second is that one's family cannot always be relied upon to die in the order of precedence that one has laid down in the trust. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said, as a criticism, that my hon. Friend had included her husband in that sequence. However, it would be automatic in an overseas trust. One's lawyer will say, "If you kick the bucket, old boy, it's going to be inconvenient for me if I don't know who is to inherit the properties." That criticism was thus irrelevant.
Why was that matter raised in the first place? Incidentally, the allegations against my hon. Friend came from two journalists, whose motives were not as closely
440
examined by the Committee as I should have expected. Their allegations related to English properties subject to the Rent Acts—that is what the whole matter is about. By no conceivable stretch of the imagination can it be thought that our Rent Acts apply to a holiday home in Portugal. That matter is irrelevant.
The report slowly turns into a trawling operation. The Committee began by looking into a specific situation. My hon. Friend has admitted to that matter, although she has denied throughout that she benefited from the English properties. The Committee then examined a series of aspects of her life—including her private life.
One part of the report that is offensive is the conclusion. It states not only that the period of suspension is the longest that the Committee had ever recommended, but that it would have been even longer but for the distress caused to my hon. Friend when the fact that her marriage temporarily went through a difficult patch was dragged into public knowledge. Such difficulties are not unknown to many Members on both sides of the House.
The Committee implied that the difficulty in my hon. Friend's married life—now happily overcome, I understand—was part of the punishment, because the punishment would have been longer if the matter had not been exposed. All that is deeply unsatisfactory.
The report does not bring out in any detail how much money it is alleged that my hon. Friend made out of the properties that she should have declared. It talks about a substantial sum and then refers to a figure of between £3,400 and £4,400 from the Portuguese properties. To someone on benefit, figures of £3,000 to £4,000 are substantial, but I warn people who might want to own and let an overseas property that they must spend £15,000 to £20,000 a year on running costs if they want to let it to tenants.
The owners have to pay the local property tax, which is substantial in most overseas countries. They have to pay for a maid if they want to let the property. When guests arrive after a flight and a long drive and are accompanied by screaming kids, they are absolutely exhausted. They expect to find the property in spotless condition and they expect to have a maid to look after them. That maid cannot be appointed for the week or fortnight that the property is let; she has to be appointed and paid for over 12 months.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: What about a gardener?
Sir Peter Tapsell: If there is a garden, there must also be a gardener.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I put the hon. Gentleman out of his agony? The whole question of the Portuguese properties was dismissed by the Committee, so he has no case.
Sir Peter Tapsell: I am not in any sort of agony—rather the reverse. The hon. Gentleman refers to one of the issues about which I am complaining. He says that the Committee dismissed the question of the Portuguese properties, but a considerable section of the published evidence in the report is about them. He is a long-serving and distinguished member of the Committee and he says that the issue was dismissed. Therefore, it was all a

441
mare's nest, but references to overseas trusts and the Portuguese properties were put before the public eye. That would lead people to suppose that my hon. Friend was involved in a carefully organised and fairly substantial overseas operation in which she avoided paying tax because she had an overseas trust.
I mentioned the issues of staff and tax, because the figure of £3,400 that the report quotes would have long since been swallowed up. The owners of overseas properties find that it is extremely difficult to make a profit out of them because of the overheads that I have described.
My hon. Friend's personality is an important part of the process. From my reading of the report, it seems that what really upset the Committee was not so much what she did, but the way she responded to the questioning to which she was subjected. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West mentioned the propriety of her responses, and my hon. Friend admitted in her speech that she was unwise in the way that she handled the affair and her defence. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire spelt that out in technical terms and was right to do so. However, is it correct that my hon. Friend should be so severely punished because of that behaviour?
My hon. Friend is a combative and zany lady. I have known many such ladies in the course of my life, and indeed I rather like them. I particularly like my hon. Friend, who is a woman of courage, integrity and patriotism, with no malice in her at all. I do not believe that she has behaved in a shabby fashion, although I think that she has behaved unwisely, and I shall be proud to continue to regard her as my hon. Friend.
4.45 pm
Mr. Martin Bell: There are times when I wonder whether all Members of the House live on the same planet.
I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) for her outstandingly moderate and gracious speech in what must be difficult circumstances for her.
I regret the absence, through ill health, of the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). He has conducted this investigation as he conducts all investigations—with outstanding fairness and rigour. I also pay tribute to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who is fully living up to the demanding standards set by her predecessor.
As a member of the Committee who sits for no party on the Opposition Benches, it is important that I make the point that the Committee is not partisan; it is not Labour-dominated; it is not Labour-run; and it does not divide on party lines. If it did, I would not serve on it for five minutes—and neither, I am sure, would Opposition Members or Members on the Government Benches.
I know that objections have been raised in the press, and some journalists are suggesting that our procedures have become too rigorous. They are rigorous because they have to be, because we want this Parliament to be held in higher esteem than the previous Parliament. We owe that to ourselves, our constituents and the institution in which we sit.
The report is outstandingly fair, and I hope that the rest of the House will take the same view.
4.47 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am exceedingly uneasy. I say to the former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), that when he said that it is difficult to represent oneself, he was wrong—it is impossible to represent oneself.
I say that with some passion because I was in the position of having to try to represent myself in the light of a privileges investigation into chemical and biological warfare, and my talking freely to the late Laurence Marks of The Observer a third of a century ago. I was not allowed to have a lawyer present. When one appears before the Committee and one is not a lawyer, it is impossible to try to defend oneself, especially if one is not used to such situations. I was completely tied up by woolly questions from non-lawyers, and the then Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), then simply asked me, "Mr. Dalyell, did you really mean that?" I was then reduced to a state of sheepishness.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman note that the Government have accepted the force of what he has just said in the context of the BSE inquiry? He will know that all those who have had to appear before that inquiry have had the advantage of legal advice beforehand, and of representation, if they chose to have it, at the inquiry itself.
Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a QC, and I do not in any way hesitate on the point that he made.
My contribution will be very short, because I only want to ask one question. Will the Leader of the House address the question about legal representation that was properly put by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)? Some of us think that prime time or any other time in the House ought not to be taken up with a situation that has, frankly, bordered on the preposterous. This is a matter for the courts, and it should be dealt with by the courts rather than by the House, however well intentioned and conscientious, trying to act as a court of law. In the light of personal experience, I am against any Committee of the House setting itself up as a court of law.
4.50 pm
Sir George Young: I echo what others have said and wish the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) a speedy and complete recovery from his illness. The House owes a debt to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) for the way in which he presented the report, as well as to his Select Committee.
I am sorry that the husband of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is in poor health. I understand the additional pressure that that has put on her. I hope that nothing that I say about the report will undermine the sympathy that I feel for her on that score.
By comparison with some of the other cases that the Select Committee has recently had to investigate, the original offence—the original offence—of non-declaration was a minor one. Of course my hon. Friend should have declared her interest in private rented property before she introduced two ten-minute Bills. As a Housing Minister in

443
the early 1990s, I was well aware of my hon. Friend's views on the private rented sector, which accorded with her generally libertarian and free-market views on other matters. I did not for a moment believe that her espousal of a free market in housing, and a belief that rent control was wrong, were driven by her own private interests.
If that had been my hon. Friend's only offence, I am not sure that we would even be having this debate. The Select Committee has adjudicated on a number of occasions where interests should have been declared and were not. Hon. Members have survived the usual, rather minor, press interest that ensued, with their reputations intact. Indeed, some on both sides have gone on to hold very high office.
What clearly exasperated the Select Committee in this case was the smokescreen that descended, which caused it to veer all over the road, and to stop and ask a few people for directions before it eventually found a way through. The Committee's strong conclusion in paragraph 42, and the sentence at the higher end of the tariff scale in paragraph 51, flowed from the general obfuscation, and in particular from my hon. Friend's denials of links with offshore companies.
In the present case, three things have happened which have led us to where we are today. First, as I said, my hon. Friend was initially unable to respond accurately to the questions put to her by the Committee, and found herself tangled in the subsequent web.
Secondly, my hon. Friend has not found it possible to accept the verdict of her colleagues, who I think displayed some patience in dealing with the case, or to express her regret for what happened. If she had felt able to do that, she would have found the House to be generous and forgiving.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend has cast aspersions on the neutrality of the Committee and therefore on the roles of my right hon. and hon. Friends who serve on it and on the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell). Neither my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) nor my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would assent to what they believed to be a miscarriage of justice just because they were in a minority. I give away no secrets when I say that both of them are outwith the conventional range of discipline of my party: I cannot imagine that they would have subjected themselves to the discipline of another.
My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay suggested that the procedure that found her guilty was tainted. A number of those who have spoken have mentioned the relevant report of Lord Neill's committee, "Reinforcing Standards". Of course, we should debate that report, which has been published since we last had a report from the Select Committee. It made recommendations about serious contested allegations. Whether that would cover my hon. Friend is a matter for debate. As I said, I personally do not regard her original offence as particularly serious.
Neill stated in paragraph 3.51:
We considered whether an accused MP should have the right to elect the full tribunal procedure in all contested cases, whether a minor or a serious case. We concluded that they should not.
444
I agree with what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) said. Once a case has escalated to the extent to which my hon. Friend's case has now escalated, there is a strong argument for the sort of assistance that was mentioned.
Mr. Dalyell: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that Members of Parliament who are not lawyers, however well intentioned, conscientious and untainted they are—I am sure that all members of the Select Committee were like that—are the people to handle contested allegations? When he mentioned offshore companies, the hon. Lady's body language suggested that she strongly contested what was said. I do not know whether she is right or wrong, but it is a matter for a lawyer, rather than for Members of the House of Commons.
Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong case for a debate on the report "Reinforcing Standards", and for a debate on the parallel report by Lord Nicholls, which reached the same conclusion.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir George Young: No, I am going to finish.
I speak in a personal capacity. I have to say that I think the proceedings were fair. I think the Committee was painstaking in its deliberations, and I support the verdict and the sentence.
4.55 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I shall speak briefly, really to reinforce the anxieties expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell).
I think that the process itself is flawed. There are three stages in the process that we adopt. First, there is the complaint to and investigation by the commission; secondly, there is the hearing by the Select Committee, and the report; and, thirdly, there is the process that we are conducting here today. I make no particular complaint about the first and last stages. I recognise that, when it comes to suspension, it must indeed be a matter for the House as a whole, to be debated on the Floor of the House on the basis of recommendations. The fact that most Members will not have read the report is a misfortune, but many decisions are made without all Members' being wholly informed.
I do, however, feel great concern about the second stage—the investigation by a Select Committee of the facts and the recommendations. I strongly support the views expressed by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). When I make the criticism that I am about to make, I hope the House will understand that I am not making a personal criticism of this Select Committee on this occasion; I am dealing with the generality rather than with this particular case.
As the House knows full well, it is one of the principles of the law of this country that no man or woman who knows an accused person can sit in judgment on that accused person. Indeed, any person who appears before a tribunal is entitled to ascertain whether or not the tribunal has an interest in the matter that is before it. Consequently, judges and magistrates from time to time

445
disqualify themselves from sitting in particular cases because they know the accused person. That is true of every disciplinary committee of which I am aware, and also of every profession of which I am aware.
The reason for that is very sound. If the tribunal sitting in judgment on a person knows that person, there is a risk that the ultimate decision will be affected, either for or against, by that knowledge—or at least it might be supposed to be affected by that knowledge.
I do not for a moment make any criticism of the Select Committee. but the truth is that every member of the Select Committee knows my hon. Friend. Perhaps they know her better than they know many other hon. Members, because she is indeed a very notable figure. In cases such as this, there is a danger that the Select Committee inquiring into particular facts and making recommendations either may be affected by its knowledge, or may be thought to be so affected.
Let me make another point. Again, I am not being critical of the Select Committee, because I have no cause to be. Let us face the facts: the House is an intensely political and partisan place, and when a notable Member appears before a Committee on a disciplinary charge—for that is, in effect, what happened—there is a risk that political baggage will get in the way of a fair hearing and fair recommendations. I am not saying that that happened, because I have no cause to say that it happened; but I do say that the process is flawed, because in other cases it may happen.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that although there is a majority of Labour Members on the Committee, only Labour Members have been suspended as a result of its earlier deliberations? That does not imply that the Committee is tempted to move on party lines, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman may be suggesting.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has not fully grasped my point. There is no other judicial process in this country whereby individuals are entitled to try another whom they know, or entitled to try a case in which they may be perceived to have a political interest. Through the Select Committee's composition, its members know the accused person, and they may also be thought to have a political interest. I do not say that in this case they did, but we cannot eliminate the danger that they may have had such an interest.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I accept the thrust of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks, but does he not accept that other circumstances exist in which people in the same group try each other, for example, the local CIU, Labour club or golf club committee? The great saving advantage in those circumstances is the right to independent representation. That may be the answer to the problem in the case that we are considering.
Mr. Hogg: I shall speak about legal representation in a moment. We are considering the point that a person's public reputation is on the line. My hon. Friend will be deeply humiliated by what has happened. The facts have
446
been broadcast on radio, television and in many newspapers. It is wholly different from the proceedings that take place in, for example, a golf club.
Mr. Robert McCartney: Is not the essence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point that we are not considering whether those who try an individual are likely to be guilty of bias, but the principle that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done? Any suspicion—even though it is nothing more—means that the forum is not appropriate to deal with the matter.
Mr. Hogg: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have tried to make it plain that I do not allege that the Select Committee was biased or that it acted improperly. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North"East Bedfordshire made it clear that that was not the case in the inquiry. However, I am trying to deal with the process, which is deeply flawed.
When a serious complaint has been made against an hon. Member and has been the subject of a report by the Committee, and when it seems likely that such an hon. Member should be suspended or suffer other serious penalties, it would be proper for the House, through the Select Committees, not to adjudicate the facts and not to hear the case.
An external panel, probably comprising three members, which sits under a judicial chairman, should consider the facts and make the recommendation. The recommendation should be made to the House, because I accept that suspension is a matter for the House. However, hon. Members should not make the critical inquiry into fact and consider whether an hon. Member's word can be trusted, or undertake the investigation and the preliminary recommendations. Hon. Members know the accused person.
That leads to my final point. We should adopt the suggestion of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North"East Bedfordshire. In a case of gravity, an hon. Member needs a lawyer to provide advice and represent the person at the hearing. An hon. Member who is the subject of a serious inquiry is not best placed to weigh up the wisdom of a specific course of action, to conduct cross-examination or even to give evidence by themselves. They need legal advice.
That point is reinforced by the fact that in this case it appears that the original offence was fairly trivial. The sentence is severe because of the way in which my hon. Friend conducted herself—ill-advisedly, if she will forgive my saying so—but the truth is that if she had had legal advice before and during the process she would have conducted herself very much more wisely, and the penalty that she would have faced, if any, would have been much less than that which she now faces. That of itself seems to me to be an argument for legal representation.
Mr. Dalyell: May I reinforce that? After my 1967 privileges case, I was told repeatedly that I made a pig's ear of it. So I did, but with any kind of legal guidance, that would not have been so, because the case was quite good.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is one of the most distinguished Members of the House. If he, in the absence of legal representation and advice, made a pig's ear of it, what hope is there for the rest of us?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is confusing two very different questions: that

447
of standards, which in this case was minor, and that of privilege, which as far as the Committee was concerned was major. Is he arguing that lawyers should be involved in issues of privilege and represent Members of the House on them? If he is, and as against the issue of standards, he will find little support among those on his own Benches. He is confused.
Mr. Hogg: I am not confused; I am talking about liberties and rights. The outcome of the process is that my hon. Friend will be suspended for a month and her reputation will be gravely damaged. Whether we call that liberties, rights or privileges matters not. She will suffer very severe penalties at the hand of the House, which has to put in place a process that treats Members fairly. I do not believe that we are doing so in the case of hon. Members facing the Select Committee.
The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is one of the most respected and fairest-minded Members of the House. Then he added—I think jocularly—the words, "one of the few"—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Swansea, West makes a deprecating hand motion. Fair enough, but the point is this: are we certain that the process that we have put in place ensures that Members are tried exclusively by Members who are fair minded and responsible? I am not saying that there was any departure from that principle in this case, but I am saying that the process is suspect. We should reform it.
5.8 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: May I make a particular point at the outset? I commend the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) for the way in which he introduced the report. I also make it clear that I have not the slightest doubt that the Committee spent, as it would see it, an enormous amount of time trying to be fair. It has already been said that, given the number of mavericks from both sides of the House who are members of it, none of those people were in any sense subject to pressure. Knowing the personalities to the extent that I do, none would have thought that they had the opportunity to do something horrid to a colleague.
The right hon. Gentleman was fair enough to say that we must surely take from the process an understanding that we can improve our procedures. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) picked up that point as well. I hope that Members read the report and I urge those who have not to do so. It has to be read; it bears reading for both good and unsatisfactory reasons and we must learn from it in the light of experience.
Mr. Alan Williams: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courteous comments.
For 15 months, the ex-Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), and I sat on a Joint Committee of this House and the other House under the chairmanship of Lord Nicholls, producing recommendations to change and update the position. The hon. Member" for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) was on the Committee,
448
too—my apologies: he was an active member of it. We spent 15 months going into great detail. I doubt whether many Members know that its report exists. I would wager that, even if they know that it exists, not one of them has read it.
Mr. Nicholls: What the right hon. Gentleman says is entirely right.
I have read the report extremely carefully on, I think, four occasions. I have studied it over two weekends. I have given at least as much attention to it as I used to give to briefs of clients who were paying me to do so, so I can probably say that I have read the document more carefully than many that I have been called to vote on from time to time.
I did that for the following reason. I realised only relatively recently the trouble that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was in. I read about it in the paper as casually, I suppose, as many other people. I thought, "Oh dear, that person's reputation is on the line."
I found that interesting. I do not say that I know my hon. Friend particularly well. We do not live near each other. We share some political views, but there are many that we do not. She is to me an honourable friend in theory; I hardly know her at all, but the one thing that I have come to believe over the years from seeing her operate is that she is straight and fair. She may be zany, but she strikes me as someone who would not have a corrupt bone in her body. Therefore, I was interested in the fact that her reputation was on the line. Let us be in no doubt: her reputation is on the line, although, ironically, probably not in the House.
Members have had the benefit of reading the report—if they have cared to do so—and hearing the speeches of people such as the right hon. Member for Swansea, West, but the following will be said at the Frog and Bucket later today: "Have you seen what they have been up to in Parliament? Someone has done something dodgy"—the person must be dodgy because that is implicit in overseas trusts. "She did not disclose a load of dodgy trusts. They caught her and kicked her out for a month. Well, they are paid too much anyway."
Whatever we say tonight, that will be the way the matter will be perceived by the general public. If we condemn anyone—any hon. Member or member of the public—to such a judgment, we owe it to ourselves and to the people whom we represent to ask whether we could have done it better.
I make it clear: I imply no criticism of the care that the Committee and, indeed, the commissioner have taken when I say that, as a lawyer, I read things in the report that make me deeply uneasy. I will not detain the House for many minutes, but I will draw its attention to one paragraph as an example: paragraph 32 on page xii. After the first sentence, it says:
We agreed with the Commissioner's conclusions, and said: "Although not a requirement, there are occasions when interests of this nature would be better registered, and if a doubt should arise Members ought to seek the advice of the Commissioner. We and our predecessors have made this point on several previous occasions. If a Member feels it necessary to seek professional advice on a matter of registration it is clear that some doubt must exist".
I ask the House to think about that sentence:
If a Member feels it necessary to seek professional advice on a matter of registration it is clear that some doubt must exist.

449
We seem to have put ourselves in a position whereby, if a Member is prudent enough to say, "I do not know the full implications. I have many other things to do in my life. I had better take advice," and he does so, it must mean that he should register the interest.
Mr. Tom Levitt: That is not what the report says.
Mr. Nicholls: I have quoted from it. The hon. Gentleman can go away and look it up if he wants to. It is as if someone is brought to a court of law and, at the end of that process, the judge says, "I have now checked the books and there is not an offence that quite fits your case, but you should be convicted. That is the way of it." That is the effect of such a process. We should be concerned about that.
Mr. Levitt: I speak as a member of the Committee. The quotation that the hon. Gentleman uses is from an earlier report, which talks about slightly different affairs in terms of trusts, but, most significant, it seeks to advise Members to get rid of any ambiguity in the situation. Advice should be sought. If that advice is that Members do not need to register an interest, there is no need to register it, so it is not fair to say that seeking advice confirms that there is a registrable interest.
Mr. Nicholls: I see the point that the hon. Gentleman is driving at, but he is wrong. The first part of my quotation was a phrase from the previous commissioner of which the present commissioner approved. My point stands.
The quotation contains a further implication. It has been said several times that my hon. Friend said that she had no connection with overseas trusts. My reading of the evidence is that she made that point after having thought about it—doubtless with the benefit of lawyers—and in the belief that she had no interest that was registrable. Whether she had such an interest is a matter of debate, but we cannot say that someone who felt she had no interest, but who was subsequently held to have had an interest, must have been acting dishonestly.
My hon. Friend is not the only person who felt that way. We are in a remarkable position. One of the charges upheld against my hon. Friend is detailed on page xv as follows:
Mrs. Gorman gave seriously misleading information in 1995 and 1999 about her connections with the offshore companies Partingdale Holdings, Loxhill Investments and Kinloch Investments, owned by Queenstown Trust, and did not specify them in the Register.
However, my hon. Friend had taken advice on the point from leading counsel. At annex A, on pages lix-lx, the opinion of Philip Heslop QC concludes, at paragraph 9:
It follows that, for the same reasons given in the opinion of Michael Beloff QC but a fortiori, Mrs Gorman had, in my opinion, no interest in the Queenstown Trust registrable under category 9, and Mrs Gorman's position as regards non-registration under category 10 is, for the reasons also set out in Michael Beloff QC's opinion, more than arguable.
My hon. Friend has been found guilty of not registering a particular interest when leading counsel had said that she did not have to do so.
The Standards and Privileges Committee—perhaps like many juries—draws on a wide range of experience. I have gone through the relevant entries in "Dod's Parliamentary
450
Companion" and "Who's Who" to find out the backgrounds of those who sat in judgment on my hon. Friend. I detected one non-practising banister and a solicitor who had previously had experience of employment law. That was the sum total of legal experience on the Committee. In effect, we have set up a jury that passes judgment without the benefit of counsel arguing before it or a High Court judge who can direct it on matters of fact or law.
I have on a number of occasions spoken not in defence of lawyers. I am a lawyer, but none of us is perfect. As a species, I do not particularly like lawyers. I do not mix with them, and I am not very keen on them. But even lawyers have their uses. We have set up a judicial process in which someone's reputation may be put on the line. We have given the Committee the impossible task of arguing matters of law before itself on which its members are not qualified to argue, yet no trained lawyer is present to ensure that the right inferences are drawn.
These matters used to be handled better. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell) said that it was probably inevitable that we reached this point because of some of the excesses that occurred in the previous Parliament. Yet it was probably better in the old days when, if one behaved badly, the judgment of one's peers was such that one's life here became untenable. If one did not realise that one's place was untenable, the Chief Whip would telephone the association chairman, and one would find oneself not standing again for Parliament. That is the way it used to be.
I accept that these matters can never be handled that way again, but we have achieved the worst of all possible worlds. We have condemned someone through a judicial process in which that person did not have the benefit of a lawyer or a chance to have someone sit in judgment.
To give one tiny example of what can happen when people sit in judgment on matters that they are not in a position to judge, I refer to paragraph 47 of the report, which says:
Even if Mrs Gorman believed that the beneficial interest had been transferred, she remained the joint owner of the properties.
The last thing that I would want to do—perhaps because I would be doing it for free—is to give hon. Members who are not lawyers a potted history of land law in this country, but I can inform them that nobody owns land in this country apart from the sovereign: everybody else merely owns an interest in land. It is known as an estate. People own either a legal or an equitable estate.
The point that was being made on my hon. Friend's behalf, as any student of law would know, was that she had severed the beneficial interest. If that had been properly understood, with the help of counsel, by those deliberating on it, a different conclusion would have been drawn. It might not have made a huge difference in the end, but it is an example of statements appearing with all their tendentious force that are not properly understood by those who make them.
It would be inappropriate and needless to make this a party political matter. The public, whom we are here to represent, will be concerned to work out the gravity of my hon. Friend's offence, and to do that they will look at the penalty. That is usually quite a good measure—if one weighs up life imprisonment and a 10 quid fine, one assumes that the greater offence attracted the greater penalty—but that is not how it seems in this instance.

451
For one of the complaints against the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), we read:
Complaint upheld but no action recommended,
and for another:
Complaint upheld, personal statement made.
The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) felt obliged to resign from the Cabinet, but the verdict on his misdemeanour was:
Complaint upheld … The Committee considered that no action should be taken.
By contrast, the severest penalty of all is being applied to my hon. Friend.
I am worried more than anything else by the fact that the punishment to be meted out is based not on the gravity of the substantive offence but on the fact that the Committee thought that its corporate dignity had been infringed. The most draconian penalty has been imposed for what everyone—including, in fairness, the Chairman of the Committee—accepts is a relatively minor offence.
In the 19th century, Lord Macaulay referred to the way in which the British public can look
in one of its periodical fits of morality.
We have to learn the lessons and say that if we are to impose this procedure on ourselves it must be a fair procedure. If we do not hold ourselves in sufficiently high regard properly and adequately to protect our own, we may ask ourselves why sometimes the general public do not hold us in such regard either.
5.23 pm
Mr. Ernie Ross: As a former member of the Committee who then suffered its penalties, I have experience of both ends of its work. When I was on the Committee, a series of hon. Members came before us. If we have a debate about whether we should change our procedures, I certainly hope to be here to defend the Standards and Privileges Committee, which is the most appropriate method whereby we can discipline ourselves and Members of Parliament can be held to account by their peers.
I do not want to invite the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) to enter the debate, but I remind hon. Members of the way in which he demonstrated to a Member of Parliament who came before the Committee that had he taken the option of being truthful in the first instance, the outcome would have been much easier both on him and on the Committee. His attempted refusal to accept the facts made the process far more difficult for him. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said that had the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) been up-front, honest and more helpful to the Committee, the punishment it proposed might not have been so severe.
Our current system is the best system. I broke the rules of the House, I understood that I had done so and I accepted the authority of the Standards and Privileges Committee. It would have helped the House if the hon. Lady had done the same. Instead, regrettably, we have heard a succession of right hon. and hon. Opposition Members, with one or two exceptions, attack the
452
Committee. They say that they are not attacking it, but they are. That does not help the Committee or help to uphold the standards that we set for ourselves as Members of Parliament. They are trying to confuse those outside this place, who do not understand how we work. They do not further the debate or help the hon. Lady's case by so doing. It would have been far better had she come to the Chamber and apologised. Then, we could have got on with our business.
5.26 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: The matter is a serious one. I rise to speak in this debate because I wish to follow the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell) and others who have suggested that it is the draconian nature of the penalty that most exercises us. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) is right to draw the House's attention to the way in which today's debate and the decision of the Standards and Privileges Committee will be represented outside the House.
We stand in grave danger of trading complaints against each other and placing them before the Committee for partisan purposes. The only beneficiaries of such a process will be the media, to which we provide wonderful copy, and those who want to denigrate our Parliament. All Members of Parliament recognise that there is little corruption here and that the vast majority of Members—probably all—work extremely hard in the interests of their constituents. We would be hard pressed to name one Member of Parliament on either side of the House who we believe represents an interest that is outside his or her political philosophy for the sake of personal gain. By repeatedly dragging out these cases, we supply the media with sticks to bash us with.
Mr. David Winnick: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the reputation of the House was harmed during the previous Parliament? Does he not realise that the Parliamentary Commissioner and the new Committee arose from the scandals of those days? If he is concerned about the reputation of the House—I have no reason to believe that he is not—does he not agree that it is essential to have standards? If we do not set standards or create the means of inquiring into complaints—in the current case, serious complaints—we might as well give up.
Mr. Howarth: I could not possibly dissent from the view that we must uphold standards in Parliament. My point is that I believe that our standards are rather good. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman made a partisan point. It was a feature of the general election—as the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, admits, it was a part of the Labour party's campaign—that the Conservative party was portrayed as sleaze-ridden. The fact is that, since the election, relatively seriously charges have been preferred against Labour Members.
The hon. Gentleman makes my very point. We are neither advantaging ourselves nor doing justice to the institution which most of us hold in great affection by continually trying to score these points off one another. As I say, the only beneficiaries thereof are the media.
One of my complaints against Sir Gordon Downey was that he felt it necessary that people should be able to come to his door to make all sorts of complaints about right

453
hon. and hon. Members. There is a lot of mileage for journalists in doing so because it provides useful copy. The letters "MP" are useful in making short headlines. MP does this, or MP is up to that—it makes wonderful copy and further feeds the public perception that we are not honourable people.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) made a rather unworthy comment at the outset of the proceedings when I sought to intervene on him, and I hope that he will accept that.
Mr. Alan Williams rose—
Mr. Howarth: I shall do the right hon. Gentleman the courtesy of giving way—a courtesy that he did not accord me—but in a moment.
Hon. Members should know that the right hon. Gentleman reserves his venom for me to the Chamber. He is the absolute picture of courtesy outside. We have a fine relationship outside and I do not know what drives him to be so venomous towards me in the Chamber. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to give way, I shall do so.
Mr. Williams: I was about to extend the courtesy to the Chamber and say that if what I said upsets the hon. Gentleman so much, of course I withdraw it.
Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for so doing. I am sure that it helps. But the point that I wanted to ask him was this. He referred to the fact that one of the charges levelled against my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was that she had sought to interfere—that was the word used in the report—with a former tenant of a property. Yet the report refers to Fran Abrams, who I understand is the journalist from The Independent who lodged one of the initial complaints. She apparently wrote to the commissioner, Ms Filkin, on 28 June and 5 July. On page xxv the report states:
The Independent have contacted 6 former tenants—
not one but six—
who were living at this property in 1990 and paying rent to Mr. Gorman.
If the Committee had genuinely wanted to be fair, it should not only have said that the hon. Lady should not have interfered with the witnesses, it should also have referred to journalists. It is all right for journalists to dig around and find dirt on Members, but it is not in order for Members to warn people that journalists are snooping around trying to make a story. That was why I sought to intervene on the right hon. Gentleman and for no other reason.
Reference has been made to the rules of the House. There is growing acceptance across the Floor of the House that the matter has grown out of all proportion. Our rules have already been quoted, but I wish to do so again because it is important that the public understand them. The main purpose of the register is
to provide information of any pecuniary interest or other material benefit which a Member receives which might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions, speeches, or votes in Parliament, or actions taken in his or her capacity as a Member of Parliament.
Essentially, the accusation made against my hon. Friend is that she moved a 10–minute Bill when she was in receipt of rents from properties which she had not
454
declared. Whether she or her husband was a beneficial owner of those properties is immaterial. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) made clear, my hon. Friend is known to have been a libertarian and a deregulator, so what she was proposing was entirely consistent with her political philosophy. What the House and the public want to know is when a Member is advancing a cause not because it is one in which they strongly believe and which is part of their political philosophy, but for another reason, namely, that there is some personal advantage to them. I honestly do not believe that many hon. Members could claim to be as politically consistent—indeed, as ideologically consistent—as my hon. Friend. Therefore, it is unfair of the Committee to have taken to heart so seriously and self-righteously the fact that my hon. Friend moved her 10–minute Bill—although I accept that if one has an interest to declare, one should do so.
We need to return to the basic question of the purpose of the register.
Mr. Campbell"Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howarth: In a moment.
In connection with another matter, I had cause to go through some of the speeches of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I will name no names because that would serve no purpose but I found that many hon. Members who had properly declared an interest in the register—whether they were sponsored by a trade union, working for a company or whatever—regularly participated in associated debates, particularly 10 years ago. Their interest was probably known, but it may not have been.
I could score petty party political points by naming one or two Ministers and saying that on such and such a date in 1988 they participated in a debate but did not declare their interest. I am not interested in doing so, because I do not believe that those right hon. and hon. Members who are now Ministers in this Labour Government participated in those debates 10 or 15 years ago because they were paid to do so. The fact that they were sponsored by a trade union or whatever was incidental.
The idea that my hon. Friend was influenced by her ownership of a property in Portugal to participate in affairs to do with that country in this House is monstrous. We do ourselves a disservice if we try to pretend to people outside that my hon. Friend had such a serious interest in some property in Portugal, or even two properties, that it influenced the way in which she behaved in the House. We would be telling the public that this place is behaving in a way that none of us intended.
Does the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) still wish to intervene?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: No, the hon. Gentleman has moved on.
Mr. Howarth: Fine.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman read out the rule of the House and the test that has to be applied. It is not a subjective test as to whether the hon. Member for

455
Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) felt that she was moved by her role as a landlord to take a particular view of the Rent Acts; it is an objective test to do with pubic perception. In making his case, the hon. Gentleman seems completely to have lost sight of that fact.
Mr. Howarth: I am sorry, but I do not think that public perception is such a readily identifiable objective test.
I do not believe that, given my hon. Friend's consistently proclaimed position on the matter in question and on deregulation in general, one could possibly suggest that her ownership of properties in south London—whether she did own them or not—was a factor that influenced the way in which she behaved in the House. I used to represent a mining constituency and participated in many mining debates in which coal miner after coal miner spoke passionately on an issue in which they clearly had an interest. Of course, they declared it, but no one sought to belittle them because they spoke with passion about an industry in which they had a close and personal interest.
Mr. Bill Tynan rose—
Mr. Howarth: I will give way once more and then I must get on and finish.
Mr. Tynan: I am reluctant to speak, but I am saddened by the tenor of the debate. Hon. Members who have decided to participate are doing so for the best reasons—to sustain a Member of the House who is in trouble. I appreciate why they are doing it. However, although I am relatively new Member, I also appreciate the fact that the House created a procedure providing for a Committee to investigate such cases. I ask the House to recognise not only that such a Committee was established in this case, but that it attempted in fairness to ensure that justice was done. I ask hon. Members to accept that the Committee should be treated with the respect that its deserves.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I have been indulgent to the hon. Gentleman, who is a new Member, but he should remember in future that interventions must be brief.
Mr. Howarth: I quite understand why the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) wished to intervene. He is a new hon. Member, and I am sure that we all welcome him as Lord Robertson's successor.
I appreciate that the Committee is an all-party one. I have made the point before that, formerly, the Committee was presided over by the Prime Minister of the day and composed entirely of very senior hon. Members. That is the way it should be. I do not believe that new hon. Members should be members of the Committee. However, I do not wish to deal with what we should do about the future, but simply to consider the specific case and the dangers that might arise if the House were to approve the Committee's report.
As I said, the proposed penalty is draconian. We have to ask ourselves what damage has been done to the House by my hon. Friend. Perhaps the real damage is that she failed to take advantage of the assistance of one of my
456
right hon. and learned Friends, who—for a very small fee, or perhaps a very large fee—might have been enabled her to deal more expeditiously with the Committee.
The proposed penalty is not only draconian, but wholly out of proportion to any damage. It also sits very uncomfortably with decisions made in cases involving prominent Labour Members. As for perceptions, the danger for Labour Members is that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool—who is a very senior man—was able to preside in investigations of the company affairs of another Minister without declaring to his own private secretary that he was in receipt of a very substantial loan from that other Minister—
Maria Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howarth: I shall not give way.
Within a year, the right hon. Gentleman was not only back in the Government, but in the Cabinet. However, my hon. Friend—who had a lapse of memory, did not remember all the details, and perhaps gave the Committee a bit of a hard time as well—will have imposed on her the most draconian penalty that the Committee has dished out since the general election. That is unfair, and that is why the House, should it decide to support the Committee on the proposed penalty, will be making a grave decision.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was on the Committee, and I know him to be an extremely fair man. I also appreciate that the Committee takes its decisions on an all-party basis. Nevertheless, on the proposed penalty, I think that he and his colleagues are quite wrong.
5.43 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I had not intended to speak in the debate—I am the newest member of the Standards and Privileges Committee—but I have become extremely concerned about the tone of the debate. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) asked what damage the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has done to the reputation of the House. I tell him that Conservative Members, in this debate, are doing more damage to the reputation of the House than the hon. Lady has done.
The speeches by Conservative Members—with the honourable exceptions of the shadow Leader of the House and the former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell)—have been made in the manner of Mark Antony, suggesting that the Committee was honourable, but then seeking to undermine not only the Committee's judgment and work, but the process. We should be very cautious on that particular point.
I dissent entirely from the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). This is not a judicial procedure, and a suggestion that it should be treated as such is quite contrary to the purpose of the Committee and the way in which the House judges its business. The suggestion that people do not sit in judgment on their peers is a denial of what life is mostly about. People are always sitting in judgment on their peers. How on earth do people get promotion, demotion or the sack other than by being disciplined by their peers and people with whom they work?

457
The House has determined that we wish to establish standards of conduct by which we judge ourselves. The last thing that we want to do is put that process in the hands of barrack-room lawyers outside the processes of the House.
The issue in this case was whether the hon. Lady had a registerable interest to declare and had failed to declare it. It is that simple. The Committee concluded that she had and that she then tried to hide the fact.
This is the first report in which I have been involved. I was very impressed by the time and the trouble that was taken to ensure that every fact was considered objectively and in detail and that everybody had their say. Where there were doubts, we went back over the ground to ensure that we did not proceed until we had secured agreement.
Mr. Dalyell: Who are the barrack-room lawyers outside the House whom we are supposed to have suggested?
Mr. Bruce: I do not know. It was the hon. Gentleman who wanted to bring in the lawyers. My suggestion was that the procedure was best kept within the House and not handed over to judicial process. Some of the senior Conservative Members who have spoken were disingenuous if they were seriously suggesting that that would be an appropriate way forward. They have done a disservice to the House, the Committee and our proceedings by suggesting that, because they know that they were trying to throw up a smokescreen. I hope that the House will move to a decision on the basis of this appropriate and detailed Committee report, which has been considered very carefully and has the support of hon. Members on both sides.
5.47 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Like the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan), I had not intended to take part in the debate. I just want to say a couple of things and I promise to be brief.
Many Labour Members have a deal of affection and respect for the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). I remember the time when she and I—in the company of others—were almost involved in a plane crash in South Australia. In those dreadful minutes before we crash-landed, she behaved with immense courage. I was white-knuckled at the time. However, she has been ill served by her defenders this afternoon.
If the motion is passed, I know that the hon. Lady will behave with the same dignity and rectitude as were shown by my hon. and old Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) when he was rightly suspended for what he has admitted this afternoon was a transgression.
I have complete confidence in the integrity of the members of the Committee. I pray to heaven that I shall never appear in front of them, but I know that I would get a fair and just hearing. One Conservative Member kept talking about the audience outside. There are a number of audiences, including the two devolved Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament, which are dealing with legislation on ethics and standards. The Scottish Parliament is doing that at the moment. I hope that they all learn from how we conduct ourselves. This sounds very self-regarding,
458
although I am not a member of the Committee, but much of what we do in dealing with Members of Parliament whom we believe have transgressed and broken the code of conduct is admirable.
If the motion is passed, I know that the hon. Lady will behave with the same dignity as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West. Her defenders this afternoon have served her badly.
5.50 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) in wishing the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) well? We pay tribute to the woman concerned and to Duncan Goodhew for taking action immediately when the right hon. Gentleman was taken ill a week ago.
My views on the matter before us are reflected in the Committee's report, and I will not rehearse them. However, published with the report are the minutes of evidence that were taken before the previous report on my hon. Friend. I should like to quote from one of the replies that she gave on page 4 of the evidence given on 18 May 1999. In answer to a question from the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), my hon. Friend said:
But I perceived the Members' interests Register as a document listing income which I was receiving from elsewhere and where I was not receiving income I did not consider that was a matter that needed to be declared. I acknowledge again that that was an error of judgment on my part for which I am extremely apologetic and sorry, and that is what I want to say.
I think that the memory from this debate and from the second report should be those words—my hon. Friend was right then. I think that the learned counsel who was quoted in one of the letters is wrong. I believe that the learned counsel and others who may follow these debates and consider what to do, especially if we get close to adopting the Nicholls recommendations, should consider paragraph 39 of our report on page xiii, which states:
Members have a duty of accountability under the Code of Conduct and "must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office".
The relevant footnote 61 refers to the House of Commons paper 688, Session 1995–96, page 3.
No one in this debate has challenged the commissioner's fact-finding. That is a good thing. The first question is whether my hon. Friend should have registered information to begin with, the second is whether she should have made a declaration.
When a complaint is made, the commissioner has to ask whether there is a prima facie reason to investigate it. When complaints are put formally to an hon. Member, that hon. Member would have a duty to give the commissioner all the information available so that the commissioner can easily find out the facts. On some complaints, the commissioner finds that there is no case to investigate. On others, there is a case to investigate, but responses show that there is no need to take it any further. If there is a difference of view, or an hon. Member's view has changed, the hon. Member should say that it would have been better to register, do so, and say to the Committee, as my hon. Friend did on 18 May, that she had changed her view.
I do not necessarily agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), but he challenged neither our procedure

459
nor our conclusions. I disagree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that such matters should go to a tribunal or a court of law. I should like my voice to be taken into account. We are capable of considering the findings of fact by the commissioner, and I believe that we have got it right. Things would have been very different if this inquiry had received the same co-operation as the previous one.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House

(i) approves the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (HC 260); and

(ii) accordingly suspends Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Member for Billericay, from the service of the House for one month.

Orders of the Day

  Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.54 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill fulfils a commitment that I made in a written statement to the House on 5 November 1998 to introduce legislation as soon as the programme permitted. The Bill will give statutory authority to charges made by the Sea Fish Industry Authority for handling applications for fishing vessel grants. These charges were discontinued in May 1996, and the Bill does not allow for their reintroduction.
  The Bill is very short and straightforward, but the background, as with many legal issues, is complex. Indeed, the background to the Bill is rather longer than the Bill itself. I hope that the House will find my introduction to the issues that required the introduction of the Bill helpful.
  First, I should make it clear that the Bill is not a vehicle for introducing financial assistance to the fisheries industry. It is, intended solely to deal with the charges levied in the past. In that respect, it is a very narrow measure. There will be further opportunities to discuss those issues.
  The Bill's purpose is to ensure that the charges levied by the Sea Fish Industry Authority between 1 October 1981 and 3 May 1996 in connection with the administration of certain grant schemes that were made under the Fisheries Act 1981 were proper. It also ensures the validity of the charges made by the Sea Fish Industry Authority's predecessor, the Herring Industry Board between March 1972 and October 1981. The Herring Industry Board was abolished in 1981 but its liabilities were transferred to SFIA.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Morley: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to expand on the background to the Bill before I take interventions.
  The first charges that the Bill is intended to validate are known as technical charges. Those were levied by the Sea Fish Industry Authority to cover the costs of various checks and inspections that the authority carried out during the period from 1 October 1981 to 3 May 1996 in relation to applications under five different fishing vessel grant schemes. No other charges were made by the Sea Fish Industry Authority in administering the schemes during this period.
  Under a succession of schemes made under section 15 of the Fisheries Act 1981, grants have been made available to fishermen in the United Kingdom for the construction, improvement or safety of vessels. These have all been administered by the Sea Fish Industry Authority on behalf of Ministers, as provided by section 16 of the Fisheries Act 1981.

  461
  The SFIA has surveyors' offices in Hull, Plymouth and Peterhead, but grant payments have always been made from Edinburgh. The technical charges covered the costs incurred by SFIA marine surveyors in inspecting vessels at the application stage. Those inspections checked on what work was needed, including examination of technical specifications and plans, and inspection on completion of work so that the surveyor could satisfy himself that the work, which had been grant-aided, had been carried out properly. The charge was calculated on a sliding scale but on average was around 4 per cent. of the cost of the work, although a maximum ceiling was set to limit the charge applied to larger applications.
  The charge was itself eligible for aid under the grant schemes, which meant that vessel owners bore only 70 per cent. of the charge. The SFIA levied its charges by deducting the total charge from the amount of grant paid to the beneficiary.
  On Government charging, the guiding principle is that a public body may not generally make a charge for a service without statutory authority or the agreement of the "customer". Questions about the validity of the technical charges were first raised in 1995, when officials were examining material that the SFIA had produced to implement the Fishing Vessels (Safety Improvements) (Grants) Scheme 1995. Although section 3 of the Fisheries Act 1981 gives the SFIA power to charge for certain services, there were doubts as to whether this power extended to the SFIA levying its "technical charges". When the SFIA administers a fishing grant scheme, it does so, under section 16 of the 1981 Act, on behalf of Ministers. Its powers, therefore, are essentially those of the Ministers for whom it acts. Since Ministers had no automatic power to make charges in relation to the schemes, it seemed doubtful whether the authority had the power to charge.
  Against this, it was noted that applicants had signed the SFIA' s conditions of approval for the payment of grant, and those referred to the deduction of the technical charge from the overall level of grant. I emphasise that no objections about the deduction of the technical charge were ever received from grant recipients.
  The issues were extremely complex and were given thorough consideration. The conclusion reached was that it was doubtful whether the SFIA had legal power to levy its technical charges. In the light of that, the authority was formally instructed to cease levying the charges on 3 May 1996.
  It was then decided that the charge should not be reintroduced, because the nature of the grant schemes had changed and much less technical work was involved in processing applications. The Bill, therefore, does not give authority for technical charges to be levied for any period after 3 May 1996; it does not introduce retrospective charges.
  My written answer on 5 November 1998, in Hansard, column 660W, announced the Government's commitment to legislate when our programme allowed. That announcement made it clear that MAFF did not intend to meet any claims that were brought before the legislation was in place. There were three reasons for that. First, the charge for administering the grants was reasonable. Secondly, it has never been challenged—no complaints about it have been received. Thirdly, the cost of repaying the charge would be disproportionate to the benefit that such repayment would confer on those who paid it.
  462
  There are precedents for the provision of retrospective statutory authority for similar charges. The Birds (Registration Charges) Act 1997 validated charges levied under sections 6 and 7 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for the registration and selling of certain dead birds. The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1954 also gave authority to past payments made to the Postmaster General for wireless transmission and receiving licences.
  Background work on the Bill raised the possibility that similar charges levied by the predecessor body to the SFIA—the Herring Industry Board—in connection with the schemes of financial assistance made under the Sea Fish Industry Act 1970 and earlier legislation consolidated in that Act might also have been of doubtful validity. After careful consideration, it was concluded that the HIB also had no power to levy those charges. Consistent with the treatment of the SFIA charges, it was thus decided to extend the coverage of the Bill to the equivalent HIB charges.
  Section 6 of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act 1953, as amended, enabled the HIB to make grants to persons engaged, or proposing to become engaged, in the herring industry for acquiring or improving fishing vessels under a certain size limit. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) might understand why I thought I should explain the background before I took interventions.
  Acting under section 6 of the 1953 Act, as amended, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland introduced the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) Grants) scheme in 1967, enabling the HIB to make grants. A similar scheme to enable the HIB to make grants was introduced in 1976.
  Charges levied by the HIB in relation to those two schemes were on the same sort of fishing vessel grant applications as those made to the SFIA and were calculated using a very similar formula to that later used by the SFIA. The same considerations as to the reasonableness of the charges and the disproportionate cost of any repayments applied to those charges just as they applied to the SFIA charges. Indeed, the difficulties of making any repayments would be even greater, given the longer time that has elapsed. The Government have therefore decided to legislate to validate those charges too, because the charges are equivalent to those levied by the SFIA. The Government would also not intend to meet any claims made before the legislation in respect of them is in place.
  Mr. John Bercow: In order to ensure that the debate is not intelligible only to those who have participated on previous occasions, will the hon. Gentleman do me the good turn of assisting the House by explaining the formula—in some detail, if necessary—for the elucidation of right hon. and hon. Members?
  Mr. Morley: As I said in my introduction, I realise that this is a complex, technical and narrow measure that relates to charges. I am presenting a full explanation to the House. With the leave of the House, I am willing to clarify any points that hon. Members raise in the course of the debate.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: From the hon. Gentleman's description, it sounds as though the charging

  463
  has come about through custom and practice, rather being made than on a statutory basis. He has traced it back to the HIB. Was it custom and practice then, or did the charging scheme exist before the HIB?
  Mr. Morley: No, the charge goes back to the HIB—that is far enough for anyone. It was not based on custom and practice; it came about in relation to the administration of grants. When grants were paid out, the boats were inspected to ensure that the money was being correctly used—that the work had been done properly and that the grant conditions had been upheld. That is right in order to protect public funds, and is normal when any local authority or Government grant is made.
  The question was whether the HIB and its successor—the SFIA—actually had the authority to charge for those grants. The Bill makes it clear that they did have that authority, even though it will be applied retrospectively under the measure.
  Mr. Forth: The Minister will be aware of the Sea Fish Industry Act 1951. Section 15(2)(a) states that the then authority
  shall have power … to raise by means of a general levy
  the moneys necessary. It then refers to voluntary payments.
  If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to trace the history of the Act from 1951 to the present, because there is a continuum. Does the Minister agree that authority may arise from the 1951 Act—not to mention its successors?
  Mr. Morley: In an earlier debate today, we heard of the benefit of engaging the best legal brains to give advice on such issues. I am advised that the matter has been examined carefully to find which provisions are applicable. The feeling was that, in order to ensure that there is no doubt about the situation, a measure could be introduced, because it would make it clear where matters stand—both to the industry and to the Government—and that charges were levied with the proper authority.
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: The Minister referred to the legislation on the HIB. Will he tell the House how the White Fish Authority and legislation linked with the HIB are germane to the Bill?
  Mr. Morley: It is germane because the HIB was the predecessor to the SFIA. The HIB administered charges that were, in essence, the same as those administered under the SFIA and for the same kind of grant administration. There was thus an element of doubt. If there is doubt as to the legal status of the SFIA in relation to charging, the same doubt must apply to its predecessor.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Morley: I should like to make progress with my remarks. I realise that this is not one of the most scintillating speeches ever made in the House, but it is important that I explain what is at stake, and the technicalities of the measure.
  464
  The total amount of money levied in charges was £7.3 million; it covers 13,000 cases over about 30 years. On average, that amounted to about £560 per case. However, as up to 30 per cent. of the charge was offset by grant, the cost to the applicant was about £390. A small part of many of the charges was for technical advice—such as assisting applicants to choose the appropriate equipment—and was not directly connected with handling the grant application. The SFIA did, and does, have powers under the Fisheries Act 1981 to charge for such of advice, but it would now be extremely difficult to separate that from charges for the work that necessitated the Bill.
  Because of the time delay, it is difficult to be more precise about the exact amount of the charge than the figure of £7.3 million. I am sure that the House realises that, even if we wanted to trace the owners of boats on which charges were levied, it would be impossible to do so.
  The Bill's first main operative provision is in clause 1(1). It will ensure the validity of the charges levied by the Sea Fish Industry Authority between October 1981 and May 1996 in connection with its administering four fishing vessel grant schemes made under section 15 of the Fisheries Act 1981 and also the 1976 scheme to which I have already referred. Under the 1981 Act, the responsibility for administering the latter scheme passed to the SFIA. The schemes are the five specified in paragraphs (a) to (e) of clause 1(2).
  Clause 2(1) makes provision to ensure the validity of the same technical charges levied by the HIB between March 1972 and October 1981 in connection with its administering the two fishing vessel grant schemes specified in subsections 2(a) and (b).
  Clause 3 cites the full name of the Bill. No charges were levied for the administration work after 3 May 1996 and clause 3(2) is necessary to make it clear that the Bill does not facilitate the reintroduction of any charges after that date. Clause 3(3) is necessary to establish that the Bill extends to the whole United Kingdom including Northern Ireland.
  I appreciate that this is a narrow and technical measure. However, it will protect from any doubt the issue of the payment of public funds. I emphasise that there have not been any complaints from the fishing industry about the charges, which were levied fairly in relation to the services that were provided as part of the administration of grant aid that was claimed at the time.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: In the light of the fishing industry's parlous state, it is incredible that, at his first opportunity to speak to the House since the Fisheries Council met in December, the Minister should have chosen to introduce a Bill that is at best obtuse, as he readily agreed: he also said virtually nothing about the industry's problems, and certainly proffered no short or long-term solutions to them.
  Although I accept that the Bill is narrowly drawn—and I am sure that the occupant of the Chair will exert his responsibilities in that regard—I have to say that we have very few opportunities to discuss fishing in all its facets on the Floor of the House. The bulk of the legislation is a devolved European matter. At the time of the annual fishing debate in November last year, there was

  465
  considerable disquiet about the short time afforded for discussion. After the Minister made his contribution, only two Back Benchers were able to speak.
  The problem was recognised by the Leader of the House at business questions on 19 January. The right hon. Lady was asked about the loss of this Bill on that day's business and she said:
  I was not pressed to find more time for the Bill that was debated this evening, I was pressed to find an opportunity to discuss fishing issues. My hon. Friend will know that one of the Bills that has been lost for today's business, as a result of the activities of Opposition Members, would have offered an opportunity to discuss fishing issues.—[Official Report, 19 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 941.]
  That was her view of the Bill.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend will be aware that the explanatory notes to the Bill refer to the Fisheries Act 1981, which is the key to the whole thing. Section 15 mentions schemes of financial assistance
  for the purpose of reorganising, developing or promoting the sea fish industry.
  Does my hon. Friend not agree that the whole point behind the series of Acts—to say nothing of the statutory instruments—that lie behind the Bill was, among other things, to promote the sea fish industry? That should have given the Minister the opportunity to tell us how the Bill contributes to that broad purpose.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I can help the right hon. Gentleman. The Bill does not provide the platform for the wider-ranging debate for which he had hoped. I cannot allow hon. Members to go down that path.
  Mr. Moss: Such is the critical nature of the issues facing the fishing industry that I think that almost every Member representing a fishing constituency will have been lobbied hard about its difficulties. The industry is almost in despair at the increasing level of regulation and cuts. Such are its fears for the future that it has launched a most unprecedented attack on the Minister by demanding his resignation. It has set a six-point plan in front of him, and criticises him on two counts relating to the detail in the Bill.
  The criticisms relate to the Government's lack provision of any grants for fleet modernisation, the very points that were made—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that I have to repeat my advice. Members cannot have a general debate about the state of the fishing industry, however much they crave one. It is a narrow and technical Bill.
  Mr. Moss: I bow to your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am an honorary president of the Clyde Fishermen's Association and the brother of the skipper of a big freezer trawler. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that no representations have been made to me about the Bill. That is because its focus is narrow.
  Mr. Moss: The point that needs emphasising is that the Bill offers the Minister the opportunity to say something about grants and safety grants, which he has pointedly refused to do.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is specifically not the case. I ask the hon. Gentleman to desist from pursuing that point.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not Question Time. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) has not said anything on which the hon. Gentleman can intervene.
  Mr. Moss: Let me move to a separate part of my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Atkinson rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should abide by my previous ruling. Nothing of substance has yet been said on which he can intervene.
  Mr. Moss: As the Minister pointed out, the Bill's purpose is to ensure the validity of certain charges levied by the SFIA and by the Herring Industry Board and the White Fish Authority, which had their powers transferred to the SFIA in 1981. I asked the Minister to clarify the position of the White Fish Authority and he pointedly failed to do so. However, along with the HIB, it was a precursor of the SFIA.
  At the heart of the matter is the Fisheries Act 1981, which set up the SFIA and, in particular, its role in administering various schemes of financial assistance under part II of that Act. When one delves into that Act, it is not apparent that any glaring oversight was made when it was enacted. The intentions of the original lawmakers were clear and unambiguous.
  Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend says that the Bill may be necessary to ensure that there is no doubt about the validity of the charges, but has there been any legal challenge to them? The Minister shakes his head, so I assume that there has not. That raises a serious question as to why the Bill is necessary. Fishermen, as they see their industry going down the tube, might wonder why the House is debating such a narrow Bill and why the Minister is like Nero, fiddling while Rome burns. The House is wasting its time when it should be discussing the real problems of the industry.
  Mr. Moss: My hon. Friend makes a telling point, to which I was going to come later.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Moss: No, I shall not give way just at the moment.
  Section 3(2) of the Fisheries Act 1981 states that the SFIA
  may charge fees for any services which it provides and may accept voluntary contributions to its expenses or to its expenses in respect of any particular matter.

  467
  The charges that the Bill seeks to validate, which are known as technical charges in the accounts of the SFIA, are those that are levied by the SFIA to cover the costs of various checks and inspections carried out by marine surveyors as part of the administration of the various grant schemes in the statutory instruments referred to in the Bill. Those grant schemes are essentially of two types: one relates to the purchase and/or improvement of fishing vessels, and the other specifically to safety improvements to fishing vessels.
  In sections 15 and 16 in part II of the 1981 Act, Ministers were given powers to provide schemes of financial assistance and to delegate the administration of such schemes to the SFIA. For the avoidance of any doubt or confusion regarding those powers, section 15(1) says:
  The Ministers may, in accordance with a scheme made by them with the approval of the Treasury, make grants or loans for the purpose of re-organising, developing or promoting the sea fish industry or of contributing to the expenses of those engaged in it.
  It is clear that Ministers can set up schemes to give financial assistance of the type described in the Bill.
  To embrace earlier schemes that were already in the pipeline, subsection (5) includes those schemes administered by the White Fish Authority under section 49 of the Sea Fish Industry Act 1970. The interesting point is that the White Fish Authority seems to have had powers both to issue grants and to make charges for administering the schemes, including technical charges—or so it was believed when the White Fish Authority became the SFIA.
  Section 16 of the 1981 Act covers the delegation of powers to the SFIA. It states that
  Ministers may require the Sea Fish Industry Authority to administer for them any scheme made by them under this Part of this Act and where the Authority has been so required it shall administer the scheme accordingly and may exercise any discretion vested under the scheme in the Ministers.
  The purpose of that section is clear: if a Minister requires the SFIA to administer any scheme of financial assistance for the fishing industry, it is duty bound to do that for the Minister.
  If I interpret the Act correctly, the SFIA is also empowered to exercise any discretion that Ministers had vested in themselves, either in the primary legislation or in the various statutory instruments relating to the individual schemes. As I said earlier, those statutory instruments are in two groups. The first includes the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) Schemes 1976, 1981 and 1987, and the second includes the Fishing Vessels (Safety Improvements) (Grants) Schemes 1993 and 1995.
  Let us examine those statutory instruments more closely: apart from the most obvious changes relating to rates of grant, each one provided an opportunity to tighten up the wording and widen the scope of the legislation. That was confirmed by the Minister in his speech. As the House is aware, neither of the schemes for grant aid is now available—the last to go was the safety improvement grant scheme, which the Minister chopped last May—and the SFIA was instructed not to make any further technical charges after 1995. However, there were and still are schemes being administered from that date and from May 1996, which was the date for the discontinuance of the safety grant scheme.
  468
  What were the technical charges composed of? We can obtain some idea of that from the relevant paragraphs of the statutory instruments. Let us consider, for example, the safety improvements grants scheme of 1995. At the beginning there is a simple statement that Ministers—meaning Ministers at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland—can exercise powers conferred on them by subsections 15(1) and 15(2) of the 1981 Act and administer the scheme on the safety improvement grants. Applications for grant are made to Ministers under paragraph 3 of the statutory instrument and decided by them under paragraph 6.
  Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 set down eligibility terms for grant payment, pre-work approval and minimum standards. Paragraphs 8 and 9 give the House an indication of the amount of work involved. On pre-work approval, paragraph 8(1) says:
  Where an applicant whose application has been approved under paragraph 6 intends to enter into a contract with another person for the carrying out of the whole or any part of a relevant improvement to which the approved application relates, the Ministers shall, before the contract is made, approve—

  (a) the specification for the improvement to be undertaken;

  (b) the tender for expenditure to be incurred; and

  (c) the form of contract to be entered into between the applicant and the supplier or other contractor.

  Paragraph 9, on minimum standards, says:
  A relevant vessel to which an application approved under paragraph 6 relates shall conform to any standards laid down by or under the Merchant Shipping Acts 1894 to 1993 and shall be constructed or adapted so as to make such provision for the accommodation of officers and crew as, in the opinion of the Ministers, conforms to the best modern practice, after making due allowance for the age and kind of the vessel, for sleeping and messing accommodation, sanitary accommodation, medical or first-aid facilities, store rooms, catering facilities and other accommodation.
  That is only part of the range of checks and inspections required to be carried out on each and every grant application, not only in 1995 but long before that, and probably as far back as the White Fish and Herring Industries Act 1953. That is work for experts such as marine engineers and surveyors, who would be drawn in the main from the private sector—certainly post-1981. Those people needed paying for the work done, and the question was, and apparently still is, who should pay them and through which Department or organisation.
  Ministers made the schemes, invited applications, vetted and approved those applications and reduced or recovered grant in certain situations. That much is clear. Section 16 of the 1981 Act gave Ministers the power to require the SFIA to do all that necessary work for them. Furthermore, section 16 gives the SFIA the power to exercise any discretion vested in Ministers under the scheme. If Ministers could cover their costs of administering the scheme, why could not the SFIA, to which they had devolved responsibility, do so? Surely section 3(2) of the Act confirms the SFIA' s authority to make charges, when it states clearly:
  The Authority may charge fees for any services which it provides.
  Charges were made on the applicants who had to match the criteria and conditions for the grant aid which were set by Ministers. Ministers could hardly countenance grant being given without corroboration from the SFIA that all the conditions had been satisfied. That meant checks and inspections, and payment for expert services.

  469
  No one is suggesting or has suggested that the recipient of the grant aid should not be the person eligible for the costs of processing and administering the grant application. Since 1995, when the SFIA was told to stop levying charges, the organisation has had to find the money to pay for those services out of its own budget. I remind the House that the SFIA's income comes from the levy on all
  persons engaged in the sea fish industry,
  according to section 4(1) of the 1981 Act. It seems that the many are supporting the grant applications of the few who stand to benefit.
  I return to my earlier statement that, on close scrutiny, there does not appear to be any glaring oversight by those who originally drafted the legislation with regard to the responsibilities of Ministers, the SFIA or its predecessors. Certainly, the SFIA interpreted the law as I have attempted to describe it to the House. It clearly believed that it was given full authority to administer the various grant schemes and to make charges for its services.
  It should be emphasised that the conduct of the SFIA was impeccable and beyond reproach. I hoped that the Minister would make that point in his opening speech. Perhaps he will emphasise the fact when he winds up. The SFIA inherited the system from its predecessors, the Herring Industry Board and the White Fish Authority, and continued to make technical charges in good faith.
  Even the explanatory notes that accompany the Bill, which were no doubt written by the lawyers who drafted the Bill, are less than convincing on the question of who had the real authority. On page 3, paragraph 11, the notes conclude, as justification for the primary legislation:
  It is considered doubtful that the Authority—
  that refers to the SFIA—
  had statutory authority to make these charges.
  What a monumental understatement—"It is considered doubtful". One is left wondering whether it is considered doubtful that the Bill deals conclusively with the problems that it purports to solve.
  Mr. David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My eye also alighted on that statement in paragraph 11 of the notes. As that doubt is the entire justification for the Bill, would it not have been helpful if the legal advice on which that doubt is based was vouchsafed to the rest of the House, so that we could form our own opinion?
  Mr. Moss: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, which should be addressed to the Minister rather than to me. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that important issue when he winds up.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I reinforce the comment of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). Does my hon. Friend agree that it is particularly important that the legal advice should be published, for it is not inconceivable that someone who disagrees with the Government's conclusion might seek to protect himself under the European convention on human rights? It is important that the House should know to what it is giving its approval.
  Mr. Moss: I agree with my hon. Friend. No doubt the Minister will have access to the published guidance, which I am sure is at hand, and he could refer to that when he winds up the debate.
  470
  One cannot help but feel that the Bill is not the stuff of primary legislation on the Floor of the House, especially as it is taking up valuable parliamentary time, which I and many others believe could be put to more meaningful use.
  The total charges levied by the Herring Industry Board and the SFIA since 1972—that is, over 24 years to 1996, when the last technical charges were made—were £7.3 million, covering 13,000 cases. To put that into perspective, the SFIA was approving safety grants alone at the rate of more than £1 million a year up to 1996.
  The fishing industry will be dismayed to learn that, of all legislation seeking to help its parlous situation, the Government have produced this Bill. Yes, it purports to block a perceived loophole, but even the Minister was not convinced of the existence of the loophole. Yes, it deals retrospectively with the problem, and yes, ironically, it touches on the vexed and pertinent issue of grant aid to the fishing industry.
  Given the content of the Bill and the promises made by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister to reintroduce safety grants for the industry, why did not the Minister do the decent thing this evening and table additional clauses to the Bill to right the wrong and reintroduce safety grants?
  The fishing industry will yet again be incredulous about the level of commitment from the Minister and his complete lack of tact and sensitivity in presenting such an inconsequential Bill in a crowded parliamentary timetable. That says much about the Government's priorities and lack of understanding of the real issues.
  6.37 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I begin by responding to the closing remarks of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). We have an excellent Minister. There is no way that I can be described as a sycophant—
  Mr. Forth: Grovelling.
  Dr. Godman: I do not have to grovel—not when I am speaking about the fishing industry, about which I know something, as does the hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend), even if the Opposition's official fisheries spokesman knows little or nothing about the industry.
  The industry has been badly served by both Tory and Labour fisheries Ministers down the years, but my hon. Friend is a good Minister.
  Mr. John Townend: Did I hear the hon. Gentleman correctly? Did he say that I knew little or nothing about the fishing industry?
  Dr. Godman: I would not dare say that about the hon. Gentleman. He is one of the few Opposition Members who attends fishing debates. I am sure he will agree that we do not have enough debates about the fishing industry. In no way would I suggest that he knows little or nothing about the industry. I know that he is a committed supporter of fishermen and their families in his constituency. I have offered that compliment to him in the past.

  471
  My hon. Friend the Minister rightly said that the Bill is narrowly focused. I acknowledge that, while agreeing with the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire that the industry deserves a wide-ranging debate in the near future. As I said earlier, I speak as a member of a fishing family. We have served the industry badly in the House until recently, when my hon. Friend assumed responsibility.
  I need to ask my hon. Friend a couple of questions, if he will forgive me for making him work. The Herring Industry Board was set up in 1927 or thereabouts, even when the herring industry—I speak as the son of a fisher girl—was in decline. The board had to be wound up many years ago.
  According to the Minister, who referred to both the Bill and the explanatory memorandum, the relevant period is from 1981 to 1996. The sum that we are discussing is £7.3 million, relating to 13,000 checks and inspections conducted by officials of the Sea Fish Industry Authority. I have considerable respect for the SFIA' s officials, who, I believe, are located in Young street, Edinburgh. Apparently, the original Herring Industry Board plaque is still on the wall.
  I feel that I must comment on the absence of certain political day trippers—members of the Scottish National party who are Members of the Scottish Parliament, and who receive £20,000 over and above their normal salaries. Although the Bill is narrowly focused, it is of more than passing interest to all our fishing communities in Scotland. I need hardly remind hon. Members and others that, in terms of the overall economy, the fishing industry in Scotland is much more important than the industry south of the border. Anyway, the day trippers have gone back to Edinburgh.
  What documentary evidence is retained by the Ministry, or by the authority in Edinburgh, concerning the 13,000 inspections? What power did the inspectors have in terms of recommending, say, that a fishing vessel should not be allowed to put to sea? What power was given to inspectors assessing safety equipment? Were they able to say that a vessel was so unseaworthy, or that its safety equipment had been so badly neglected, that it should not be allowed out?
  The Minister may say, "Hold on: the arrangements ended in 1996." But who has the power now? I tabled three questions for answer on Monday 13 March, asking how many fishing vessels had been banned from putting out to sea because of inadequate safety gear, or because they were unseaworthy. Questions are now being asked in relation to the dreadful loss of the seven-man crew of the Solway Harvester, a vessel owned by a company in Hull. I believe that the House should be told who now has that power. I believe it is exercised outwith the Ministry, by the Coastguard Agency, but, in the context of safety checks, does the Ministry liaise closely with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions?
  Mr. John Hayes: Given his renowned knowledge of these matters, the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the findings of the inquiry into sea fishing by the Agriculture Committee, which were published last year. I was fortunate enough to serve on the Committee during part of the inquiry. It
  472
  visited Iceland and many other interesting places, but that is neither here nor there: I shall not test your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Committee made two recommendations—recommendations 37 and 38—in regard to prosecutions for fishing infringements. It recommended that the Government
  commission a review of how the prosecution process for fishing offences could be made more efficient, more speedy and more consistent,
  and how the penalties for serious breaches of the regulations could be increased. The Committee was referring principally to regulations affecting the taking of fish—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Dr. Godman: Thank you for rescuing me from what seemed to be an interesting speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will make his own speech later, but he will need to hearken to what is said by the Chair in regard to the narrow focus of the Bill.
  I thought that the Agriculture Committee produced a very good report, but, although I am not a lawyer, I think I am right in saying that in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland, the penalties for fishing infringements—this certainly applies to those who are dragged before the sheriffs courts in Scotland—are much heavier than those imposed on owners for failing to protect their crews in relation to adequate safety measures. There is a hell of a difference between the two, and I think that that is a scandal. I have said it often enough before, but I will say it again.
  Mr. Hayes rose—
  Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman is going to have another try.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) is going wide of what is a very narrow Second Reading debate.
  Dr. Godman: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I was carried away. You know what I am like when I start talking about the fishing industry. I need to be more rational and logical.
  Let me ask this in relation to the Bill, and in relation to the question of safety checks. Between 1981 and 1996, were the inspectors able to recommend to the SFIA the legitimacy of an application to buy survival suits for the crews of fishing vessels? Life rafts were purchased during that period, along with other essential safety equipment. Some of the provision for that was introduced by Albert McQuarrie, a famous Tory Member and an old friend of mine, in a private Member's Bill concerned with the safety of fishing vessels, which later became an Act. But were the inspectors allowed—in the context of the inspection referred to specifically in the Bill—to sanction the purchase of survival suits?
  I remind the Minister, if he needs to be reminded, that in two recent cases men who have gone over the side have survived only because they were wearing survival suits. One lad who fell from an Orkney-based vessel was in the water for 20 minutes. Another fell from a vessel that was

  473
  burning, and was in the water for the same length of time. He suffered mild hypothermia, but because he was wearing one of the suits he survived. I want to know whether the inspectors were allowed to sanction their acquisition during the earlier period, and I want to know the position now in terms of safety grants.
  Let me ask another question in the context of the Bill. I know that the Minister has established a concordat and a very good working relationship with his colleagues in the Scottish Parliament—although things are a bit different with the Northern Ireland Assembly at the moment—but what discussions took place about the Bill with those responsible for the Scottish fishing industry and the Scottish Parliament?
  Mr. Hayes: May I intervene, more briefly than last time and on that specific point? In their response to the Agriculture Committee, the Government said:
  the Sea Fisheries Inspectorate and the Ministry's Legal Department recognise the importance of dealing with suspected infringements promptly and issuing summonses through the Courts in good time.
  Interestingly, they also noted that
  Separate legal systems operate in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
  They made that point quite firmly, suggesting that the problems referred to by the hon. Gentleman did exist.
  Dr. Godman: That was a remarkably brief intervention for the hon. Gentleman, who is always courteous. He makes an important point, but I do not want to drift off course, if you will pardon the expression, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Being the navigator that you are, you would sort me out.
  We are considering 1981 to 1996, but our anxieties did not end in 1996. I appreciate that primary responsibility for safety rests with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. My hon. Friend also has a commitment to the safety of fishermen and the well-being of their families and communities. We need a debate during which we can not only discuss the need to make our industry more economically viable for all the fishing communities from the Shetland islands to Cornwall, but consider introducing regulations, which give greater protection to fishermen as they follow the most hazardous occupation in our islands.
  6.51 pm
  Mr. Andrew George: Like other hon. Members, I regret that we have no adequate opportunity to debate fishing matters. However, this debate does not present such an opportunity, because we are considering a narrowly focused Bill. We cannot therefore spend many minutes regretting that.
  I appreciate the fact that the Bill is intended to be a tidying-up measure. For the reasons that the Minister outlined, it will clarify the powers of the Sea Fish Industry Authority by giving it the ability to levy administration charges for processing applications for grant aid. The Bill will apply retrospectively, and validate practice since the Fisheries Act 1981 was passed. Despite the comments and explanations of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), it is not appropriate to debate whether the Government's legal advisers were doing their job properly.
  474
  Hon. Members have drawn attention to paragraph 11 of the explanatory notes. It states:
  It is considered doubtful that the Authority had statutory authority to make these charges.
  We have to take that on trust. Perhaps the Minister will deal with the matter in his winding-up speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) rightly suggested that we should have access to that legal advice at a later stage. Apart from the bald statement that I quoted, we have no further evidence to go on.
  Mr. Bercow: I note the hon. Gentleman's last remark. May I infer from his comments that he, as the representative of a fishing constituency, and in the absence of published Government legal advice, would not feel comfortable supporting the Bill in the Lobby for fear of the possibility that, despite the Minister's assurances, it might not be compatible with convention rights?
  Mr. George: I am happy to support Second Reading. We will have an opportunity at a later stage to pore over the matter in more detail and perhaps resolve the matter. I do not believe that we shall store up problems simply by supporting the Government this evening. We intend to do that.
  As the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) rightly pointed out, I represent a constituency that has a considerable fishing interest. It is appropriate to point out that when I realised that the Bill would be discussed, I attempted to consult the industry as widely as possible, not only in my constituency but nationally and, indeed, internationally in England, Scotland and Cornwall—
  Dr. Godman: And Northern Ireland.
  Mr. George: Yes, and Northern Ireland. Like the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), I found that the industry had no burning ambition for the measure to be reviewed seriously, or that the House should be detained with matters of detail.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: When the hon. Gentleman consulted the fishing organisations, did he explain that it was possible that they had paid £7 million that they should not have paid? In the current financial climate, £7 million would be most welcome to the fishing industry.
  Mr. George: I am grateful for that intervention. The information about the 13,000 cases and £7.3 million was germane to the consultations and the industry knew about it. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) knows that if we examine the matter retrospectively, we must also consider Governments from 1981 who were responsible for overseeing the loss.
  The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire was right to draw attention, within the narrow scope of the Bill, to the need for the Minister to tackle fishing safety grants. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made a statement in May last year in which he announced the withdrawal of those grants. Yet in June, on a visit to Cornwall and the south-west amid much fanfare, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions had found the money to reinstate the grant. However, in a letter in November, the Deputy Prime Minister wrote to the chief

  475
  executive of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to say that the grants could not simply be restored as he had originally understood.
  We have covered that ground before, but the Minister knows that the industry is anxious to restore the grants. On a recent visit to Cornwall, which the Western Morning News reported, the Prime Minister stated we would get some news soon. We anticipate positive news that fishing safety grants will be reinstated soon. We are anxious for confirmation of that.
  Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman shared experiences on fishing trawlers with me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us more] I remember that we were linking arms.
  Safety grants came within the orbit of the 1981 discussions, with which the hon. Gentleman will be as familiar as I am. The Select Committee on Agriculture, on which we both served specifically referred to safety grants in the context of an ageing fleet. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that in relation to the Select Committee's work and recommendations?
  Mr. George: I am grateful for that intervention, which is relevant to the matter that I am considering. The Select Committee made important recommendations on the lines that I am outlining. I ask the Minister to tackle those points in his winding-up speech.
  The explanatory notes state that the SFIA was told to stop levying charges on 3 May 1996. However, we can find no public statement on that date, or any reference to the fact in the authority's annual report. We should consider what constitutes appropriate action by a public body. It is surprising that the matter was not considered sufficiently important.
  It being Seven o'clock, further proceedings stood postponed.

Opposition Day
[6TH ALLOTTED DAY—FIRST PART]
Opposition Day

  Tax Cuts and Public Services
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg to move,
  That this House notes the continued underfunding of the National Health Service compared to the European average, as recently highlighted by the Prime Minister, the continued underfunding of schools, with average class sizes rising for most age groups since the election of the Labour Government, that government investment in public transport is significantly below that provided by the previous Government, that police numbers are falling, and that the 75p increase in the weekly pension is grossly inadequate; and concludes that instead of tax cuts the Chancellor should give greater priority to further improvement in the National Health Service, schools funding, public transport, the police and a greater increase in state pensions.
  The House should listen to these words:
  Nobody wants to pay more taxes but cutting is another matter. What bothers me is whether the money that goes in tax cuts … would be better spent on areas of direct social need.
  They are not mine, but those of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) in The Daily Telegraph on 5 February. They were bravely and, we believe, rightly spoken and they are the substantive reason for the Liberal Democrats initiating tonight's debate. The Government are failing to meet their election pledges to save the national health service, prioritise education, education, education and ensure that pensioners share in the growing wealth of the nation. Instead, the one thing that we know the Chancellor will deliver in the new financial year is an income tax cut, which is not mentioned anywhere in Labour's manifesto. Not only that, but it seems that rich business men will be the biggest gainers from the Budget.
  All the briefings on the Budget, which now appear with monotonous regularity in the press, have one thing in common:
  the government … is on the side of the risk taker;
  there will be a "Budget for business"; and
  the budget will introduce tax breaks for share schemes and new corporate ventures.
  All of them say that the Chancellor is planning to cut capital gains tax. His previous changes, which were announced in the taper, saved the partners of Goldman Sachs in the United Kingdom alone £500 million, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) £1.5 million, and Lord Sainsbury £200 million. In other words, they were tax breaks for the rich, but in his 1996 Labour party conference speech the Chancellor said:
  While the Tories want a millionaire's tax cut for themselves … a
  Labour
  Chancellor will not waste money on boardroom excesses.
  He attacked the Conservatives for introducing policies similar to his own.

  477
  We do not favour tax increases any more than the hon. Member for Walton does if there is no good reason for them, but let us consider Labour's case. Its first point is that it is spending more and taxing less—that is the argument in the Prime Minister's amendment—but that is not true. The question for public services is not the percentage of tax take in the economy, but percentage spending. It was 39.6 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1996–97, but for the first three years under Labour, including this year, it fell to 39.3 per cent. The Chancellor has announced that it will be only 39.6 per cent. even at the end of this Parliament so the public sector spending percentage will be exactly that which the Government inherited from the Conservatives. Conservative spending, not surprisingly, delivers Conservative underfunding.
  Labour's second argument is that it is at least spending more on the priorities. Let us consider people's priorities, such as health. Waiting lists rose by 36,000 in December and now stand at 1,108,000, which does not fulfil Labour's so-called early pledge. Even worse, the number of out-patients who wait more than three months has risen from 248,000 to 512,000. Labour's NHS policy is not working. Why? Average spending under Labour will, over five years, be higher by only 0.01 per cent. of GDP than in the last five years under the Tories. It fell from 5.3 per cent. of GDP in the last year under the Tories to 5.2 per cent. in Labour's first year and was only 5.3 per cent. in its second year.
  Mr. John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Liberal Democrats believe that the average taxpayer pays too little and should pay more?
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point of the motion and the debate. We are arguing that taxpayers should not pay less than now on average and that the Government should forgo tax cuts at this stage because they have not fulfilled their pledges on health, education, pensions and the rest.
  Mr. Bill Rammell rose—
  Mrs. Anne Campbell rose—
  Mr. Taylor: I give way to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), but then I must make progress.
  Mr. Rammell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He may agree that there is a suspicion—I put it no higher than that—that the Liberal Democrats constantly commit themselves to more spending than they justify in terms of where the money would come from. When challenged, their usual defence is, "Refer to our Budget submission." Is he aware that when the Library contacted the office of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and Liberal Democrat headquarters, neither was willing or able to provide a copy? Does not that show the degree of Liberal Democrat disingenuousness on this issue, and is not it about time that they justified where the money would come from?
  Mr. Taylor: I can help the hon. Gentleman. First, I am now the spokesman on the issue and, secondly, this year's Budget submission has not yet been published.
  Mr. Rammell rose—
  Mr. Taylor: I have given way so will the hon. Gentleman let me make progress? He should perhaps be a little more careful in making his points. I want to discuss education.
  Mr. Campbell rose—
  Mr. Taylor: I shall give way in a moment, but let me make a little progress.
  Class sizes for the five to seven age group have fallen. The Labour pledge on that, although not yet met, is likely to be met soon—not because of extra funding, but because a transfer of resources has meant that class sizes for over-eights have risen every year since Labour came to power. The parents of five and six-year-olds who voted for lower class sizes for their children back in 1997 find that class sizes are higher. Nursery class sizes have also risen and secondary school class sizes are at their highest for 20 years. Why?
  Average spending is 4.8 per cent. of GDP, which is lower than the 5 per cent. average in the last five years under the Tories. Even by the end of the comprehensive spending review period, spending, according to the pre-Budget report, will fail to meet the Government's 5 per cent. target, which was only set in 1998. That is the result of the cut in their first two years in office to 4.7 per cent. of GDP, which was lower than in any of the last five years under the Conservatives.
  Mrs. Campbell: Is not the reality of the Liberal Democrats in local government different from the scenario that the hon. Gentleman describes? Is he aware that Liberal Democrats on Cambridge city council voted to cut not only the council tax, which was at a standstill, but £170,000 from neighbourhood planning in the ward in which they had recently conned people into voting them in at a by-election? Furthermore, is not it true that Councillor David Howarth, their leader on the council, is an economic policy adviser to Liberal Democrat Front Benchers?
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Lady may see the Liberal Democrats in control of Cambridge city council shortly, when she will learn for herself what the Liberal Democrats do to invest in education when in control. When Cornwall county council was under our control, we increased spending on schools year by year.
  There is a similar problem with public transport. There are record numbers of complaints, the number of late trains has increased by 25 per cent., London Underground breakdowns are up by 30 per cent., and spending compared with that under the Tories has been cut. Indeed, on the Government's own inflated figures, they will spend £130 million less of Government funds than they did last year. Their public transport investment is simply going down.
  The measly 73p increase for pensioners is outweighed just by the council tax rise, which has been predicted by the Government themselves, irrespective of any other

  479
  cost-of-living increases. The Chancellor likes to boast of the free television licence for those aged over 75, which we argued for and welcome, but it is not enough to say to a pensioner that he can watch television but cannot feed or heat himself following the 1.1 per cent. rise in the pension.
  What did the Labour manifesto say? It pledged to ensure that, like those in work, pensioners would benefit from growth in the economy, yet the income of those in work has increased by four times that of pensioners—so much for sharing the growth of the economy.
  In response to all that, the Chancellor comes up with the mantra "£40 billion for health and education." It is there again in the Labour amendment. I hope that the Labour Members who are here and, perhaps more significantly, the much larger number in marginal seats throughout the country, understand that it is not true. It is funny money. A Labour Member recently asked me why people do not understand that it takes time. Perhaps that is because people thought that the £40 billion was true. Certainly, Labour keeps peddling the figure; it does so again today.
  The reason people are not seeing the improvements in health and education that they would have expected with such massive investment is that that massive investment is not taking place. NHS spending of £20 billion is reduced to around £12 billion simply by stripping out inflation. Once we strip out triple- counting—adding three years together—the real increase this year will be only £2.3 billion. That is not negligible but, on average over the current Parliament, it is in line only with the investment that the Conservatives managed under the previous Prime Minister. This is a funny-money Chancellor.
  Waiting lists are increasing. Labour Members should not be surprised if people are disappointed by the Government's approach. If they had said that it was a hard process that would take time, that we could afford this now but that we would do more when we could, they might have carried the public with them, but the truth is—Labour Members know it—that they raised expectations beyond anything they could deliver. They had not got out of the habits of hype and exaggeration that they had displayed in opposition.
  Mr. William Cash: The hon. Gentleman may know that I share his concern about the fact that the Labour Government have broken their promises on public expenditure, but will he answer the following question on behalf of the Liberal Democrats? Does he repudiate the Treasury clamp, which in turn depends on the Maastricht criteria, which determine the 3 per cent. deficit rule? Would they refuse to accept that? Would they renegotiate it, or would they accept it, in which case they would break promises in the same way as the Labour Government?
  Mr. Taylor: I might have known that the hon. Gentleman would work Europe into the debate somehow. I congratulate him on his ability to do so in any circumstance, but we argued for that disciplined approach to economic management in advance of any European rules. We do not criticise the Government for taking that approach. It is the proper way to manage an economy.
  480
  If the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), had followed such disciplines when he was in the Treasury team, the Conservative Government would not have faced the boom-bust problems and the huge and growing deficit which led to their being kicked out of office.
  The £19 billion for schools is reduced to £13 billion when inflation is stripped out. There is only an additional £2.1 billion this year, but even that is an exaggeration as it counts local authority money that has already been spent. Most of those local authorities have already spent over SSA, so simply raising the SSA, which allows the Chancellor to come up with the phoney figures, does not deliver a single extra penny to schools.
  The real comparison is with our 1 p income tax pledge, which would have put more than £2 billion into education every year. Central Government investment in education is down to only £600 million extra this year. The cumulative real total is £4 billion over three years—if they prefer to do it on that phoney three-year basis. That is less than the average under the Conservatives. By comparison, the Liberal Democrat increase would have delivered more than £15 billion extra real money over a Parliament, not the funny money that the Chancellor likes to deliver.
  Mr. John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is making untypical sense for a Liberal Democrat, and I mean that in a kind way. He almost understates the case, if anything. If we take into account the funding of the teacher pay awards in the past two years, the financing of the standards fund and other initiatives, which have been borne by local authorities, the money that is going to schools at the sharp end—at the chalk face—is even less than when we scale it down in the way that he has done.
  Mr. Taylor: The Liberal Democrats support the improvements in pay for teachers. We argued that they were needed, so I will not criticise that aspect of spending, but the hon. Gentleman highlights the fact that little discretionary expenditure in schools has flowed through. When hon. Members, from whatever party, go to schools and talk about revenue funding issues, they find the real problems that schools face. With the declining school-age cohort, which means that fewer pupils are coming into school, the pain will get greater because schools' funding will be lost and teacher numbers will fall. Schools in rural areas such as mine are small and have little discretionary expenditure. They will be particularly badly hit.
  I turn to the final argument that the Chancellor and Prime Minister present, the latest pledge to nervous Back Benchers: they will deliver in the next comprehensive spending review. In other words, it will be all right on election night. Perhaps it will; we shall see. The Prime Minister promised an increase to European levels of health spending by the end of the second comprehensive spending review period, but did not define Europe, the average or spending.
  Then the Treasury told the newspapers that it was not a promise, just an aspiration; but even if the Chancellor does announce that funding—I sincerely hope he will; I believe that he can do it—even another £40 billion, £50 billion or £60 billion will not do if it is funny money. If the same tricks are used as in the last comprehensive spending review, it will not save Labour seats, or schools and hospitals.

  481
  What happens on the ground will ultimately determine people's verdict on the success, or otherwise, of the Government. A promise of funny money for schools will not win a single vote if class sizes increase. A promise of funny money for the NHS will not hold a marginal if people cannot get a hospital bed when they need it, or their cancer becomes inoperable while they wait for treatment.
  We have heard it before. We heard it from the Conservatives, the inventors of funny money. It is why they lost and it is a mistake for Labour to believe that hype and spin can overcome people's real experience, as the hon. Member for Walton clearly realises. They have failed to convince people over the past few Labour years. Inflated claims of extra funding deliver satisfactory headlines on Budget day, but do not deliver in schools or hospitals. People can see the unsatisfactory reality for themselves.
  Worst of all from the point of view of nervous Labour Back Benchers, even real money—I hope and believe that the Chancellor will deliver that in the comprehensive spending review, because he can—will not have an effect until after the next general election. If the Chancellor offers tax cuts today, and jam tomorrow in the Budget and the spending review, it will not help someone with cancer who needs treatment now, or a child in an overcrowded classroom this year.
  There is an alternative. The Chancellor has a huge war chest. He could start to spend it now, not on tax cuts but by investing in schools, hospitals and pensions this year, not next. That means that it has to be done in the next Budget, not the comprehensive spending review. An economically responsible programme for schools, hospitals and pensions could be delivered on 21 March if the Chancellor set aside tax cuts.
  Mr. Christopher Leslie rose—
  Mr. Taylor: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has a marginal seat himself, I think.
  Mr. Leslie: It is not so marginal. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Liberal Democrat manifesto for 1997 said:
  The basic state pension will remain indexed to prices?
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman fails to mention that it also said that we would give increases over and above that, and that we, unlike the Government, spelled out those increases in our costed programme. Our manifesto also pledged free prescription charges, free eye and dental tests and free television licences for the over-75s. In fact, our package was comprehensively more generous than the one that the Government have delivered. The Government offer pensioners a minuscule 73p increase, despite having the largest funding surplus in history.
  Let us stick to health, however, as that was the subject on which I expected the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) to intervene. From among the 70,000 nurses outside the NHS and below retirement age, we could recruit enough to fill 17,000 existing vacancies. The Prime Minister's claim that we must wait because trained staff do not exist is simply untrue. New drugs such as beta interferon are available now for multiple sclerosis sufferers; all we need is funding, and the Chancellor has
  482
  the money. Not one Labour Member—not even the hon. Member for Shipley—was elected on a pledge of income tax cuts. All of them pledged to save the NHS, prioritise education and give pensioners a fair share of rising wealth. Apart from Labour's hype, exaggeration and mathematical hyper-spin, the next CSR will include not a penny more for anyone until after the next general election.
  The Prime Minister has conceded that the NHS is underfunded. He told us we must wait, but a March Budget that prioritised hospitals, schools and pensions would deliver results in April. Bigger pensions, better hospitals and excellent schools are what the country wants, what the Liberal Democrats want and what even members of the Labour party—including many Labour Members—want.
  The question is whether the Chancellor will deliver. Labour Members with small majorities should hope so. Patients, pensioners, pupils and parents certainly hope so. But if the Chancellor's newspaper briefings are to be believed, the sad answer will be no. If that happens, the Labour party will throw away something important—the sense in the country in 1997 that the days of Tory lies about spending had gone, to be replaced by investment. To throw away that hope is to lose an opportunity for the Labour party, but also an opportunity to restore faith in politics, but I fear that that is exactly what the Chancellor will do.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for raising a point of order this stage, but it is an important one. A statement has been made to the media to the effect that the Home Secretary will issue a decision on General Pinochet at 8 am tomorrow. Are there any plans for such a statement to be made to the House, and can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, ensure that the statement comes first to the House rather than the media?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no knowledge of any statement to come before the House this evening.
  7.23 pm
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'welcomes the fact that the Government is making work pay and cutting taxes for hard-working families; welcomes the fact that, as a result, the tax rate on a typical family will be cut to its lowest level since 1972, and that, on average, families with children will be £740 a year better off; notes that the Liberal Democrats oppose the measures that made this possible, including the Working Families Tax Credit; further welcomes the fact that the Government is making record extra investment in public services, including an extra £40 billion in health and education; notes that this is far in excess of anything promised by the Liberal Democrats at the time of the last General Election; and notes the reckless and uncosted spending commitments made by the Liberal Democrats, which they have no idea how to pay for and which would take Britain back to Tory boom and bust.'.
  I welcome the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), who made his first speech in his new role as Treasury spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats. Frankly, however, he had a bit of a cheek talking about funny money and hype and spin because those words seemed admirably to describe his own speech. The hon. Gentleman was high on headline-grabbing statements, but

  483
  low on strategy and detail. I was grateful to hear him welcome the Government's disciplined economic management, but he failed—as his party continues to do—to appreciate how our strategy is developing.
  Mr. Cash: Will the Minister give way?
  Dawn Primarolo: No, but if the hon. Gentleman can apply a little self-discipline and let me make some progress, I shall happily give way eventually to what will inevitably be his second Euro-question of the evening.
  Any debate on tax and benefit reform and public spending must begin with the foundation of all modern economic policy-making—macroeconomic stability—and the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell seemed to agree with all that I am about to say on that. Our first priority, and our continuing commitment, is to deliver and lock in a platform of economic stability, leaving behind the boom and bust of past years. Our new, modern, monetary policy framework, with an independent Bank of England, is ensuring that interest rate decisions are taken in the best long-term interest of the economy, not for short-term political reasons.
  Our modern fiscal and public spending framework, based on two clear fiscal rules—the golden rule that we balance the current budget over the cycle, and the sustainable investment rule that, as we borrow only for investment, debt is held to a prudent and sustainable level—is ensuring that public finances are on a sustainable long-term footing. The hon. Gentleman claims to be committed to that strategy, but his speech demonstrated that he is not. He continues to make commitments on behalf of his party without telling us how they will be paid for.
  Our transparent policy making is building confidence and long-term security. In monetary policy, there is an open system of decision making through the publication of the Monetary Policy Committee's minutes, a system of voting, and full reporting to Parliament. Already, we are seeing the rewards of creating that new framework for monetary stability. Inflation is historically low and is set to remain close to target, and interest rates peaked at half the level of the early 1990s.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Dawn Primarolo: If my hon. Friend promises not to ask a question on Europe, I shall be happy to.
  Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend tempts me, but I wanted to illustrate her contrast between the Government's policy and that proposed by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor). We did not need to hear the hon. Gentleman's speech, because we can see Liberal Democrat practice. In Sheffield, the Liberal Democrats won last year on a platform of cutting council tax, increasing public spending on council services and reducing debt. In fact, there has been a 6 per cent. increase in council tax—three times the rate of inflation—massive cuts in libraries, leisure services and other vital services, across the board privatisation and a
  484
  £120 million increase in Sheffield's debt, which every Sheffield council tax payer will have to pay for. We heard the hon. Gentleman's waffle, but—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Dawn Primarolo: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and agree that the Liberal Democrats say one thing when they have no chance of power, but do something quite different when they have an opportunity to exercise it in local authorities.
  We have the same openness and disclosure in fiscal policy as in monetary policy, with key fiscal assumptions independently audited and far more information published than ever before to ensure properly informed debate and scrutiny. On the basis of prudent and cautious assumptions audited by the National Audit Office, we are firmly on course to balance the current Budget over the cycle, and, therefore, firmly on track to meet the first of our fiscal rules—the golden rule.
  We are also on target on our second fiscal rule—the sustainable investment rule. Under the previous Government, national debt doubled. In the past three years, under the Labour Government, debt as a share of national income has fallen from 44 per cent. to 42 per cent., and is estimated to be 38.2 per cent. by the end of this financial year, and 37 per cent. next year.
  Over the economic cycle, we will keep debt below 40 per cent. of national income. As a result of falling debt and lower long-term interest payments, in this financial year we are projected to have almost £4 billion lower payments than in previous years. That is money available for investment in front-line public services.
  Thanks to the steps that we have taken to achieve stability, sustained investment and low and stable inflation, more than 800,000 more people are in jobs than at the time of the general election. The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell made no mention of employment: of developing jobs and ensuring that people can work for their living.
  That platform of stability, with the new deal and our measures for investment and regeneration, will enable us steadily to increase employment. Our aim is for a higher percentage of people to be in work this decade than ever before.
  Mr. Phil Woolas: Does my hon. Friend recall that the major package of delivering employment—the new deal—was opposed by the Liberal Democrats, who voted against it?
  Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is right. The then leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), with regard to the windfall tax—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Liberal Members may make noises but they always want to spend money without telling us where it should be raised, and when we make proposals on how it can be raised, they object to and oppose them. Their then leader said:
  While we understand and support what the Government are trying to achieve in … tackling long-term unemployment and exclusion, we disagree profoundly with their means of funding it—the windfall tax."—[Official Report, 2 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 326.]
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Liberal Members who are sitting there sounding like sheep should understand that to replace the windfall tax to fund projects such as the new

  485
  deal they would need to put 3p on tax. They make no mention of that when they are telling us endlessly how they will spend their 1p. They have spent the magical 1 p a breathtaking number of times.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce rose—
  Dawn Primarolo: I am happy to welcome Mr. 1p to the Chamber.
  Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister acknowledge that we opposed the windfall tax in principle as a wrong tax, and not the new deal, for which we had our own package? How do the Government propose to maintain the new deal programme after the windfall tax yield has been spent? Does she have another windfall tax in mind, or some other tax that we have not yet heard about?
  Dawn Primarolo: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has noticed how successful the new deal has been in getting people into real jobs. Perhaps he was not here when I explained how we have created 800,000 new jobs—real jobs—since the general election.
  Having come this far, we will not relax our grip. We are doubly determined to avoid the mistakes of the Lawson era, when growth got out of control in the late 1980s, which led to stop/go, and the Major/Lamont mistake of the pre-election public spending spree of 1991–92, which was followed by tax increases in the mid-1990s. Those were attempts to make policies for political reasons that were not sustainable economically.
  Mr. Howard Flight: Will the Minister give way?
  Dawn Primarolo: I will when I have finished this point.
  Our emphasis on stability and sustainable public finances has enabled us to introduce two momentous reforms that have made a significant difference to millions of families, children and low-paid workers throughout the country: first, the comprehensive reform of the British tax and benefit system that we are now developing; and secondly, our massive programme of reform in the public services.
  I hope that, when I give way to the hon. Gentleman, he will finally tell the House whether his party is still opposed to the working families tax credit and the expenditure that we have committed to public services.
  Mr. Flight: The Minister spoke of economic mistakes of the past and the Government's determination to avoid them. Does that include the equivalent of locking into the exchange rate mechanism and interest rates allied to those of continental Europe, which, going in the wrong direction, arguably had the biggest impact on our economy?
  Dawn Primarolo: What always amazes me about Opposition Front Benchers is their ability not to be in tune with the public debate, or indeed debate in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman would not clarify whether his party still opposes investment in the public sector—whether,
  486
  for example, it believes in privatising the national health service—but seeks to take the debate in another direction. That may speak volumes to people outside the House.
  Mr. Edward Davey: The Minister talks about the hon. Gentleman clarifying his position on tax. Will she clarify her position on what the Liberal Democrats are proposing? Does she support extra investment in public services or the 1p off income tax that the Chancellor has announced for the coming Budget?
  Dawn Primarolo: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his prompt, as I come to that part of my speech. I hope that I will be able to answer his question as I deal with tax and benefit reform.
  Together, our reforms to integrate tax and benefits—the working families tax credit, which the Liberal Democrats opposed; the national minimum wage; the lop tax rate; the cut in the basic rate of tax; the rises in child benefit, which the Liberal Democrats opposed; and the national insurance reforms—are for the first time tackling the causes of poverty and fulfilling our essential commitment to reform welfare to make work pay. Our commitment is that work will pay more than benefits for everyone.
  The working families tax credit, introduced in October 1999, is already providing extra help for 1 million of Britain's hard-working families and increasing the minimum income guarantee for every family with children and with full-time earnings up to £200 a week—and 325,000 of those families were not in receipt of family credit at the time of the claim. The average gain to our poorest working families is £24 a week.
  The Inland Revenue telephone lines, and the special working families tax credit telephone lines, have received nearly 2.75 million calls from people inquiring about the working families tax credit and the disabled persons tax credit; that is why most people will conclude that the credits are a worthwhile and necessary innovation. People will draw their own conclusion at the next general election when the Liberals and the Conservatives say that they will withdraw the working families tax credit.
  As a result of our tax and benefit measures, families with children are an average £740 a year better off. Working households are an average £450 a year better off. No family earning less than £235 per week has paid any net income tax from October 1999. The national minimum wage has boosted the hourly wage of more than 1.5 million low-paid workers—two thirds of them women—by an average of 30 per cent. The introduction of a new 10p rate of tax has halved the tax bills of 2.3 million people, of whom 1.7 million are low-paid employees.
  All those measures are opposed by the Liberal Democrats. They are opposed to the working families tax credit, to rises in child benefit, to a new low rate of tax, and therefore to lifting 1.25 million people out of poverty, of whom 800,000 are children. Our tax cut to 10p as the initial rate for savings will also benefit 1.5 million pensioners.
  We now have a strategy, through the new deal, to give people new job opportunities and, through the working families tax credit, to make work pay. The child care credit makes it possible for people to work who might not otherwise have been able to; and the tax changes that we are making, including the cut in the basic rate of tax, make it possible for work to pay even more for those families.

  487
  In the Budget, we shall introduce further measures that will make it possible for people in areas that have in the past been hardest hit by unemployment to find work. The debate in this country is between fairness—our tax and benefits reforms for families and the low-paid—and unfairness.
  On public services, by contrast with the commitments contained in the Liberal Democrats' 1997 manifesto, our three-year spending plans set out in the comprehensive spending review give Departments and our public services the certainty and stability they need to plan beyond a one-year horizon. Based on a platform of stability in the public finances, we have been able to commit significant extra resources to key public services, at the same time as meeting our tough fiscal rules. We have committed £40 billion extra over three years to education and health. That is £40 billion over and above what those services would have got if spending had continued at its 1998–99 level. It is £40 billion pounds of extra investment which our valuable public services would not have got under the Conservative party, or, indeed, under the Liberal Democrats.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Will the Paymaster General give way?
  Dawn Primarolo: I shall in a minute, so that the hon. Gentleman can respond to the following statements. In their 1997 manifesto, the Liberal Democrats promised to spend £9.5 billion over five years on education. The Labour Government, over three years, are spending £19 billion. In their 1997 manifesto, the Liberal Democrats said that they would spend £3.5 billion over five years on health. The Labour Government are spending £21 billion.
  Mr. Davey: I am grateful to the Paymaster General for giving way during her recital of funny-money figures. Will she tell the House how much more would be freed for investment in public services if, in April, the Chancellor did not go ahead with a penny cut in income tax?
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman does not appear to understand, which surprises me. The Government do not take a pick-and-mix approach to policy. We have a co-ordinated strategy, consisting of stability in public finances, tax and benefits reforms to make work pay, and investment in public services. We have a poverty strategy, an economic strategy and a strategy of investment in public services. They go together, but the Liberal Democrats do not appear to understand that.
  In the last three years of the previous Government, growth in education spending was £7 billion. We have committed additional education spending of £19 billion, which demonstrates our commitment to education as our number one priority. We are delivering a cash injection in health service funding of £21 billion pounds. That is more than double the cash put into the NHS by the previous Government in three years. Contrast that with the Liberal Democrats' manifesto commitment—it promised nowhere near the sums we are spending.
  Mr. John Burnett: Will the Paymaster General give way?
  Dawn Primarolo: No. I have been generous in giving way, but I must make progress. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to participate in the debate.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Paymaster General give way to me? I did give way to her.
  Dawn Primarolo: No, the hon. Gentleman did not. I have not intervened on the hon. Gentleman, unless it was in some other place at some time that I do not now remember. I should make progress, because I am taking up valuable time in the debate.
  The extra investment the Government are making in the NHS will help to deliver our 10-year modernisation programme for the NHS, so that there is equal access to high standards everywhere, and faster and more convenient services. Sixty-five per cent. of the population of England already have access to NHS Direct and more than 1 million calls have been received. We have also set up walk-in centres: there have been 36 successful bids, covering approximately 10 million people. The centres are due to open during the first half of this year.
  In addition, the Government have committed £115 million to modernise every accident and emergency department that needs it; and we have introduced the NHS modernisation fund of £5 billion or more over the three years of the comprehensive spending review. In addition to that, new money is coming in under the private finance initiative. We have already signed £5 billion worth of PFI deals—that is more in two years than was achieved in the five years of the last Tory Administration.
  After many years of neglect, the comprehensive spending review will provide new resources for the renewal and modernisation of the UK's infrastructure. After a 1½ per cent. fall during the last Conservative Parliament, gross investment will total nearly £30 billion pounds a year by 2001–02. For transport, the comprehensive spending review committed £1.1 billion in extra resources to modernise local and public transport, providing more than 150 new integrated transport schemes in towns, cities and rural areas. To make sure that taxpayers get value for money, our public service agreements are a contract with the people—a promise of lasting improvements in public services. In this year's spending review, we shall continue to match investment with reform, increasing the resources available for the NHS, education and our public services.
  The Liberal Democrats continually criticise the Government for not spending enough on public services, but the truth is that their figures do not add up—their figures never add up, although they always make interesting statements about their 1p. For example, for the 1992 election, the basic rate of tax was 25p in the pound. Guess what the Liberals promised to do? They promised to put 1p on the basic rate of tax. Before the 1996 Budget, when the basic rate was 24p, the Liberals again promised to put 1p on the basic rate of tax. After the 1997 election, the basic rate was 23p, and the Liberals promised to put 1p on the basic rate of tax. What is the purpose of tonight's debate? It is to discuss 1p on the basic rate of tax.
  The Liberal Democrats do not tell us whether they are still committed to raising tax, or whether they now recognise that a necessary part of an anti-poverty strategy

  489
  is ensuring that people who are trapped in poverty are guaranteed an income that will lift them out of poverty. The Liberal Democrats have opposed every measure that the Government have proposed to ensure long-term sustainable funding of our public services. The House should compare their hype with our proven commitment to macroeconomic stability for the long term, with our commitment to tackle the causes of family and child poverty, and with the way in which we have steadfastly invested £40 billion in our priorities—the nation's priorities—of health and education.
  The Liberal Democrats always state the same old message: "Elect us and we will spend more, but we won't tell you where the money comes from. We are committed to economic stability, but we won't tell you how we'll achieve it." The Labour Government are committed to the right reforms for the long-term prosperity of the country, and I commend our amendment to the House.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: Tonight, unusually, I feel a certain fellow feeling with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the other occupants of your Chair, in that you share with me, the Financial Secretary, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) a certain jadedness. I last arose from my bed 37 and a half hours ago and it might be because of that that I found myself less than entranced by the example of joined-up arithmetic—which, in the hands of the Paymaster General, becomes double-jointed—that was offered by the hon. Lady in her splendid, but entirely unilluminating tirade. She informed us that the Government have done nothing but good for everybody in all circumstances and with the greatest possible prudence.
  Dawn Primarolo: He has got the message.
  Mr. Letwin: I have indeed got the message—I could hardly fail to do so, seeing as it was repeated at roughly two-second intervals throughout the hon. Lady's speech. However, she could have saved her breath—not because anything she said was less than lovely and elegant, but because, like the nation, we in Parliament have become accustomed to such pronouncements and we no longer need them. I adjure the Paymaster General to ask her speech writer to write a different speech next time, or to get a different speech writer next time, so that her speech addresses the issues.
  The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) raised an interesting and profound question. I am not sure that I believe that he is able to provide the correct answer; nevertheless, it is to his credit that he asked a good question. What is the Labour Government's policy on tax and spending and what ought to be our policy on tax and spending as a nation? That needs to be addressed and, if the hon. Lady will forgive me, I propose to do so, notwithstanding the fact that it has nothing to do with whether the Government are all things to all men or the miracle cure for life.
  As I understand it, the underlying thesis of the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell, which, oddly enough, is broadly the same as that in the Government's amendment, is that there is a choice between public spending going up in real terms along with the tax burden
  490
  as a percentage of GDP, or the reverse of that. The hon. Gentleman broadly asserts that the Government claim to be raising the two but are really not doing much in either direction and that we should be raising the two.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I think that I see where the hon. Gentleman is going, but we are talking about the Chancellor's choices in the short term—what he does about this year's spending. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will talk about a successfully managed economy delivering extra funding, perhaps allowing us in the long run to cut the tax burden at the same time, with which I would not disagree. The issue at the moment is whether the Chancellor should deliver a tax cut now when that would necessarily mean the sacrifice of extra Government investment in public services.
  Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman is right in anticipating part of the burden of my remarks. I still want to dwell on them because it is of the utmost importance that we understand the facts before we discuss the value that we place on them. It is also true that we must address what is to be done this year, or, more particularly, the Chancellor must address that question. I am not convinced that the hon. Gentleman's logic quite works at that point. However, let me pursue precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman traversed.
  The Chancellor has been preoccupied with prudence. He could be called "Mr. Gordon Prudence Brown". Prudence is broadly his motto. He is different from all previous Labour Chancellors because he is determined to ensure that his miraculous golden rule and all his other possible rules will be satisfied under all possible circumstances so that no one could anyone possibly accuse him of being anything other than prudent.
  I can quite see why a Labour Chancellor wants to do that, but he ignores the deepest truths of economics. It is not just the case that, in the long run, one can reduce the tax burden on the economy as a proportion of GDP and increase public spending in real terms, particularly on essential services; it is also and much more importantly the case that the one cannot be sustained without the other. That is the point on which we have a genuine difference of view with the Liberal Democrats and which I want to address.
  A side point, which deserves to be made in advance—the Labour party always seeks to present this as a matter of privatisation, but I want to lay aside the political rhetoric for a moment—is that the crucial public services need not be funded only by public money. Public money is a vital ingredient for certain, and it will need to go up in real terms to anything like fund them, but there are other sources.
  One need no longer look to the Conservative party for that because that well known laissez-faire Adam Smithite group of radical lunatic visionaries, the British Medical Association, has now set up a study group to look into what that famous Conservative peer Lord Winston asked it to look into in effect when he made his now famous utterances, which is whether other sources of funding have to be brought to the aid of that particular crucial public service. That is one of the ingredients that needs to be considered.
  Mr. Leslie: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is talking about private and independent money paying for

  491
  health or whatever, but with regard to the amount of public funds raised through general taxation for public services, I understood that his guarantee was that the level of public expenditure would reduce year on year, Parliament by Parliament. Is that not the nature of the guarantee?
  Mr. Letwin: No, it is not. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to agree with our policy, or necessarily even to want to present it as it is in future, but I want to ensure that, at the end of my speech, he knows what our guarantee is, and, much more importantly, why it is that way.
  In addition to the question—I accept that it is a different question—of bringing to the aid of the crucial public services extra funding from the private sector, which is a vital ingredient, we also contend that we shall continue to need, as we always did under the Conservative Government, to increase by considerably more than the rate of inflation spending on the crucial public services—not reduce but increase. Spending on all the central public services such as health and education needs to go up. I shall come to the rest in a moment, but I want to get the first point into the hon. Gentleman's mind, because it would be marvellous if one intelligent Labour Member knew exactly what we were asserting so that he can go away and work out whether, as a matter of fact, any economist in the world would challenge the propositions that I am about to make.
  The first proposition is that public spending on those crucial public services can and should, before we come to additional funding from the private sector, go up by substantially more than the rate of inflation. Can that be connected with, and consistent with, two other things? First, there is "Mr. Gordon Prudence Brown's" prudence. Can one, in other words, sustainably increase crucial public service spending? Secondly, can it be made consistent with reducing the tax burden as a proportion of GDP? Can those three things be put together?
  Let me perform a small piece of mental arithmetic which I hope will for ever liberate the hon. Gentleman from the supposition that this is a miracle when, it is, in fact, extraordinarily simple. It is so simple that it has entirely eluded Labour Members, I think genuinely.
  Mr. Leslie: Borrowing.
  Mr. Letwin: No, no borrowing is involved. Let us consider the arithmetic.
  Mr. Leslie: Interesting.
  Mr. Letwin: Yes, it is interesting. However, when one hears it, it is not quite so interesting because it is so devastatingly simple. Public spending is about £370 billion a year. If the GDP, of which it is a part, is growing on trend—I am talking about cyclically adjusted GDP—at about 2.5 percentage points in real terms, which is, roughly speaking, what the Treasury thinks is happening—
  Mr. Chris Pond: The hon. Gentleman has already sent the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) to sleep.
  Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend has no doubt been asleep for some hours. He knows this already, but Labour
  492
  Members do not, and it is important that they should. I apologise for using the debate to engage in a serious argument, but it is important to get the matter straight.
  If GDP goes up by 2.5 percentage points in real terms each year, as the Treasury thinks it will—the Treasury thinks that the long-term trend rate of growth in the economy is about 2.5 percentage points in real terms compound per annum, as I think the Financial Secretary would agree if called upon to do so—and it is probably about right—give or take a quarter of a percentage point, which is what the economists argue about—and if the crucial public services, which take up about one-fifth of £370 billion, are going up at about the same rate, and if all the other public services taken together, the rest of the £370 billion, are increasing by slightly less than 2.5 per cent in real terms per annum—in other words, are increasing not just nominally but in real terms by 1,1.5 or 2 percentage points each year—it will ineluctably be the case that, without public borrowing increasing an iota across the cycle, there will be a reduction in the need to tax as a proportion of GDP. This is a simple piece of arithmetic.
  Mr. Steve Webb: I admire any hon. Member who uses the word ineluctably so beautifully. The hon. Gentleman gave away the Conservative position when he said that the crucial public services occupy one fifth, or whatever, of the total—by which he must have meant health and education alone. He must have excluded the state pension. Clearly, he does not regard that as a crucial public service. Given the demographic pressures on the state pension, which would eat up at least his 1 per cent. or so real rise, is he saying that a Conservative Government would never give pensioners more than the 75p that they got this year?
  Mr. Letwin: No, I am not saying that and I will return to the subject. The hon. Gentleman is a serious thinker about pensions and social security in general and asks a serious question. As it happens, the serious dispute between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives concerns social security, not health and education. Before I deal with that question, I want to ensure that our friends on the Labour Benches, who have genuinely not understood what we or the world of economists are arguing about, are put in the picture so that, although they may not want to participate in the debate, they at least know what we are talking about when we are participating in it.
  Mr. Vernon Coaker: The hon. Gentleman said that we would have a recession.
  Mr. Letwin: Yes, yes. We made the most dreadful mistakes: we went into the exchange rate mechanism, we spent too much money in 1990 and we did many other things of which we are deeply ashamed. Yes, that is true. Alas, it does not alter the facts of economics that the Conservatives should have made a mistake at some time. I hesitate to mention this, but I warn the hon. Gentleman that at some time some Labour Government may also make some slight mistake. These things happen. What do not change are the laws of economics. They are governed by the laws of arithmetic, which we all understand. If Labour Members take out their pocket calculators, they

  493
  will find that every word that I have spoken so far is not merely true but incontrovertibly and uncontroversially true.
  Therefore, we are facing the issue that was raised by the Liberal Democrats—most recently, by their spokesman on social security, the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), and well deserved that position is too. He asked the interesting question, which is not whether one can raise by a considerable percentage in real terms—indeed, by as much as or more than gross domestic product—spending on the critical public services. By those, I mean health and education when I talk about one fifth of the expenditure, and possibly also the police and defence if one ups the figure a little. One can increase that spending and do so sustainably, with a falling ratio of debt to GDP let alone a maintained ratio, which is probably a more sensible target, and one can increase spending on the rest of the services by 1 per cent. or 1.5 per cent. of GDP each year quite comfortably. I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. What one cannot do is also to allow the entire burden of social security spending, which broadly occupies £100 billion of the £370 billion a year, to rise by or faster than the rate of growth of the economy on trend—I leave aside the cyclical effects, which obviously complicate the picture on social security. One cannot do that; and that is as true as everything that I have already said.
  The dispute between the serious hon. Gentleman on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the hon. Member for Northavon, and ourselves, in which the Chancellor has been an unwitting participant, actually concerns precisely how far it is or is not possible in time to constrain the growth of spending on social security in its various forms, and pensions are a major component—in such a way that one answers genuine social needs, bearing in mind all the lessons that some of us—not, alas, the Government—have learned from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who taught many of us much about this subject. We all accept that the social security budget will grow in real terms, but can one so constrain it that one does not end up either with imprudence or the need to raise taxes?
  Before I say why the hon. Member for Northavon and the Liberal Democrat party are wrong on that subject, I have a further observation that undercuts any argument that they might like to deploy: in the end, one cannot fund the crucial public services that I have described, which it is the common aim of all three parties to fund, if one does not have the tax base with which to do it. That is uncontroversial. The Conservative party and I believe that having that tax base is a matter of being able increasingly, in a sort of global Laffer-curve effect, to compete on tax with the most successful economies in the world.
  The new economy is changing the industrial paradigm. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed that out vividly in a speech at the Confederation of British Industry not too long ago. The new economy is making it the case that geographical proximity to one's customers is no longer the advantage that it used to be. That is not true for every good or service, but it is true for an increasing range of them. That means that the factors of production are vastly more mobile than they were. Therefore, a highly taxed economy will not have the same level of economic production that it used to have because that production will have gone somewhere else where the tax rate is lower. One may increase tax rates—not merely
  494
  income tax, but all tax rates throughout the economy—and yet, paradoxically, one may raise less and less tax revenue. That is not a basis for achieving what Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat Members want to achieve; it is a basis for going bankrupt.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I appreciate the interesting approach that the hon. Gentleman is taking to the debate and the real issues with which he is dealing. However, I want to be clear about how much he speaks on health funding for those on the Conservative Front Bench. Clearly, the spokesman on health and the present shadow Chancellor have both argued that the increases in health service funding that we want cannot be achieved through public funding. They have argued that it is necessary to resort to encouraging people to take out more private health insurance to meet need. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that view?
  Mr. Letwin: I shall explain exactly what that position is, although the hon. Gentleman will also profit from the definitive announcements on the subject that will be made by various of my right hon. Friends in the near future, which will tally with what I am about to tell him. As it happens, I rather agree with them, for unsurprising reasons.
  Two propositions need to be separated here. First, can we and should we afford as a nation substantially to increase year on year in real terms public spending on health and education? The answer is yes—that is the view of the Conservative party. Secondly, will that spending in itself be enough to answer the legitimate demands placed in a modern and wealthy society by the consumer on the health service in particular, but also to a degree on the education service and perhaps some others? The answer is, probably not—a view that is shared by the Prime Minister, who made the remarks to which the hon. Gentleman adverted.
  Consumers may want to spend more on health than would be implied by merely keeping pace with, or slightly exceeding the pace of, change in GDP. If they want to do that substantially, because they want new and fancier operations endlessly to get better results without the waiting lists that are caused by rationing, the services may need a lot more money than tax alone can comfortably provide if one takes the view of tax that I was taking—which is, that one must keep tax down as a proportion of GDP if one wants to sustain the tax base. Such an increase in spending may require what the BMA has described as infusions of cash from other sources.
  Mr. Coaker: Privatisation.
  Mr. Letwin: No, no, no! In a serious discussion of these matters, it is not helpful to bandy these slogans again. I have not made the slightest criticism of the Government in those febrile and juvenile terms and I do not intend to. Politics—in particular these matters, which are at the centre of our politics—deserve to be discussed, at least in this place, with a level of seriousness that transcends what goes on in The Sun and other newspapers that the hon. Gentleman may or may not read.
  Mr. Coaker: Not the real world.
  Mr. Letwin: We are talking about a very real world. We are talking about the world in which Britain is either

  495
  successful and prosperous or impoverished and trouble struck and in which the services that the hon. Gentleman and I concur in wanting to be preserved fail.
  Let me return to the serious argument—the question whether, given the necessity of keeping that tax base up—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Gentleman does not mean to do it, but he has had his back to the Chair for a considerable time, which is against the conventions of the House.
  Mr. Letwin: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I assure you that the pleasure of seeing you, even in our mutually jaded state, far transcends any pleasure that I have in addressing the adversaries to whom I am speaking through you.
  The serious issue is whether the burden of social security can be contained to a level of real growth that is consistent with all the other objectives that I described. That is a common problem for all parties in the House and for any Government who might be ruling the United Kingdom at present. I think that that is also the issue that the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell and other Liberal Democrat Members are rightly raising.
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent analysis by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research is very revealing on that point? It said that, if the Government were to try in the lifetime of this Parliament to achieve an increase in health spending—to reach the European Union average—by an increase in general taxation, they would in the process crowd out 2 per cent. of manufacturing output—entailing the loss of more than 100,000 jobs—increase the inflation rate by 1 per cent. annually, and—in the words of the national institute—expose the economy to the "risk of emergency taxation" if their forecasts faltered by even a little.
  Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend gives an accurate presentation of the NIESR' s report. The NIESR is, if anything, probably still behind the curve in understanding the effects of the new economy. I agree with him that those are serious issues. As I said, although it may be perfectly possible to increase, as we must, public spending on health and education by something like as much as the trend rate of GDP growth, it will not be possible substantially to exceed that type of growth rate, if that growth is tax-borne, without it having the effects that he described.
  There is a pessimism in the Liberal Democrat ranks on social security that is unjustified by the facts. We shall know the truth of the assertion that it is unjustified only in the long run. However, I think that three things have happened. The first is that there has been a significant shift in the structure of our economy. No one knows how profound the shift is, and no one knows whether the supply-side changes—the changes in the level of labour market regulation that the previous Government achieved so painfully in 18 years—have been compromised by the interventions of the current Chancellor and his colleagues.
  The claim of the Government—who recognise, to their credit, the value of the labour market flexibility that they inherited—is that their current moves have not
  496
  substantially affected that flexibility: the new-found flexibility that differentiates our economy from the economy of our European counterparts and makes it more like the economy of the United States.
  Let us assume for a moment that the Government's manoeuvres in that respect have not damaged the flexibility of the labour market. If so, we may genuinely have achieved a position in which the long-term sustainable rate of unemployment—the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment of our economy—has altered. If so, there is reason for supposing that the long-term, cyclically adjusted rate of expenditure on social security in respect of its quasi-cyclical components—particularly income support and the other passported benefits of a means-tested variety, including housing benefit, so far as that affects income earners and the unemployed—may now quite naturally be inclined to grow rather less fast than we had become accustomed to, because there is a damped cycle to unemployment.
  I think that we will find that that is the case, although I cannot yet prove it, because it has not yet happened—we have only the beginnings of the signs of it. There is nothing yet to contradict the thesis, and there is some hope that the thesis will be proved to be valid.
  There is a second reason why we should be optimistic about the prospects for growth of the social security budget, which is that the age profile to which the hon. Member for Northavon referred is beginning to turn partly in our favour. Moreover, an increasingly substantial part of the population is subject to the benefit of occupational pension schemes and properly established personal and portable pension schemes. Therefore, on the whole, average incomes—not, of course, across the whole population—for the elderly are doing quite well.
  I admit—to end my rather prolonged response to the intervention of the hon. Member for Northavon—that there is a major issue about the basic state pension. I do not believe that, as a country, we shall ever address that issue until we turn our minds to the question of funding the basic state pension so that, somehow or other, people are able to benefit from the growth of the economy. It is a great challenge which no party in the House has properly met.
  By those means together—the advantages of our flexible labour market, the demographic shift and a proper approach to the basic state pension—we should be optimistic about the prospects of doing enough to constrain social security spending so that the proposition that I began with may obtain.
  If it does not obtain, we are all down the plug-hole. If we cannot meet the demands of our voters and consumers in the essential public services, and if we cannot sufficiently look after those who most need looking after through the social security system without having either imprudently to borrow or to raise our tax burden to the level at which we can no longer complete with the world's most successful economies, we shall not be able to deal with those economies, but will instead end up with a reducing tax base and a vicious circle out of which we will find it very difficult to emerge.
  It is therefore not only that I am optimistic, but that I think that we have to try to be optimistic. Otherwise, the pessimism—which is implicit in the view of the world held by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell—is profound. It is not a conclusion that I think that anyone

  497
  in the House should share. It is certainly not the Chancellor's view of life, but that is because he refuses to face most of the economic logic that I have just described.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. Martin Salter: It speaks volumes that, when Liberal Democrats Members finally get their place in the sun by securing a debate in the Chamber on the important issue of public services, only 10 per cent. of their total parliamentary strength turns out to support the important and incisive arguments that their Front Benchers are trying to make.
  I have become worried about the tone of this debate—I was certainly concerned about it earlier—because, unlike other Labour Members, I quite like Liberal Democrat Members. Many of my colleagues are antagonistic towards the Liberal Democrats. Although they do not say so, many of them oppose their involvement in Cabinet committees. I not only think that the Liberal Democrats are okay: I think that every council should have one. They may be largely irrelevant, but they provide useful entertainment and a useful contrast between the real world and the fantasy world which their politicians inhabit.
  Only this morning—as evidence of my fondness for Liberal Democrats—I was working with the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) on an important debate in Westminster Hall. I was a lot more supportive of him than his colleagues were in his abortive leadership bid. I see that the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) is leaving the Chamber—leaving us with less than 10 per cent. of Liberal Democrat Members attending the debate.
  I should like briefly to contrast the taxation and public services record of Liberal Democrat councils with that of our Labour Government. Liberal Democrat politicians are quite happy to take a brave stance on taxation and to encourage other people from other parties to increase tax. But how do they react when council tax levels increase in their own local authority areas? They do not like it and are not necessarily prepared to justify it, and they whinge as only Liberal Democrats can.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point. I draw his attention to the four years for which I led Hampshire county council, when we never once shied away from increasing council tax, sometimes by as much as 14 per cent., to pay for good services. In that time, we recruited and employed 600 more teachers, 200 more policemen—whom we paid for ourselves—and more than 300 more social workers. Before the hon. Gentleman starts to knock Liberal Democrat councils, he should consider the example that we have set everyone in Hampshire, and the way in which the country's largest local authority responded to the real world. We are not shy of tax increases: we are proud of them because they delivered the services in the real world that real people needed.
  Mr. Salter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point so well. The Liberal Democrats' record in Hampshire was so successful that they were rejected by the people of Hampshire. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to reflect on that.
  I can only speak about the councils that I know about and of which I have direct experience. The town of Reading has far outgrown its earlier boundaries. A third
  498
  of my constituents had the misfortune to come under West Berkshire council. On the other side of town, a third of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) come under Wokingham council, which varies between primarily Conservative control and occasional bursts of Lib-Demery. It is worth looking at the level of public services provided by those councils.
  In West Berkshire, which has been Liberal-controlled since 1991, a recent customer satisfaction survey found that more than two thirds of the population considered that the council had an appalling record on public services: they were dissatisfied with the level of services, youth facilities and road maintenance and felt that the council provided poor value for money.
  The Liberal Democrats shed a lot of crocodile tears for public services and pensioner services, but what sort of concessionary fares scheme does Liberal Democrat-controlled West Berkshire council deliver for pensioners in my constituency? Reading, which has been Labour-controlled since 1986, provides a free bus pass at any time of the day or night throughout the Greater Reading travel area. What does the generous Liberal Democrat council deliver for pensioners in my constituency? A total of £26 worth of tokens a year. That is worth 50p a week. Someone from the edge of my constituency, which is not particularly large, who had to travel to the Royal Berkshire hospital to visit a loved one twice a week would use up their annual allocation of concessionary travel tokens in five weeks. What does the Liberal Democrat council say to those pensioners for the other 47 weeks of the year? They have to pay the full fare.
  When we ran a campaign to extend a proper concessionary fares scheme throughout my constituency and into the urban areas of West Berkshire council, Sally Hannon, the chair of environmental services, said publicly that if those whingeing pensioners wanted to have Labour services, they could move to a Labour authority. That speaks volumes about how much Liberal Democrats care about public services for pensioners. I found it amusing, but sad. The Liberals whinge as only they can. They are blatant opportunists. Liberal Democrats can be easily defined: they are all things to all people.
  It comes ill from the lips of people who have controlled local authorities with some of the worst standards of public service to criticise the good start that the Government have made on tax and the development and enhancement of essential public services. The Labour Government have introduced a new lop rate of tax, helping the lower-paid and halving the tax bill for 1.8 million low-paid workers. They have also introduced record increases in child benefit, and the working families tax credit, which will mean an extra £24 a week for lower-paid families.
  We cannot consider the Liberal Democrats as a serious party of Government. They are on occasion a party of local government, but they certainly could not be trusted to run our national economy. As was said earlier in the debate, they have spent their 1 p in the pound many times over. In their 1997 manifesto, they said that they would spend an extra £9.5 billion on education and an extra £3.5 billion on health over five years. The Labour Government are investing £19 billion extra over three years in education, and £21 billion extra over three years in health.

  499
  The Liberal Democrat sums do not add up. We have seen their hypocrisy on spending and the treatment of pensioners. I shall end my short and friendly contribution—I could go on for a long time—with my favourite quote on Liberals. It was John Diefenbaker who said:
  Liberals are the flying saucers of politics. No one can make head nor tail of them and they are never seen in the same place twice.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. Mike Hancock: I have been caught by surprise being called so early, but it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), who obviously sees everything through rose-coloured glasses provided by Millbank Tower, which seem to distort most things, including most of the hon. Gentleman's speech tonight.
  Let us talk about the real world. At Question Time today, the Prime Minister once again failed to grasp the issues of the day and respond with any authority. He talked about long-term planning for the NHS, but the real issues facing people today are waiting lists. Labour has been in power for nearly three years and people on waiting lists have died. Not everybody can afford to wait another five years for staff to be trained or for facilities to improve.
  In the real world—outside the Chamber and away from Downing Street—people are suffering real illnesses. They do not go to the doctor for nothing. They do not say that they do not mind waiting for their operation. There are many people who have been examined by well-qualified doctors, sometimes with years of experience, and perhaps then seen by a second or third doctor as well and been told that they need an operation that could be life-saving. Sadly, they are not getting those operations.
  We hear promises of more money being put into the health service, and talk about the money that has already been put in. If so much money had been put in, we would have seen dramatic improvements, but the real world tells us that there have not been dramatic improvements. There is not a hospital in the country that does not have a significant problem. There are shortages of nurses, doctors and consultants, non-existent accident and emergency assessment centres and overworked and overstrained staff—yet still the Government's complacency is beyond belief when they start to talk about what they have done for the health service. If it is so good, why are there so many problems? If they have put so much in, why is there so little to show for it?
  It is no good the Prime Minister telling us that 37 hospitals are to be built with the help of the private finance initiative. Five years or more from now, a Government will have to pick up the financial consequences of the PFI bids going ahead today for hospitals and schools. Those projects will screw the health service and the education system and will ruin much of what we have. The private finance initiative may be seen as a short-term solution to get the Government off the hook, but it is not a long-term solution. In the end, the buildings will cost more and less will be done in them because of that. It is about time that the nation woke up to the falsehood of the PFI as a solution for most problems. It is nonsense.
  500
  It is the same with schools. I listened with great interest this morning to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment talking about the Government's commitment to failing secondary schools. By 2003, most schoolchildren should expect to leave secondary school with at least five GCSE passes at grade A, B or C. That does not help children now. Those failing schools were there three years ago—I have some in my constituency, sadly. Overcrowded, inner-city schools are desperately short of resources and the sort of assistance that we are told is coming. If it comes five years from now, however, that is no good for today's pupils. Their one chance of a decent education is evaporating, and yet another generation of kids will be served nothing but a second-rate education.
  It is no good the Secretary of State saying that he will do more. It takes time. It is a cynical trick: the Chancellor of the Exchequer is known as the Mr. Prudence of the financial world, awash with money, with a money chest just waiting to be used to fight an election. Yet kids in school desperately need better resources, better-trained teachers and better provision of education, from pre-school to higher education. It is no good having the money available now but promising to make it available in the future. It is not good enough to suggest that the majority of people are clamouring to have 1p taken off their income tax. Most of the people whom I represent have never raised that issue with me, but many have cried out for money to be put into the resources that they need.
  A constituent of mine, an elderly lady, blames the Prime Minister for the death of her husband. I do not know whether it would have been possible for an operation six months ago to have kept him alive longer, but she is convinced that something went fundamentally wrong in the health service, which allowed her husband to die—that he was failed by the health service. I have told her, "You can't say that. There are lots of unanswered questions." But she believes that the Government, awash with money, did not recognise what was destroying her family. Her tragedy is mirrored thousands and thousands of times across the nation.
  Mr. David Taylor: The proceeds of taking 1p off income tax are about £1.8 or £1.9 billion. Would the hon. Gentleman care to indicate how he would spread that money effectively to start to reverse the very bleak picture that he paints of a health service that costs about £45 billion a year and an education service that costs a similar amount in the current year?
  Mr. Hancock: The hon. Gentleman asks an interesting and fair question. I am sure that he will be convinced of the merits of our alternative budget when it is announced in two and a half weeks' time. Indeed, I think that there is a good possibility that he will be so convinced that he might want to vote for it as an alternative to what the Chancellor will produce. I am sure that secretly, even the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) will have a nagging twinge in his heart come Budget day, suggesting that he might have voted for the wrong Budget.
  The proceeds of taking 1p off income tax are not what the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) suggested. Taking 1p off income tax takes away resources. We need those resources. We have so much money in the kitty that we can give more and we

  501
  can also give money back to the public, but the public want us to spend more on the issues that they care about. Taking 1p off comes to more than £2 billion. There is a major difference in valuation here.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: £2.6 billion.
  Mr. Hancock: £2.6 billion is the realistic figure. I am sure that when Labour was in opposition, that figure was closer to £4 billion, but it is now down to less than £2 billion. However, realistically, it is £2.6 billion.
  I have lost count of the number of pensioners who have written to me in the past two months, unable to believe the announcement that they would get only 70p or so in their pensions. They thought that the press was downing the Government. They did not believe it until it happened and now they are in turmoil. It is an absolute disgrace that pensioners have had such a shabby deal from a party that pleaded with them to vote Labour for a better deal. Instead, the Government have stabbed them in the back, kicked them when they are down and are rubbing their noses in it. That is what 70p means to pensioners who do not have the ability to decide that their rent will not go up by more than the cost of inflation.
  Dawn Primarolo: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm to the House that the manifesto on which he stood for election made a commitment to continue to raise pensions in line with prices, and that any resources were to be directed at the poorest pensioners? Is not that precisely what the Government are doing? Are not his comments a little disingenuous?
  Mr. Hancock: Unlike the Minister, we have moved on from our manifesto. We realise that we have to do more. [Interruption.] We have to do one thing or the other. We cannot stand still. We cannot stop at the point on which we fought the election three years ago—that would be absurd. The Minister has her hand over her face—even she is embarrassed by her question. She must surely realise that Labour got it wrong.
  The Chancellor and the Prime Minister would never have made a commitment to stick to Tory spending limits if they had known how much was in the kitty. They must be kicking each other around Downing Street.
  Mr. Webb: My hon. Friend may not realise that the Minister and I share a local newspaper, the Bristol Evening Post. Is he aware that this week, night after night, that paper has published letters from Bristol pensioners who are angry at Bristol's Labour MPs for backing the 75p? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister should accept that Bristol pensioners are right to be angry about that? Is the Minister saying that the pensioners are wrong to be angry?
  Mr. Hancock: Bristol pensioners are right and Portsmouth pensioners are right but, even more important, the nation's pensioners are right to be ashamed of and disgraced by a Government who offer them such a pittance. Pensioners' outgoings are going up, and are more than the amount they receive from the Government. The overwhelming majority of them have no control over that.
  I have discussed three matters—the NHS, schools and further education, and pensions. The fourth is transport. Over the years, going back to 1984 when I was first
  502
  elected to the House, I have lost count of the arguments about how we could solve transport problems. We all dream that an integrated transport system is up there somewhere, but Judy Garland would have had more chance of finding it by going over the rainbow with the Tin Man and the Lion than we do with the Deputy Prime Minister and his transport team.
  During the past three years, everything that has been done on transport has made matters worse. The Government have tinkered with the problems. I live in a wonderful part of the country—south Hampshire—with Portsmouth as the focal point for 500,000 people. During the course of a week, most of them travel to and from that city—for work, leisure, shopping or just for the sheer pleasure of being in such a great city—but our roads are a nightmare.
  There are solutions. A rapid transport link has been proposed by the local authorities and the county council. It needs a large amount—millions of pounds—to give it a kick start. I have twice written to the Deputy Prime Minister begging him to support that scheme, if he is really serious about getting people out of their cars and into public transport. He has failed miserably: "Leave it to the private sector", he says.
  What is happening with our railways? We are a ferry port. Every week, thousands of lorries come through our port, but instead of our having a railhead for freight, the rail yard is to be sold off. Railtrack cannot wait to dispose of it—probably for a shopping development. There will be no provision for a suitable railhead for freight. There will be no alternative to the lorries that come through the port from Spain and France.
  As a Parliament, we have failed again over our commitment to people on transport. More important, the Government have failed.
  Mr. Salter: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's contribution with the same care with which I am sure he listened to mine. I wish to ask him two questions. First, what is the difference between moving on from the manifesto and breaking one's promises or shooting from the hip? [Interruption.] Calm down.
  Secondly, I would like the hon. Gentleman to consider a point that I raised. How should Liberal-controlled West Berkshire council treat its pensioners when it comes to concessionary travel? He has deliberately and disingenuously avoided that point.
  Mr. Hancock: The difference between moving on and breaking one's promises is that we have moved on and the Labour Government have broken their promises. That is why the hon. Gentleman looked so guilty when he asked the question. I am sure that what he really wanted me to do was to say what I have just said, so that he would not have to say it and be accused of being unfair to his colleagues.
  On concessionary fares, if I were elected to West Berkshire council, I would advocate that it levied a rate that addressed the issues that the people of that area faced. We would try to find out whether concessionary fares were a big enough priority for the people. Unlike the Labour party, Liberal Democrat councillors listen and try to understand what the people are saying. We would prioritise our spending around what the people want and we might be pleasantly surprised. With my intervention

  503
  on the council—and possibly the support of the hon. Gentleman, who could encourage his constituents to vote for me—we might get a better deal on concessionary fares. That would be my ambition.
  This debate gives the Government the opportunity to come off the fence. They should not sit there saying that they will give tax rebates and spend more. The majority of people cannot make that statement add up correctly and they do not believe it. That is why so many people are turning away from the Government. They feel that they have been let down.
  The Government should have used the debate to say, "We have got it wrong, but we have the money to do more and to do the right thing in the real world for the people we represent." The Budget and the Chancellor's war chest will give him the opportunity in a few weeks' time to move in the direction in which Labour Members promised they would move in their 18 years in opposition and, more important, in the 18 months leading up to the 1997 election. That is why so many people voted for them. It also explains why so many people are disenchanted with them today.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. Bill Rammell: I shall make a short speech. I believe in electoral reform and, therefore, in the politics of partnership in the appropriate post-electoral circumstances. With the greatest respect to Liberal Democrat Members, if such an approach is to come to fruition, they will have to grow up as a political party. They must start being honest and straight with people and justify where the money will come from.
  Month in, month out and year in, year out, the Liberal Democrats have consistently made spending commitments that go way beyond anything that they have said that they would raise in taxation. Let us consider what has happened since the general election. In debates in the Chamber and in Standing Committee and in those that take place at local level, they have promised extra money for pensions, health, schools, public transport and housing. They have promised an end to tuition fees and to the parental contribution—and so it goes on. That is all to be paid for by 1p on the basic rate of income tax.
  On a conservative estimate, the spending pledges that Liberal Democrats have made in the course of this Parliament would mean at least 5p on the basic rate of income tax. That would cost the typical family £600 a year. Do we ever hear Liberal Democrats referring to that as the cost of their proposals? Not for one moment. We see a complete lack of rigour and of basic arithmetic and they fail to square the circle. That is endemic in their politics.
  Although I did not know that I was going to speak in the debate, I thought that I would try to seek out the Liberal Democrat alternative Budget from last year. I contacted the House of Commons Library, which contacted the Liberal Democrats' party headquarters and the office of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). The Library was wrong because it should have contacted the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor). However, I should have thought that given that the Commons Library was seeking that information from a senior Liberal Democrat, he would have informed the
  504
  Library about which Member to contact, but he did not. The alternative Budget was not forthcoming, whether or not that was due to the Liberal Democrats' lack of willingness to make it available.
  That suggests either that the Liberal Democrats do not think that their alternative Budget is significant in the conduct of their politics, or that they did not want to make it available because it would have revealed that the spending commitments that they have made this evening and throughout this Parliament were not included in the document. The truth is probably a combination of those two factors.
  Those tactics are repeated at a local level. A couple of years ago, I received through my letter box a leaflet from the local Liberal Democrats which criticised the Labour-run local council for the level of its council tax and in the next paragraph called for an end to universal capping of council budgets, without suggesting that there was a contradiction between the two statements.
  The Liberal Democrats' national projections are disingenuous. It has already been said that in the three-year spending review the Government are committing an extra £21 billion to hospitals and an extra £19 billion to schools. We can compare that to the Liberal Democrats' manifesto pledge of a five-year commitment of £3.5 billion for the national health service and £9.5 billion for education. I am repeating those figures because not once in the debate have Liberal Democrat Members intervened to challenge our claim that although they made those pledges at the general election, they are no longer making them.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong, and he was not listening to my speech. I confirmed our policy position and pointed out that the real Government expenditure on education is nothing like as much as our commitment. The Paymaster General attempts to defend her position by giving cash figures for the Government and real figures for the Liberal Democrats. That should not fool anybody; it certainly should not fool the hon. Lady, whose job must be, if nothing else, to understand the difference between the two.
  Mr. Rammell: Nothing in the hon. Gentleman's intervention denies the fact that at the general election, the Liberal Democrats' manifesto contained a commitment to spend an extra £9.5 billion on schools over five years and an extra £3.5 billion on the health service. That is what the Liberal Democrats said they would do; we have done significantly better in a three-year spending review.
  There is also a complete lack of coherence in the Liberal Democrats' arguments, particularly on the new deal and the windfall tax. On the one hand, we hear that they support the principle of the new deal, but they oppose the principle of the windfall tax and voted against it. Let us follow that logic: if we had a Liberal Democrat Government, and they did not raise the £5 billion to fund the windfall tax and the repairs programme for schools, the money would have to come from elsewhere, and would cost the equivalent of 2p on the standard rate of income tax. We have never heard from the Liberal Democrats where that money would come from.
  One of the Liberal Democrats' most hypocritical positions is on pensions, with their critique of this year's 73p rise, which has been levied in line with prices. I wish

  505
  that we had been able to do more, and I hope that we will be able to do so in future, but the Liberal Democrats' manifesto promised that pensions would rise in line with prices. If we had a Liberal Democrat Government, a 73p increase would still have been levied this year, so it is audacious of them to attack us on pensions.
  A few weeks ago, the Liberal Democrats performed a parliamentary stunt when they voted against the uprating. If they had succeeded in their vote, there would have been no increase in pensions this year. They were indulging in gesture politics, and pensioners understand that.
  Mr. Webb: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if the Government had lost the vote that night, they would not have come back with a further uprating statement?
  Mr. Rammell: I am saying that the Liberal Democrats have had an opportunity to present a fully costed alternative to that pension uprating proposal, and they failed to do so, as they consistently fail to do every time the issue is discussed.
  There is a total lack of candour in the Liberal Democrats' spending plans. We hear their repeated attack on the penny that will come off the basic rate of income tax on 1 April this year. The Prime Minister has made it clear that the penny off the basic rate of income tax is to compensate for other tax changes in the system. Were the Liberal Democrats to succeed in denying that 1p cut, they would be imposing a burden of significantly more than a penny on the basic rate of income tax, because of other tax changes. However, we never hear that mentioned in debates.
  I am a politician who believes in progressive taxation. I want us to build support for progressive taxation. With the greatest respect to the Liberal Democrats, one does not make the case for progressive taxation by constantly promising people more than one plans to raise through taxes.
  Mr. Leslie: On the subject of promising more than can be delivered, does my hon. Friend recall the statement made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) before he was replaced? The Liberal Democrats wanted to increase the income tax personal allowance to £10,000 per head at a cost of about £28 billion. Does he believe that the penny on income tax will stretch quite that far?
  Dawn Primarolo: They have moved on again.
  Mr. Rammell: Yes, the Liberal Democrats have moved on, but my hon. Friend exposes the fantasy politics that is always involved in their budget-making.
  With regard to our plans for public spending, I do not pretend that everything is perfect in the funding of public services. When we came to power, we had to remove a huge budget deficit that we inherited from the Conservatives. Furthermore, there had been a consistent problem in the funding of public services over 18 years.
  I do not pretend that that was due to year-on-year cuts under the previous Government. Instead, there was sporadic funding. In the run-up to a general election, public spending would be jacked up, especially in schools and hospitals, and immediately after the election, the funding would come down. In contrast to that, the Labour Government are introducing step-by-step improvements in the funding of public services.
  506
  Let us analyse an example of that step-by-step approach—the £21 billion settlement for the health service over the current three-year spending review period. I asked the House of Commons Library to carry out an analysis based on the percentage increase in real terms of health service spending over the past 25 years. That shows that the current three-year spending increase for the health service is the second best three-year spending commitment over the past 25 years.
  I do not pretend that that is the end of the story, and that everything is perfect in the national health service. We never promised the country that we could turn the health service round overnight. We said that we would tackle the task stage by stage. I hope and believe that the current three-year spending increase can be carried forward into the future.
  Mr. Paul Burstow: From the research that the Library has done for him, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that in the first two years of this Administration, we had one of the worst settlements for the health service in probably 20 years?
  Mr. Rammell: That was exactly the commitment that the Liberal Democrats made in their manifesto. They said that they would stick to the Tory spending limits for the first two years. Both parties committed themselves to that tight fiscal framework in the first two years in order to get rid of the budget deficit that we inherited from the Conservatives.
  Let me identify some of the other areas in which we are making step-by-step improvements. Under the new deal, £3.5 billion has been allocated to fund the best quality training and job scheme that there has been in this country. The other £1.5 billion from the windfall tax is being used to double the budget for repairs in our schools.
  In the first three years of the current Government, child benefit, which was frozen during all those Tory years, has been increased by 25 per cent. As for housing, which particularly concerns me in my constituency of Harlow, the release of capital receipts has made possible a 33 per cent. increase in expenditure in the first two years, and a 50 per cent. increase in the past three years. The working families tax credit has given an enormous boost to people on low incomes: 2,000 people in my constituency are, on average, £24 a week better off.
  How have we achieved that progress? Most important, we have achieved it through sound economic management—by removing the budget deficit, not borrowing more than we could afford over the economic cycle, granting operational independence to the Bank of England and introducing transparency and openness to the operation of our public finances. That was crucial: without it, we could not gain the trust and confidence of the business community and investors that we need if we are to secure the economic growth that, over the longer term, represents the only sure-fire way in which we can obtain the extra investment in public services that we need.
  Mr. Letwin: If transparency of public finances was the Government's prime aim, why did the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, throughout last night, resist the establishment of an independent body to set accounting standards?
  Mr. Rammell: It is difficult to remember exactly what the Conservative party was trying to achieve during its

  507
  filibuster last night. It is undoubtedly true, however, that our overall management of the economy—involving the operational independence of the Bank of England, and the release of the minutes of the central committee—is introducing a degree of openness and transparency. That creates confidence, which means that investors and businesses have the confidence to invest and which, over the longer term, will generate the economic growth that we need.
  If we adopted the Liberal Democrats' approach, that successful management would be blown apart. In a short time we would have a huge budget deficit. We would not be funding our spending plans, and there would be a downturn in economic growth leading to cuts in public spending. However, I do not think that that would happen under a Liberal Democrat Government. If we had a Liberal Democrat Government—and I recognise that it is a big "if"—I do not think that they would act in that way. The spending commitments would not materialise, and that would undoubtedly lead to a degree of disillusionment among Liberal Democrat supporters.
  What, then, are the Liberal Democrats doing? I think that they are indulging in that old practice of the politics of gesture and the politics of opposition. They are against everything wherever it occurs, whether it is done by a Labour or Conservative council locally, or by the Labour Government nationally. They have the answer to every conceivable public ill, wherever and whenever it occurs. How do I know that? How do I recognise the beast? Because this was the condition of the Labour party in the 1980s. We learned a long and hard lesson then. We learned that it simply is not possible to treat the public in that way: a party must convince them that it has the competence to deliver on its promises.
  That returns me to the critique originally advanced by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor). If I recall correctly, he said that during the 1997 general election Labour had promised the earth, exaggerated and over-hyped what it could achieve. Let me say emphatically that that was not my experience when I was a Labour candidate in a marginal constituency in 1997. We specifically said that we would not promise more than we could deliver, and we were criticised for our caution. It is a good spin and a good hype to say that Labour is not delivering on its promises, but the reality is very different. It is not very sensational and not very exciting; it is about bit-by-bit improvement. That is what the people voted for on 1 May 1997, and it is what the Government are delivering.
  9 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: Apart from those from Liberal Democrat Members, there has been only one thoughtful contribution to the debate, and it was made from the Conservative Front Bench. Shortly, I shall comment on the measured defence of the Conservative strategy on tax and public spending and identify the flaw in the reasoning.
  I shall speak mainly about pensions, but it is important to respond to some of the implausible remarks that the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) made. He talked about irresponsibility and referred to the Liberal Democrat alternative budget. That document is produced every year
  508
  and is publicly available. If the hon. Gentleman had contacted my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), who is the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman—a reasonable first person to approach for a Liberal Democrat Treasury document—he would have obtained it. However, the hon. Gentleman preferred to pretend that the document was not available. If he had asked the right person, he would have got a copy.
  An alternative budget is the hallmark of a responsible Opposition party. We sit down and prepare such a budget every year. The Labour party did that only once when it presented John Smith's famous budget before the 1992 general election. It got its fingers burned because when the sums were spelt out, they were not popular with the electorate. The Labour party never produced a budget in opposition after that.
  That shows the difference between the two parties. The Liberal Democrats cost and prioritise their policies each year. Our general election manifesto includes a volume of costings so that the price of every pledge is provided.
  Mr. Rammell: Will the hon. Gentleman deposit the alternative budget in the House of Commons Library? We can then examine it line by line and add to it the other spending pledges that Liberal Democrat Members made in the Chamber, in Standing Committee and elsewhere but that are not costed in the alternative budget.
  Mr. Webb: We would be delighted to place a copy in the Library. The document is published, and we hand it out to the press. It can hardly be regarded as a secret document. We are more than happy to make it available this year.
  The hon. Member for Harlow outlined the Government's progress so far in fulfilling their pledges for public services. He kept mentioning three years: this year, next year and the subsequent year. However, the Government have been in office for nearly three years, of which the hon. Gentleman refers to only one. We are more than halfway through the Parliament—we are possibly almost three quarters of the way through—and it is legitimate to consider the Government's achievements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell said, the record shows that the Government have spent pretty much what the Tories would have spent. Real-terms increases in spending on health and education are analogous to the Tories' achievements when they were in office.
  When the Labour party took office, the mood was "Things can only get better; this is the dawn of a bright new era." However, the Government have more or less stuck to Tory spending plans. The electorate did not expect that from new Labour. People expected genuine improvements in public services; they are clearly not getting them.
  The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), in a characteristically thoughtful contribution, explained the way in which he reconciled Conservatives' pledges on health and education spending with the so-called tax guarantee. He reasoned that if the economy grows at the rate of 2.5 per cent. in real terms, and one prioritises a fifth of public spending, one can provide more than 2.5 per cent, for that fifth, if one provides less than 2.5 per cent. for the rest. That is an arithmetic truth. The

  509
  hon. Gentleman prioritised health and education; he mentioned defence and perhaps the police in parenthesis. However, he did not mention social security, describing it in his characteristic fashion as not a priority public service.
  The hon. Gentleman knows that the state pension accounts for approximately half the entire social security budget. To make his sums add up, it would be necessary to freeze the state pension in real terms, and simply provide for inflation-linked increases. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that occupational pensions are increasing, but that does not save the Government a penny on the basic state pension, which is not affected by such increases. The basic state pension depends only on the number of pensioners and, to a limited extent, on contributions records, which are improving systematically every year as more women retire on larger pensions. There is therefore a real-terms, upward pressure on the state pension over and above inflation. There are more pensioners and higher average state pension receipts. A state second pension is proposed as well as SERPS. There will be pressure on the state pension.
  If the hon. Member for West Dorset believes that the only way he can justify decent increases in health and education spending is through squeezing social security but he is not prepared to squeeze the state pension, what else will he squeeze? That is the unanswered question when Conservative Members claim that they will pay for their goals out of savings on welfare. Other items of public spending could be squeezed, but the hon. Gentleman said that the money would come from squeezing the social security budget. Is he willing to cut the state pension?
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned funding the state pension, but surely that is a matter not for the people who will be 60, 70 or 80 in the next few years, but for people years down the line. The circle will not be squared for many decades to come because the Conservative party would have to cut the state pension or not deliver on either health and education or its tax guarantee.
  Mr. Letwin: Let us return to the figures. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that they stack up perfectly well if the social security budget is rising broadly by 1, 1.5 or 2 per cent. in real terms—that is, below the trend rate of growth of gross domestic product?
  Mr. Webb: That will not happen if the biggest single social security item, which represents about half the budget, is rising substantially faster than that because of demographic pressures and the increased average retirement pension.
  Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman is one of the acknowledged experts in the House. Does he not agree that the trend in pension growth through demographic factors has been roughly 0.5 per cent. in real terms?
  Mr. Webb: One of the key differences in the coming decades will be the shift in the age structure of the pensioner population from the young elderly to the old elderly, who place a particular financial burden on the pension regime through the minimum income guarantee—the means-tested top-up--and social and health services.
  Mr. Letwin rose—
  Mr. Webb: Will the hon. Gentleman bear with me for a moment? The pressures caused by the increase in the
  510
  number of very old elderly people will mean that an increase of 1.5 or 2 per cent.—not only on pensions but on health—would not even allow standstill. That is the distinction. The hon. Gentleman says that the economy grows at 2.5 per cent., which provides leeway for good increases on health and education, but 2.5 per cent. on health does not even represent national health service inflation, leaving aside the growing number of very old elderly people. In my judgment he would need far more than 2.5 per cent. The Prime Minister talks of 5 per cent. Once those levels are reached—and the hon. Gentleman would not increase the basic state pension—the sums do not add up.
  Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman's argument has shifted to a point at which it becomes true, but it is different from mine. If he is arguing that health and education increases—not only those in real terms, but ones that are much greater than the GDP trend rate—cannot be achieved without either raising tax or bringing in money from outside, he is right. He takes one view of the right way to solve the problem and we take another. Now we agree on the empirical fact and simply disagree about the policy choice.
  Mr. Webb: To paraphrase that intervention, the hon. Gentleman is saying that delivering what the public want and expect from a health service in a growing economy requires beyond what the Conservatives are prepared to find in tax and that that has to come from the individuals themselves. The interesting distinction is that the Liberal Democrats say that health has to be paid for according to ability to pay, whereas the Conservatives say that private money has to come in through private insurance. Insurance, of necessity, is related to the risk of someone needing the service. Typically, older people would have to buy insurance. The non-urgent surgery to which the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) refers is older people's surgery and they would have to fork out because of their medical need. However, we think that people should pay for health care through general taxation according to ability to pay.
  Mr. Letwin rose—
  Mr. Webb: I have probably taken enough interventions from the hon. Gentleman.
  The working families tax credit has been mentioned several times. Labour Members have been briefed on how many of their constituents benefit from it and the Paymaster General well knows the Liberal Democrats' views. We argued that the Tax Credits Act 1999, which introduced it, contained only one measure—the credit should be delivered through the pay packet. That is why we opposed it. None of the rates or the tapers were mentioned and the words "child care tax credit" did not even appear when the legislation was drafted. We would not remove the working families tax credit.
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman attended the debate on the working families tax credit and knows full well that I gave the House a very full explanation of its design and intention. He led his party into the Lobby, on his recommendation, to vote against its introduction and he has to explain to the young families in his constituency why he wants to take that money away from them.
  Mr. Webb: I shall be delighted to do so. It is a matter of record that we voted against the decision to pay tax

  511
  credits through the pay packet, and the Government have admitted that we were right. The new integrated child credit or whatever it is to be called will merge family premiums, family credit, child credits, the child care tax credits and all the rest of it. How will it be paid? Through the pay packet? No. It will revert to the parent with care. They have admitted that the central issue of principle on which we objected when they were reforming tax credits was correct.
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman is a very active and respected hon. Member, but he seeks to rewrite history to get his party off the hook for the fundamental error that he made with regard to the working families tax credit, as he did when he voted against the child benefit increases for parents in his constituency.
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Lady has performed a U-turn that she is graciously trying to cover up. She is right to say now that the child credits should be paid to the parent with care. She was wrong then to try to drive that measure through the House.
  Pensioners are surely the group that feels most aggrieved at the Government. I refer to correspondence in my local newspaper, the Bristol Evening Post, from Bristol pensioners who are livid that their Labour Members have voted for the 75p increase.
  One of our Bristol neighbours—the hon. Member for Bristol, South, I think—recently wrote what has proved to be a rather inflammatory letter to the newspaper, saying essentially that pensioners should stop complaining because they were £4.75 a week better off.
  Dawn Primarolo rose—
  Mr. Webb: Will the hon. Lady allow me to finish the point?
  Dawn Primarolo: It was not me.
  Mr. Webb: I am sorry. I meant the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), the Parliamentary Private Secretary. Perhaps the Minister wants to disown what the hon. Member for Bristol, East wrote. She said that pensioners were £4.75 a week better off and cited the winter fuel payment.
  Obviously, no one is going to say no to £100, but what is the money for? We are in March. We are talking about the April uprating. The Government appear to be saying that pensioners can look forward to the winter fuel money. Unless I am mistaken, has it not just been spent on winter fuel? Is that not what the money has already gone on?
  This April, that money has gone. All that the pensioners are receiving this April is 75p. Some of them in October will receive free television licences, but, this April, they will receive just 75p. I will reveal something even more dramatic than the fact that the 75p is an overstatement of what pensioners are getting.
  Mr. David Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman not being a little disingenuous in relation to the income increases that pensioners will receive, because they and the Government are looking at the financial year that starts on 1 April 2000
  512
  and ends on 31 March 2001, which includes a range of extras to their income? Therefore, what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) wrote in her letter was fair.
  Mr. Webb: In the coming financial year, pensioners will get a winter fuel payment of £100. That is the same as they received this year, so it is not extra. They will get 75p extra. Some will get a free television licence so, next year, half the pensioners will get 75p more than this year. Some others will get the free television licence. That is what is happening.
  I reveal a fact that has passed commentators by in all the discussion of the 75p rise. A quarter of the pensioners in the land will not get 75p. They will not even get 50p.
  One million married women have such poor national insurance records that they get pensions not in their own right, but on their husband's contributions. They are category B pensions, which are worth the grand sum of £39.95 a week. When the Government trot along and say, "You can have 1.1 per cent. on that," a bit of mental arithmetic reveals that that is 45p, so 1 million married women will receive not 75p but 45p this April.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: You cannot buy a pasty for that.
  Mr. Webb: My hon. Friend mentions the difficulty of buying a pasty for 45p. I am not sure about the Bristol equivalent.
  Not only will 1 million married women receive only 45p, but another 1.5 million pensioners, mostly women—widows and single women—receive state pensions of less than £40 a week because of their poor contribution records. They will receive 1.1 per cent., and, since some get even less than £40—perhaps £30 or £25—they will not even see a 50p piece in April. A quarter of the pensioners in the land are affected by that.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: What about the minimum income guarantee?
  Mr. Webb: It is good to hear a Government Whip going on the record to stand up for pensioners. The 1 million married women who will receive 45p are almost certainly ineligible for the minimum income guarantee because they are married. A husband and wife will almost certainly rise just above the reach of the means test. The hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that it is all right to give married women 45p because their husbands will look after them, but they can have a few pennies of pocket money. Perhaps they can blow their 45p on two first-class stamps, if they feel extravagant and want to dip into next week's money.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The increase does not buy two first-class stamps.
  Mr. Webb: That is why I said they would have to dip into next week's money.
  Those women will not be entitled to any more support from the Government, and that is why my postbag groans every day with letters from pensioners complaining that we keep saying the increase is 75p but their pension books show that it is 45p. A quarter of the country's pensioners—250,000 pensioners in the south-west,

  513
  which has a particular concentration of older pensioners—are receiving only 45p. Is it any wonder that there is genuine anger about what the Government are doing?
  The question is whether the Government could have afforded to do more about the basic pension. The answer, patently, is that they could. The national insurance fund has a record balance of £16 billion, and the rather cautious Government Actuary says that only £8 billion is required. In a year in which the Government have the money, they have chosen not to use it. Pensioners know that a sentence of death hangs over the basic state pension. If the money is not being put into the pension when the Government have it, it certainly will not be when they do not have it.
  The basic state pension should reflect the cost of living for pensioners, and 75p does not do that.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: Absolute nonsense.
  Mr. Webb: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is absolute nonsense to suggest that the basic state pension should reflect the cost of living for pensioners? Which part of what I am saying is nonsense? Is it the idea that pensions should reflect the true cost of living? In fact, older pensioners, who are often the poorest and who are currently being forced through a means test, should receive substantial rises over and above the cost of living.
  Mr. David Taylor: To suggest that the basic state pension has gone into decline and become nugatory since 1 May 1997 is a simple mis-statement of fact. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the process began when the pension was decoupled from increases in pay, which was the meanest act of the Thatcher era?
  Mr. Webb: I suspect that we could collect several hundred election addresses by Labour candidates berating the Conservative party for breaking the earnings link. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's election address did so. Labour thereby raised pensioners' expectations that something better would come along. Specifically, the Labour manifesto pledged that pensioners should share in the rise in general prosperity, but 75p is not such a share. Pensioners are angry with the Government. They feel that they have been let down, and they are right.
  9.19 pm
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I had not intended to speak tonight but was so overwhelmed by the hypocrisy of Liberal Democrat complaints about the Government's spending plans—the Liberal Democrat manifesto clearly stated that that party's spending plans involved far less than ours—that I felt compelled to say something.
  In my constituency, the Liberal Democrats habitually send out leaflets berating the Labour party for not spending more on education. The Liberal Democrat promises of £9.5 billion over five years, as compared with our £19 billion for education over three years, make a mockery of those leaflets.
  The people of Cambridge should realise that if we had had that fantasy-land Liberal Democrat Government, they would not have got the increases in education that we have been able to produce. Cambridgeshire has had an increase in standard spending assessment year on year at more than double the rate of inflation. From April, the SSA per pupil will be higher in real terms than it ever was under the Tories.
  514
  It is true that schools are still feeling the pinch and feel that they do not have enough to spend on education, but while the Government have increased their spend on education, the Tory county council has reduced its contribution. Cambridgeshire education has lost £3 million overall, which has not been passported from the Government's generous increase. In 1998–99, the county council did not passport the full increase to education but kept back £1.6 million. In 1999–2000 it kept back £3 million. Next year will be the first in which the full increase has been passported to the education budget. Schools will certainly begin to see the benefit of that.
  In addition to the increase in SSA, schools in Cambridgeshire have benefited from many other resources. This year, for example, we had £1.8 million for the reduction of infant class sizes, which delivered 11 new classrooms and 69 teachers, so now only 7 per cent. of infants are being taught in classes of 30 or more, as compared with 37 per cent. the previous year.
  Cambridgeshire has had a huge programme to remove asbestos and update classrooms and has received £2.3 million from the new deal for schools and a massive £11.2 million from the standards fund, which has gone into numeracy, literacy, school improvement, school leadership, ethnic minority teaching and many other investments that all lead to much higher standards.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) said that the Liberal Democrats are all things to all people. That is true: they say one thing in one place and take an entirely different line in another. They appear to be opposing a tax cut here, and on Cambridgeshire county council they have proposed a 9.5 per cent. increase in council tax, but on the city council they propose a reduction in council tax. There is not much consistency.
  It must be difficult for the Liberal Democrats in places such as Cambridge, where there is an excellent city council that has managed to keep council tax steady for several years running. Not only did they con voters in Arbury ward at the recent by-election, but they sent round a newsletter promising:
  All you have to do is tell us what you want to spend the money on.
  What happened when the Liberal Democrat councillor was elected? At his very first council meeting he voted to axe the funding for much needed facilities—new basketball and BMX facilities and closed circuit television for improved security—amounting to £170,000 over the next two years. Residents had asked for all those things. All the proposals had been discussed with the residents and agreed, and then the Liberal Democrats, en bloc, voted against them.
  Councillor David Howarth, economic policy adviser to the Liberal Front Bench and a great economic literate, was quoted in the Cambridge Evening News on 18 February as saying:
  We are only cutting the future investment, not the past.
  What the Liberal Democrats will do once they get in a position to make decisions beggars belief.
  I listened with great interest to the exposition by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on the way in which the Conservatives would keep to their promise of reducing the total tax take while achieving increases in services. The weakness in his argument lay in the assumption that Conservatives could achieve a consistent

  515
  growth rate of 2.5 per cent. It takes a big leap to go from "We've got 2.5 per cent. now," to "therefore, a Conservative Government would produce 2.5 per cent. growth year on year."
  Mr. Letwin: I am sorry that the hon. Lady did not catch my phrase. I was talking about the trend rate of growth, which is measured across 15, 20 and 25 years and has been measured by the current Treasury as having been, on trend, 2.25 per cent. throughout the Conservative period of Government.
  Mrs. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman will be lucky to find a Conservative Government that lasts 25 years. In view of the mistakes made by the last Conservative Government, any Conservative Government would be extremely lucky to achieve a growth rate of 2.5 per cent. even for five years. As a Member of the last Parliament, I remember a former Conservative Chancellor saying that unemployment was a price worth paying—that was the Conservative philosophy.
  The Labour Government have got 800,000 more people in work and we have a great deal to be proud of. We have created pathways out of poverty for millions of people. Lone parents who were trapped on benefits throughout the Tory period in office are now being encouraged to return to work when their children start school. Work is being made to pay through the working families tax credit. The long-term unemployed—many of whom have not worked since leaving school—are finding a new life and new security with work that was previously unavailable to them. At the same time, we have introduced the national minimum wage, which also helps to make work pay. Family-friendly policies are helping people to manage work and home, as do increased child care facilities and investment in public transport—for millions of people, the only way to get to work.
  The great advantage of all that is that more people in work mean more revenue for the Exchequer. All the Liberal Democrats talk about is 1p on tax, which would put more people into the poverty trap and do nothing to increase employability. They oppose the new deal and offer no long-term policies to keep our economy sound and stable while achieving steady increases in GDP. I think that the electorate see through the Liberal Democrats and know where a secure future lies—with the Labour Government.
  9.28 pm
  Mr. Nick Harvey: It is a pleasure to wind up the debate. I start by focusing on the difference that has emerged during the debate between those who account for things in real terms and those who account for things in cash terms. That lies at the bottom of all the wriggling that Labour Members have been doing during the debate and which they have to do every day, every week, in every radio interview and in every press article.
  The mess is entirely of the Labour Government's own making. At the start of the Parliament, they took the cynical decision that, for the first two years of the Parliament, they would leave in place Conservative spending plans. They did so in the hope that electors would blame the Conservatives for all the pressures and
  516
  strains that emerged in public services—it would be the legacy of the Conservative years. They planned to switch the money into public services in the latter half of the Parliament so that, at the next general election, the good old Labour Government would have saved the day, with the result that voters would sweep them back into office out of gratitude for their policies. There has never been a clearer example of bust-and-boom policies.
  The most uncomfortable point of a strategy of that shape is felt around the third year, when the public become cheesed off about the lack of improvement in public services and rather more doubtful that all the problems can be blamed on the previous Administration. At that stage, there is no sign of the improvements that the general election campaign led them to expect. They optimistically look out for such improvements every time they collect their child from school or suffer the misfortune of being put on a waiting list to go into hospital.
  The Paymaster General either does not understand the difference between real terms and cash terms—I rather doubt that—or she hopes that the rest of the world is too stupid to understand the difference. However, it is not. People hear all about the Government's marvellous multi-billion pound expenditure, but when they go into hospitals they look around and wonder where on earth it has got to. They are beginning to suss that the £18 billion and £21 billion are funny money.
  A doctor put the matter to me in this way: "Mr. Harvey, if my son grows three inches in one year, another three inches the second year and another three inches the third year, after three years he will have grown nine inches, but in the eyes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that child has grown 18 inches." That is the difference between the figures that are being bandied between one side of the Chamber and the during this debate.
  The Liberal Democrat manifesto, which the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) is more than welcome to look at, talks about real terms increases in spending over and above anything that could be accounted for by inflation or growth in the economy. The Government are bundling together successive years' worth of inflation, adding them up in compound form and then comparing that with what we were committing to as a real terms pledge.
  There was an interesting exchange between the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), who wanted to know the difference between moving on and breaking a manifesto promise. The difference comes down to whether one does more than one promised in a manifesto or less. We are saying that, in the light of the fact that growth in the economy has been much better since the election than we might have predicted at the time, it is only reasonable that people should be doing more than they said they would do in 1997. The Government are doing much less than they were going to do then and they are resorting to spin, confusion and trickery to put people off the trail.
  I listened with great interest to the Secretary of State for Health when he introduced the finding of the NHS beds inquiry. Everyone knows that we have far fewer beds than we had years ago. We now have 95 per cent. bed usage, whereas 20 years ago, it was 75 per cent. During a winter crisis such as we have just had, the strains are all

  517
  too clear to see. That inquiry compared the number of beds per head of the population here with the figures in every other civilised country, from which the Secretary of State concluded that Britain is making more efficient use of its beds than any other country. If I have ever heard new Labour spin, that is it. It is a fine way of explaining that we have far too few beds and that the situation here does not stand comparison internationally in any shape or form.
  If we focus on the health service, many announcements have been made in just the past couple of weeks. One fifth of patients are waiting four hours or more in accident and emergency departments, and 57,000 operations were cancelled on the day last year. Those on in-patient waiting lists rose by 36,500 in January. In my region, the south-west, there are more people on in-patient waiting lists than when the Government took office. The Government's usual con is to try to pull the wool over people's eyes on the difference between out-patient and in-patient waiting lists. But for all the Government's trumpeted achievements, in the south-west there are more people on in-patient waiting lists than there were when the Labour party took office three years ago.
  The number of people waiting more than 13 weeks for their first out-patient appointment—the true measure of how long people have to wait—has grown from 248,000 in March 1997 to 512,000 in March 1999, and those are the Department's own figures.
  Returning to the efficient use of beds, it is worth remembering that each year in the national health service more than 100,000 people catch potentially fatal infections, 5,000 die of such infections and they are implicated in a further 15,000 deaths. That is the efficient use that we are making of beds in the NHS—we are pushing people through hospitals so quickly that the places are filthy and infections spread.
  I have no doubt that that is a further example of the efficiency that the Secretary of State for Health will proclaim, but the cost to the NHS may be as high as £1 billion a year, according to the National Audit Office.
  In the midst of confused recruitment policies, the bill for agency nurses stands at £344 million. It has increased from £264 million in one year—extraordinary growth for a completely unnecessary budget head.
  During the national beds inquiry it was concluded that more intermediate care beds were needed, for example, in cottage hospitals. However, the Government have been going full steam ahead to close down such hospitals. Two have closed in Lincolnshire, two in Oxfordshire and two in Devon, including one in my constituency, which is theoretically still open, but when one visits one finds it closed—although it is still being paid for, heated, lit and cleaned. Once again, all that is being done in the name of efficiency.
  People who go to hospital, or indeed to schools, see only too clearly that, for all the billions of pounds that the Government so lavishly trumpet as having been spent, there is not much improvement. Head teachers ask why the £19 billion for education is not reaching their schools. They are fed up with hearing: "Trust me, I'm a politician. The cheque's in the post. There'll be more money in your budget because the Government have allocated £19 billion." The fact of the matter is that head teachers can all see through that. It is no wonder that Labour
  518
  Members are wriggling—they have not got away with the con on which they embarked at the start of this Parliament.
  For all the Labour talk of fair funding, in education in particular the Government have not put right some of the grotesque geographical anomalies as between funding in different areas. It cannot be right for a primary child in Derby to be funded at £1,000 less than a primary pupil in Lambeth, or for there to be a gap of £1,370 per pupil between the best—Kensington and Chelsea—and the worst funded, Bradford. Even in two adjacent Labour-controlled London boroughs—Tower Hamlets and Hackney—there is a difference of £300 a head between secondary pupils. However, we hear that the Government are taking national initiatives: the national curriculum, national tests, national league tables, and inspection of schools according to a national framework.
  Funding disparities that have become grotesque remain in place and the Deputy Prime Minister says that he intends to do nothing about it for three years. There is a distinct lack of equity, in addition to the lack of transparency to which I referred, in the Government's presentation figures.
  I listened with interest to the contribution of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who spoke for the Conservatives. I did not agree with his prescription, in particular for the health service, where the Conservatives seem determined to ensure a large increase in the number of people who take out private health insurance. I am not sure which of the three strategies that I can identify they will pursue. The first would be to compel everyone to do it; the second, to use taxpayers' money to bribe everyone to do it; and the third, merely to continue to run the health service as the Labour party is doing and to drive them to do it out of sheer desperation. It must be one of the three.
  However, the one thing on which I did agree with the hon. Gentleman was that, unlike those on the Government Front Bench, he was ready and willing to accept the difference between cash-terms increases and real-terms increases. He had a different estimate from ours of what we would be able to afford out of economic growth, but at least he recognises the figures for what they are and has his own response.
  Throughout the debate we have also heard from the Government that the Liberal Democrats make spending commitments, but never say from where the money will be paid. For goodness' sake, the point of today's debate is that we have tabled a motion to say exactly where one could get £2.6 billion for whichever public service one chooses. The Government are in power and they can decide which are the highest priorities. I have given examples of the state of the health service, and every hon. Member will appreciate the accuracy of my description of the situation in schools from visits that they have made to schools in their own constituencies. The Government will have to decide which matter to make their top priority. Can anyone really doubt that our public services require investment of £2.6 billion?
  There is also absolutely no evidence that the public want a tax cut now—the very opposite is the case. All recent polls have produced the finding that 80 per cent. of the public would prefer that sum to be spent—now, in the coming year—on public services to a tax cut.
  It is also interesting that, month after month, the Bank of England is having to increase interest rates, partly because of its great concern about a consumer spending

  519
  spree. So how on earth could it make any sense whatever to put £2.6 billion into consumers' pockets? A tax cut makes no economic sense, the public does not want it, and an array of tasks in the public service are waiting to be done.
  Labour Members made other untrue statements about the positions adopted by Liberal Democrats Members on various issues. It is absolutely nonsense to say, for example, that we opposed the minimum wage.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) explained particularly accurately not only why we voted against the legislation introducing the working families tax credit, but why we have no objection whatever to the principle of it. The Paymaster General replied that, in the debate on the legislation, she had explained in great detail how the system would operate. Undoubtedly she did so, and did so very well. However, when the votes on the legislation were cast, they were cast simply on the system that it proposed as the method of payment. The Government themselves have now accepted that that system was a mistake. They have also said that they will make new payments by a different system.
  The Paymaster General was therefore expressing the hope that, at the next general election, Liberal Democrat Members will be going round the country arguing for removal of the working families tax credit. She could not be more wrong about that. We have not opposed it in principle at all.
  The Government are in a bit of a bind. They have a comprehensive spending review coming out in July, but the sum that that review will produce—which undoubtedly will be exaggerated, compounded, multiplied and goodness knows what else—will not be available before the general election, if it is held next spring. Their problem—assuming that opinion polls are still propitious for a general election next spring—is that, if they have only a four-year Parliament, and if the electorate examine the boiled-down, hard reality of the results of their year-on-year public expenditure increases, they will have barely achieved the public expenditure increases that the Conservatives achieved in their years in office.
  If the Government manage to include a fifth year in this Parliament, they will manage to surpass by only a short nose the previous Government's achievements in public expenditure increases. On current expenditure, however, the Government will struggle even to be able to boast that.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: It shows.
  Mr. Harvey: It does show; it shows in all the public services. I have already discussed health at length, and mentioned the problems in education. Other Liberal Democrat Members talked about transport, which is another issue on which the public—in opinion polling and, as all hon. Members will know, based on anecdotal evidence—are grossly dissatisfied. The public believe that transport has become appreciably worse since the general election. Although they are disappointed that there has not been more progress in many other spheres, they believe that transport has become worse.
  There we have it: a Budget coming up; an opportunity to reverse a £2.6 billion tax cut that people do not want and for which there is no economic justification; an
  520
  opportunity to put money into any of the public services that the Government choose: and Liberal Democrats saying where the money should come from. The Government are not so much guilty of having made exaggerated claims at the previous general election—the promises that they made were very modest: progress in health, in education and for pensioners—as of proposing to deliver a tax cut. They never said that they were going to do that. People did not want it then and they do not want it now. The Government will be judged on polling day not on the tax cut that people did not want, but on the state of hospitals, schools and the pension. On their record so far, I am certain that they will be deemed to have failed on all three.
  9.45 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): The Government's vision for the public services rests on the new foundation that we have built—the new platform of stability in our economy that is almost without precedent in our history. What a contrast that is with the position that we inherited after the general election. The Tory legacy was £28 billion of debt after 18 years of boom and bust. We have turned that round. The Conservatives said that we could not do it, but we have. The Tories tried and failed, but we have succeeded. Our challenge now is to lock in that new stability for good so that we can build on it for the long term. We are determined to do that.
  That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was able to set out with optimism in November's pre-Budget report our new ambitions for the coming decade. We should be catching up on productivity with our major competitors after decades of slipping behind under the Tories. We should have a higher proportion of people in work than ever before. After less than three years of this Government, we have more people in work in Britain than we have ever had, but we are aiming even higher to achieve the highest proportion ever, and to do so on a durable basis.
  We want to halve the number of children in poverty in the next decade, on the way to achieving my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's target of the abolition of child poverty within 20 years. Another aim is that, for the first time, more than half of our school leavers should go on to study for a degree.
  All those ambitions are achievable if we lock in the new-found stability and build on it for the long term, as we are determined to do. We cannot afford to abandon swathes of our people, as the previous Government did. Younger people and older people were dumped on the scrap heap when they could have been providing for themselves and contributing to the economy. We are building a fair society with employment opportunity for all, where everybody has the chance to develop to their full potential and nobody is left out.
  Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman is customarily courteous in giving way. On a matter of genuine interest, will he tell me whether he believes that he and his colleagues have abolished the economic cycle?
  Mr. Timms: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked me that, because I wanted to ask him about the economic cycle. We have had an interesting debate—

  521
  much more interesting than the one that he and I participated in during the early hours of this morning, together with some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's presentation of his party's tax guarantee and the mechanics of how it would work—setting aside cyclical effects, as he added in an aside.
  That brings us to the point that the hon. Gentleman has just put to me. What about the cycle? The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, will have made the calculation that the hon. Gentleman put to the House during the debate. It may have been made with the advice of the hon. Gentleman—I do not know what his role was in the 1992 election campaign. On that basis, the former Prime Minister promised that there would be no tax increases under his Government. That is the same basis that the hon. Gentleman has spelled out in the debate. Within a few months of that promise being made, we had 22 Tory tax rises. The failure to achieve stability in the economy caused a huge problem for the previous Government. Our success in securing stability over the past three years has made all the difference and allows us to plan for the future with confidence.
  Mr. Letwin rose—
  Mr. Timms: I shall not give way again, because I want to make progress. I am encouraged by the article in The Times on 10 February about the Tory tax guarantee, which said:
  Mr. Portillo's economic team is working on proposals to make the guarantee more believable.
  We look forward to hearing those proposals. No doubt we shall return to the subject before too long.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) made a telling contribution, for which we were grateful. He pointed out the reality of what often happens with Liberal Democrat administrations. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West, along with other hon. Friends who spoke in the debate, pointed out that Liberal Democrat representatives take entirely contradictory positions in different parts of the country. Their sums frequently do not add up—my hon. Friend is absolutely right on that score.
  The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) also made an interesting contribution. He said that people cannot wait for doctors to be trained. Well, new doctors have to be trained, and that is what we are doing. It is a necessity when it comes to improving the health service. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that it takes time. There is no short cut, however—we want high-quality staff in the health service and we are taking steps to ensure that we get them.
  The hon. Gentleman also criticised the Government's programme of hospital building. I do not agree one jot, and I do not believe that the country does. We have the biggest hospital-building programme in the history of the national health service, and that is what the people of this country want.
  The hon. Gentleman made a very interesting point—one of the most telling contributions to the debate, in fact—when he told us that his party had moved on since its manifesto. We will deliver on all the commitments in our election manifesto, and that is what we are doing.
  Mr. Hancock: The Minister is extremely courteous in giving way, despite being on dodgy ground. I am not
  522
  against building hospitals—I just think that they should be built the right way. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying that private finance initiatives are the best and only way that we can build the hospitals that we need?
  Mr. Timms: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is hedging on what he said before. The PFI is a very successful mechanism, which is why we have secured the biggest hospital-building programme in the history of the health service.
  Our commitments are to economic stability and sustainable public finances. That is what has provided us with a foundation for two hugely significant programmes, modernising our public services and integrating tax and benefits. On public services, which we have said a lot about in the debate, the new stability has allowed us to make record extra investments in our public services, including the additional £40 billion for improvements in health and education provision. That is new investment for the future, reflecting our priorities and the nation's priorities, to build a modern Britain and a decent society. It is far in excess of anything that was promised by the Liberal Democrats' manifesto, even though they have since moved on from it.
  Health spending is improving every year. There are real-terms increases of 5 per cent. every year of the comprehensive spending review. Spending on health is now 10 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1997. We are building more than 30 new hospitals, the biggest hospital-building programme ever. We have introduced modern delivery channels, such as NHS Direct and walk-in clinics, and we have set up the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to take the lottery element out of health care. Every accident and emergency unit in the country that needs it is being upgraded. We are employing more nurses and doctors. There is an immense programme of investment and improvement in the health service. People using the health service and working in it would not recognise the grim picture painted by the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey).
  On schools, with our 16 per cent. real-terms increase over three years, we are getting 6,000 more teachers into schools and 800,000 more students into further and higher education. We are modernising 15,000 schools with extra money from the new deal and connecting every primary and secondary school to the internet. This is very telling: in 1997, barely one school in 10 was connected to the internet. Now two thirds of them are, the highest figure in any G7 country. The number of primary schools connected has increased fourfold just in the past year. By 2002, every school in the country will be connected to the internet. That is the scale of our commitment, and we are delivering on public services.
  On tax and benefit reforms, we are cutting the taxes of hard-working families across the country and making work pay so that it pays to do the right thing and get a job. Too often in the past, people have faced unemployment traps and poverty traps. The Tories built them into the system; we are designing them out. Our policies are tackling those problems; we are raising the incentives to do the right thing and building a fairer society, with employment opportunity for all.
  The national minimum wage—the first in our history—was opposed by the Liberal Democrats. It is boosting the hourly wage of 1.7 million low-paid workers and helping to ensure that it is worth their while to be in work.

  523
  We have introduced income tax reforms; the 10p starting rate and the cut in the basic rate increase the rewards for work, especially for the low-paid. That is our priority and it is right. We are improving incentives for work.
  National insurance contributions are being reformed to lift the burden on the low-paid and on employers. The working families tax credit is helping to make work pay for about 1.4 million working families—giving them, on average, £24 a week more than they would have received under family credit.
  Together, those reforms are guaranteeing a minimum income of £200 a week for families with a full-time earner. No family earning less than £235 a week—that is about £12,000 a year—will pay net income tax.
  That is why the unemployment total has been falling month after month. The claimant count is down 30 per cent. The employment rate in the UK is now higher than in almost any other OECD country. We have a strong economy and there are vacancies in every region of the country. Work incentives are being sorted out. People are able at last to move off welfare and into work.
  The new deal was opposed by the Tories; the financing mechanism for it was opposed by the Liberal Democrats, as they confirmed today. The new deal focuses on helping our youngsters to build the future that the Tories always denied them. Long-term youth unemployment—of more than six months' duration—has fallen by a staggering 70 per cent. since the election. It is lower now than it was at any time under the Tories. If any Tories were in the Chamber, they should be listening—as should the Liberal Democrats—because they opposed the policies which made that fall possible. Of course, youth unemployment is lower than it was during the Tory busts, but it is also lower than it was in any of their booms—lower than at any point during the 18 years of Tory government.
  Tens of thousands of young people who, in the past, would have been dumped on the dole for years—quite often for ever—have now been given a hope for the future. They are able to get used to the idea of going out to work every day, and have been given the chance to build a decent life for themselves and for their families.
  Julie Haydock is from my area in East London, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor visited yesterday. After 15 years of unemployment, she is now in a job thanks to the Government's initiatives. She was quoted in a newspaper today. She said that she has a
  new sense of self esteem.
  She is speaking for thousands.
  We have not finished yet. There is more to do. As my hon. Friend the Paymaster General said, there is more help to come for unemployed people so that they can make the most of the opportunities that our economy is creating. About 1.25 million people are being lifted out of poverty by our reforms—800,000 of them children. We are building the fairer and more modern society that we all want to see.
  Nearly three years ago, we inherited a pattern of large budget deficits, a steeply rising burden of public debt and massive neglect of public services and public investment. At present, we are delivering what Britain has been crying out for years. After the cynicism of the past, there is a new conviction that we can change things for the better in our nation and in our time. Our ambitions—the nation's
  524
  ambitions—are for enterprise and fairness and for a decent and modern Britain. Those are no longer hopeless pipe dreams; they are being delivered in every part of the country.
  Of course, there is more to be done, and in the coming weeks, in visits to every region of the country and then in the Budget, we shall be setting out the next steps in our programme. There will be more jobs; more opportunities; better services and a better future. That is our pledge and we are going to keep on delivering it.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 280.

  Division No. 93]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Keetch, Paul

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

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

  Baker, Norman

  Ballard, Jackie

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Livsey, Richard

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Moore, Michael

  Burnett, John

  Oaten, Mark

  Burstow, Paul

  Öpik, Lembit

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Rendal, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Cotter, Brian

  Stunell, Andrew

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Feam, Ronnie

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Tyler, Paul

  Hancock, Mike

  Webb, Steve

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Harvey, Nick

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Sir Robert Smith and

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Mr. Tom Brake.

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Burden, Richard

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Burgon, Colin

  Alexander, Douglas

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Allen, Graham

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Austin, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Banks, Tony

  Caplin, Ivor

  Barnes, Harry

  Casale, Roger

  Bayley, Hugh

  Caton, Martin

  Beard, Nigel

  Cawsey, Ian

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Chaytor, David

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clapham, Michael

  Benton, Joe

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Berry, Roger

  Best, Harold

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Borrow, David

  Clelland, David

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Coleman, Iain

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Colman, Tony

  Browne, Desmond

  Connarty, Michael

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Cooper, Yvette

  525

  Corbett, Robin

  Hutton, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Corston, Jean

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cox, Tom

  Jamieson, David

  Cranston, Ross

  Jenkins, Brian

  Crausby, David

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Cummings, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davidson, Ian

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Denham, John

  Kidney, David

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dobbin, Jim

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Doran, Frank

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Dowd, Jim

  Laxton, Bob

  Drew, David

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Linton, Martin

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Efford, Clive

  Lock, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Love, Andrew

  Ennis, Jeff

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Etherington, Bill

  Macdonald, Calum

  Fisher, Mark

  McDonnell, John

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  McNulty, Tony

  Flint, Caroline

  MacShane, Denis

  Flynn, Paul

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Follett, Barbara

  McWalter, Tony

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McWilliam, John

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Foulkes, George

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Martlew, Eric

  Godsiff, Roger

  Maxton, John

  Goggins, Paul

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Meale, Alan

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Merron, Gillian

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Miller, Andrew

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mitchell, Austin

  Gunnell, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hain, Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Hanson, David

  Morley, Elliot

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

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

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mountford, Kali

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mullin, Chris

  Heppell, John

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hill, Keith

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Olner, Bill

  Hoey, Kate

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Hood, Jimmy

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Pearson, Ian

  Hope, Phil

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Pike, Peter L

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Plaskitt, James

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pond, Chris

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Pope, Greg

  Hurst, Alan

  Pound, Stephen

  526

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Stringer, Graham

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Purchase, Ken

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Timms, Stephen

  Rammell, Bill

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rapson, Syd

  Todd, Mark

  Raynsford, Nick

  Touhig, Don

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Trickett, Jon

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Ruane, Chris

  Tynan, Bill

  Ruddock, Joan

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Salter, Martin

  Watts, David

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sawford, Phil

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Sheerman, Barry

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wills, Michael

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wilson, Brian

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wise, Audrey

  Woodward, Shaun

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Worthington, Tony

  Snape, Peter

  Wray, James

  Soley, Clive

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mr. Clive Betts and

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Mrs.Anne McGuire.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the fact that the Government is making work pay and cutting taxes for hard-working families; welcomes the fact that, as a result, the tax rate on a typical family will be cut to its lowest level since 1972, and that, on average, families with children will be £740 a year better off; notes that the Liberal Democrats oppose the measures that made this possible, including the Working Families Tax Credit; further welcomes the fact that the Government is making record extra investment in public services, including an extra £40 billion in health and education; notes that this is far in excess of anything promised by the Liberal Democrats at the time of the last General Election; and notes the reckless and uncosted spending commitments made by the Liberal Democrats, which they have no idea how to pay for and which would take Britain back to Tory boom and bust.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill and the Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.[Mr. Jamieson.]
  Question agreed to.

Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill
Postponed proceedings on Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, resumed.
10.10 pm
Mr. Andrew George: It is surprising that a matter that was not considered sufficiently important for the annual report at the time is now considered important enough for primary legislation. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber do so quickly and quietly, so that we may proceed with the Second Reading debate?
Mr. George: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The question that I raised earlier was whether it was appropriate for a public body to behave as the Sea Fish Industry Authority had done in not referring to the concern about the grants issue in the annual report. It was considered not important enough for the annual report, yet the Government consider it important enough for primary legislation.
This is a narrow issue, and the House should move on as quickly as possible so that at a later stage we shall have the opportunity to examine the legal advice that the Government receive. We must not put the future of the SFIA, it charges or its grants in jeopardy, as it is important, especially for sea safety, that we get the matter right.
In view of recent tragedies at sea and the fact that the Wolfson report has raised questions about the stability of beam trawlers, those issues need to be properly investigated. Concerns have been raised about single-handed fishermen and about whether it is appropriate for single-handed fishing boats to go to sea without those fishermen wearing life jackets. There are still questions pertaining to the Government bringing forward a code for under-12 m vessels.
Liberal Democrats will support the Government if the House divides on Second Reading, and we hope that our questions relating to a narrow and retrospective Bill will be addressed.
10.15 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: I do not think that the Minister did full justice to the Bill when he introduced it. Although he took great pains to explain the details and the technicalities, I was disappointed that he did not refer at any length or in any depth—indeed, he may have mentioned it hardly at all—to the element of retrospection that is hidden in the Bill.
In fact, it is not all that hidden. In a written reply on 5 November 1998, the Minister himself said:
The Government intend when the legislative programme allows, to introduce legislation to provide retrospective statutory authority for technical charges levied.—[Official Report, 5 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 660W.]
528
The Minister, then, has told us that the Bill has retrospective effect—and, indeed, clause 1(1) says that
The Sea Fish Authority shall be taken to have had power to make … charges.
This is an explicitly retrospective measure—a Bill that looks backwards, in which the Government are saying, "We want to ensure that what has been happening is now legitimised."
I believe that, in normal circumstances, that principle would deserve a considerable airing, but on this occasion I simply cite it as an element that I think may have to be explored during the Bill's subsequent stages. I am putting down a marker: I am saying that I do not think that that element should be allowed to pass unmentioned or unnoticed, or, indeed, unjustified.
Traditionally, retrospective legislation is frowned on in the House. When I first came here, not all that many years ago, I was told that in parliamentary terms it was taboo, or forbidden. Here it is, however, sliding into the practices of the House—and certainly those of the Government—without so much as a by your leave, and with barely an explanation.
Paragraph 17 of the explanatory notes states:
By ensuring that these charges were validly levied the Bill will secure a possible saving in public expenditure—
which I would normally support—
in avoiding any obligation that might otherwise arise to fund repayments.
In fairness to the Minister, he made some reference to that, but I think we may want to explore—perhaps in Committee, or perhaps later—the question of what the Government are trying to slide away from in that seemingly innocuous phrase. It is not in itself a sufficient justification; it is a statement avoiding any obligation—which makes me rather nervous in any event—and I feel that it requires a much fuller explanation.
I was surprised by one aspect of the Bill. I shall not dwell on it unnecessarily now, but I want to make the point. As far as I can tell, the Bill's legislative origins date back to at least the Sea Fish Industry Act 1951 and its successor Acts: I think that there have been seven or eight.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): No.
Mr. Forth: I should appreciate a brief explanation from the Minister of why that is not the case.
Section 15 of the 1951 Act explicitly refers to the charging of "fees for services rendered". I should have thought that it would be at least possible that—given the way in which the measures have appeared over the years, one succeeding another, setting up a succession of authorities—authority for charging might have been carried forward from the explicit reference to fees in 1951 to current legislation. In our short debate, some doubt has been expressed about whether the problem described by the Minister really exists to that extent, and, consequent to that, whether the Bill would solve the problems.
A number of questions have arisen which the House will want to examine properly and in detail. It is perhaps not appropriate to air them at great length now, but there is more to the Bill than the Minister wanted to reveal in his opening remarks. The Minister understandably wanted

529
to portray the Bill as a technical measure, which blocks a loophole. My view is different. The Bill raises important issues of principle, which will require more careful examination. I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with those matters subsequently, if not now, and to satisfy the House for the purposes of Second Reading. We can then consider these matters in much more detail in Committee and on Report.
10.20 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I want to answer some of the points that were made about a narrow and technical Bill. The hon. Members for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), for St. Ives (Mr. George), my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) dealt with the thrust of the Bill and understood the purpose of the measure.
The Bill will make legal charges that were levied under the previous Administration. The main period of time that the Bill covers is 1981 to 1996. It includes the Herring Industry Board, but that is inevitable in a catch-all Bill that applies retrospectively. I accept that retrospective legislation is not desirable, but the Bill applies retrospectively to tackle a problem that we inherited from the previous Administration.
Questions were asked about the White Fish Authority and whether it had the authority to make charges. The White Fish Authority had that ability, but it was the predecessor of the Sea Fish Industry Authority. There is no problem with the charges that were levied before 1972.
I was also asked about the ability of the White Fish Authority and the SFIA to make charges. They were deemed to have made charges on behalf of Ministers. I dealt with that point in my opening speech. Ministers may require charges to be made on their behalf, but if they give an agency the authority to levy charges, they must initially have the authority to grant the agencies power to do that. We have been advised that there was some doubt about whether Ministers had the authority to do that in the case that we are considering.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: As someone who does not expect to be invited to serve on the Standing Committee, I remind my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] He is nodding at me; he has me worried. However, we are considering a serious matter and I remind my hon. Friend that the White Fish Authority distributed millions of pounds in grants to Humber trawler companies to enable them to build vessels. Those companies treated their men abysmally when they lost their jobs.
Mr. Morley: Those comments stray wide of the Bill, but my hon. Friend makes a pertinent point, which the National Audit Office has picked up.
The Fisheries Act 1981 has been mentioned. The power to charge, for which section 3(3) of that Act provides, was subject to detailed consideration. The power to charge was covered in part I of the Act, but some schemes were
530
established under part II. Advice suggests that it was doubtful that part II provided for the power to make charges.
Mr. Malcolm Moss: Section 3 of the 1981 Act refers to charging for any services; it does not specify services under part I, part II or part III of the measure.
Mr. Morley: I understand that. However, Ministers must grant the power to make charges, and they must initially have authority that they can pass on to agencies that subsequently make the charges.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asked about legal advice and whether the Ministry would publish it. According to precedent, no Government have ever published the legal advice that they received on legislation. However, having said that he may want to raise that issue during consideration of the Freedom of Information Bill.
Mr. David Heath: I was a member of the Freedom of Information Bill Committee and I pressed the Minister's colleagues strongly for that to be included. It was, of course, resisted by the Home Department. Can he provide as much clarity as possible? All that we seek—in much more explicit terms than he has been able to use in either the explanatory notes or the debate—are the outlines of the advice that was given. That would satisfy all Members that the Bill is necessary. We are not satisfied simply because we have not received the outlines.
Mr. Morley: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and will consult my officials to see whether there is any scope for providing more information, although he must bear in mind what I said about the accepted precedent on legal advice.
I was asked about the HIB' s role in inspecting vessels and deciding whether they were seaworthy. I understand that it could refer a boat that it thought to be unseaworthy to the relevant authority, which was the Department of Transport. That is the case for its successor—the Sea Fish Industry Authority—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde rightly said, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is now the relevant authority. I understand his point about survival suits. He has great experience of the fishing industry and has made his case before. I was also asked whether Scotland has been consulted. The Scottish Executive are content to support the Bill being passed as United Kingdom legislation and it might be useful to remember that the charges are a pre-devolution measure.
Safety grants have also been mentioned and I say to my hon. Friend that the Bill deals with them and with past inspections. Safety and a safety culture in the fishing industry are of paramount importance and, although it is easy to make political points about the safety grants situation, these are serious issues. Incidentally, the old safety grants scheme did not apply to all fishing vessels and the majority of the smaller ones were completely exempt. There are questions to ask, such as why, despite the scheme, the fishing industry's safety record is so bad compared with that of the Merchant Navy, whose record has improved.

531
The Government have to address those issues and we in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are doing so. We are considering the possibility of establishing a successor scheme to the safety grants system or a safety scheme system under European Union structural funds. The old system was financed under structural funds, but I do not think that it delivered its objectives. We need a better scheme.
My hon. Friend referred to lifejackets, survival suits and training. We must consider those issues.
Mr. Moss: Can the Minister tell the House unequivocally whether he is giving a commitment to reintroduce safety grants for fishing vessels?
Mr. Morley: The debate is very narrow and we are not dealing with that. However, I can give the hon. Gentleman a commitment that we take safety seriously.
We are considering the Government's role in working in partnership with the industry, which also has to take responsibility, and ways of improving the safety culture.
Mr. Moss rose—
Mr. Morley: I am about to conclude.
The measure is narrow and technical, but we have to take safety seriously. I was asked why we have to introduce it if no one has taken legal action against the Ministry. No one has taken action, but I must point out what happened when the previous Government introduced the Merchant Shipping Act 1988.
The Factortame judgment followed. It was illegal legislation that was poorly thought through. It means that the taxpayer is liable for large sums of money, which will have to be paid in compensation. Those are issues that the Government have inherited, are addressing, will resolve and sort out properly.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS BILL [LORDS]
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time tomorrow.

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 20th April, do adjourn till Tuesday 2nd May 2000.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 20th April, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until she shall have notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That:

(i) the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 2000 be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee:

(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 9th March at half-past Two o'clock, to consider the instrument referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and

(3) in respect of the sitting on Thursday 9th March, Standing Order No. 115 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (delegated legislation)) shall have effect with the substitution of the word `three' for the words 'two and a half' in paragraph (2) of the Order—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Petition
10.31 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: I present petitions on behalf of my constituents in Vale of York, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). There are more than 40,000 signatures from the whole of north Yorkshire. Almost 7,000 come from Vale of York.
The petition is raised in view of the threat to post offices and sub-post offices in rural locations and market towns from making payments of benefits and pensions by automated means only through banks, when most banks in north Yorkshire villages and small towns have already closed. The petition states:
534
I beg to submit to the House of Commons the petition of residents of the Vale of York constituency, of the Richmond constituency and of the Ryedale constituency in the names of myself and right hon. and hon. Members, declaring that we are concerned at the Government's plans to pay benefits directly into bank accounts instead of over the counter at post offices as this will have a serious impact on local post offices and endanger a mainstay of village life.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to rethink these proposals
And the petitioners remain, yours faithfully, Mrs. Caroline Patmore and others.
To lie upon the table.

ADJOURNMENT
Resolved,
That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

AWE Aldermaston
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Dowd.]
9.30 am
Mr. David Rendel: Like other hon. Members, I have been up all night, so if I seem a little inarticulate, it is because I have not had much sleep.
I am delighted, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister—I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker; that was not a good start.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can see that the hon. Member is going to have some difficulty this morning. He really must not compromise me in that way.
Mr. Rendel: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall do my best.
I am delighted to have secured this morning's debate. It is on a subject that has become very worrying in the light of recent Health and Safety Executive reports about data falsification by British Nuclear Fuels plc at its Sellafield reprocessing plant. Indeed, the issue has become even more pressing since I first requested this Adjournment debate, as the problems at BNFL have now forced the resignation of the chief executive.
On 1 December 1999, the Secretary of State for Defence announced his decision to award the contract to manage the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston to AWE Management Ltd., a consortium that comprises Serco Defence Support, British Nuclear Fuels plc and Lockheed Martin Corporation. On 1 April 2000, the new contractors will take over from Hunting-BRAE, the consortium that has run the site since 1993. The new contract is worth £2.2 billion and it is due to run for 10 years. The consortium will also manage the nuclear warhead assembly plant at Burghfield on behalf of the Ministry of Defence.
That announcement raised several questions in my mind, not least what grounds there could possibly be for awarding the contract to a consortium that included BNFL, a company not noted for the excellence of its record on nuclear safety. Was that decision made on the basis that it would save money, or was it made because Hunting-BRAE's record was felt to be inadequate? Hunting-BRAE was convicted as recently as 13 December 1999 of illegally discharging radioactive tritium from AWE into a stream that passes through the village of Aldermaston and then feeds into the river Thames. The company had previously been fined for a plutonium leak that contaminated two people who worked at the site.
It would be appalling if the Government were to admit that the contractor had been chosen purely on cost. I hope that no Government, of whatever hue, would put cost ahead of safety at such a sensitive site. If the Government's grounds for choosing the new
26WH
contractor were health and safety, however, as I hope to demonstrate this morning, there are good reasons for thinking that an equally appalling mistake has been made, even when all the concerns about HuntingBRAE's safety record are taken into account.
As time has gone on, and as more details have emerged about the scandal of the fuel rods at Sellafield, I have become increasingly worried about what the reasons behind that decision might be. At its Sellafield site in Cumbria, BNFL manufacturers mix uranium-plutonium oxide fuel pellets—MOX pellets—combining them with other components to make complete fuel assemblies for use in nuclear reactors. The fuel assemblies are then supplied to countries, including Japan, Switzerland and Germany.
Problems arose, however, in August 1999, when BNFL discovered that its technicians were falsifying data measuring the size of the MOX fuel pellets. The Health and Safety Executive called in its nuclear installations inspectorate to investigate. Although the NH report stressed that the matter was a contractual issue between BNFL and its customer—in this case, a Japanese company—it was clear that what had happened was a deliberate breach of operating procedures at Sellafield. BNFL's initial investigation was found by the NII to be too narrow because it had been rushed. It had also assumed that the problem of falsifying data was confined to one shift, which we now know not to be true. The NII concluded that, although various individuals were at fault, there had also been a systematic failure that
could not have occurred had there been a proper safety culture within the plant.
Although there was no excuse for process workers deliberately falsifying data to avoid a tedious job, management allowed that to happen and therefore bore a large measure of responsibility.
A second report, requested by the chief inspector of nuclear installations, found that there had been deterioration in safety performance at Sellafield and once again expressed concerns about control and supervision at the plant. Three significant issues needed to be addressed. First, there was a lack of a high-quality safety management system across the site, a problem compounded by "overly complex management structure". Secondly, insufficient resources were available to implement even the existing safety management system. Thirdly, the report referred to the lack of an independent inspection, auditing and review system within BNFL.
The report concluded:
Without a vigorous independent inspection, auditing and review system, the Health and Safety Executive does not see how BNFL can make acceptable and timely progress in delivering a high-quality safety management system.
If that is true of BNFL at Sellafield, why should anyone believe that such a company will have got its act together in time to take over the management of AWE on 1 April and to deliver a high-quality safety management system there?
It is clear from both the reports that the BNFL management allowed a catalogue of errors to occur at Sellafield and that safety fell well below the standard that NII requires of a nuclear installation. Since the first press stories, five process workers at Sellafield have been

27WH
sacked, and this week we have heard that the company's chief executive, John Taylor, is also expected to resign. On Monday, The Independent reported claims that the chairman of BNFL, Hugh Collum, had alerted Ministers to his concerns about the company last October, well before the Government announced the decision on the new contract. The investment bank advising the Government on the public-private partnership for BNFL apparently expressed similar concerns. The Government knew that there were significant problems with BNFL well in advance of their announcement of 1 December, so if the contract goes wrong, they must share a large part of the blame.
The Government should also have been aware that Lockheed Martin, another partner in the AWE Management Ltd. consortium, has a safety failure record that—believe it or not—rivals that of BNFL. I understand that the company has managed four sites with a nuclear role on behalf of the United States Department of Energy and that one of them is now under a new contractor. The sites—a plant known as Y12, the Oak Ridge national laboratory, the Idaho national engineering and environmental laboratory and the Sandia national laboratory—have all been subject to safety failures similar to those that occurred at BNFL's Sellafield plant.
I could hardly believe that an Office of Oversight existed when I read about it, but there is something called that in America. Its name does not mean that it has missed something out by mistake, but merely that it oversees other people. The Office of Oversight, working on behalf of the United States Department of Energy, reported that workplace safety and environmental protection at the Idaho plant had deteriorated over four years. In October 1997, two people operating the reactor at the advanced test reactor critical facility were found to have falsified records—that rings a bell—to show that the safety systems had been tested as required when they had not been. The safety systems are supposed to shut down the reactor automatically in an emergency. In the previous month, six workers were contaminated because of the violation of nuclear safety rules. At Oak Ridge, the Office of Oversight found that the rate and seriousness of reportable accidents and incidents was increasing. On 5 November 1999, enriched uranium operations at the Y-12 plant were halted after a practice run failed to demonstrate that the plant was ready for the safe restart of enriched uranium operations.
Lockheed Martin's safety record worries me and my constituents sick, not least because the problems identified by the Office of Oversight closely mirror BNFL's failings. The two companies are remarkably similar. Many hon. Members will have heard the "File on Four" programme about the failures and will be equally worried. It is of particular concern that the Secretary of State, in spite of the findings, decided to award the contract to a consortium that includes not just one but both those companies.
When The Independent published the story about MOX fuel, I immediately wrote to the Minister urging him to reconsider the decision. I have not received a response. During last Monday's Defence questions, in response to the hon. Member for Reading, West
28WH
(Mr. Salter), who is also concerned about the future of Aldermaston and Burghfield—I am glad to see him here today—the Secretary of State said that the Government
have instructed the Chief of Defence Procurement to examine the terms and conditions of the new contract to ensure the preeminence of public health and environmental safety as they affect the workers and the facility, and also the general public.—[Official Report, 21st February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1223.]
He went on to say that the NII can impose high safety standards before granting the licence to the new contractors. Frankly, that is not good enough. Indeed, it is of little comfort to my constituents, many of whom are worried about what is going on at Aldermaston under the NII-regulated regime.
The safety records of BNFL and Lockheed Martin speak for themselves and must not be dismissed lightly. The Minister cannot pass the buck by insisting that the Chief of Defence Procurement is responsible and that the matter has passed from his hands.
Even if the safety considerations, hugely important though they are, do not persuade the Minister to cancel the newly signed contract and re-tender it, there is another reason why re-tendering will be necessary. To survive as a company, BNFL needs customers, but its customers know that it has grossly misled them over the sensitive matter of the honest and accurate description of fuel rods. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were the manager of a Japanese, Swiss or German power company, would you dare to purchase fuel rods from a company that had misled you? If you were brave or foolhardy—enough to do so, would you not expect the citizens of your country to rise in protest at such an appalling decision? It is inconceivable that any of BNFL's customers will be willing—or will be allowed by citizens of their countries—to continue to trade with a company that has shown itself to be irresponsible in the handling of highly sensitive materials.
Without customers, BNFL cannot survive. Questions hang over the future of Sellafield. It is reported that other countries are calling on us to shut it down. If BNFL fails to survive, where does that leave the new contract? It might be possible—technically at least—for the consortium to continue as the management of AWE with Lockheed Martin, an American company, in sole control of the United Kingdom's principal nuclear weapons establishment. But even if the contract terms make that a theoretical possibility, and I do not know exactly what is in the contract, I cannot believe that it would be acceptable to any British Government. The only other possibility is that the collapse of BNFL, which must happen, leads to the collapse of the new contract. Would it not be better if the new contract were broken now and re-tendered rather than if it collapsed in a few months?
My constituents' concerns are not based on any hostility to AWE. Indeed, many of them work there. However, they are concerned about its future and want to know that those responsible for managing the site can be expected to put safety before anything else.
It would be much the best thing if the Minister now declared that the safety concerns with respect to BNFL and Lockheed Martin had persuaded him to cancel his newly signed contract. If he will not do that, I predict that the collapse of BNFL will force him into that position in the near future.
9.45 am
Mr. Martin Salter: I congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Bendel), who in this context should, I suppose, be described as my hon. Friend, on securing this important Adjournment debate. Like him, I have been involved in the issue for many years. We both attended the successful community inquiry in Reading in 1993 just after he was elected. That dealt in detail with the health, safety and environmental aspects of what happens behind the wire at AWE Aldermaston.
The community inquiry, which was chaired by the eminent Queen's Counsel, Helena Kennedy, concluded that we suffer from the British disease of secrecy. It is not that my constituents or the people of Newbury, Wokingham or elsewhere want to know how an atomic bomb is made, but they have a right to know that what happens during the process is not a danger to them or the local environment. I share the concerns of many people who have campaigned for many years for a culture of greater openness at AWE Aldermaston.
In 1993, the management regime changed to something affectionately known as GOCOGovernment-owned, contractor-operated. Some naive people, mainly on the left, have argued that that in itself led to a diminution in safety standards. That is fundamentally untrue. The Ministry of Defence will admit in quiet, private moments that many of the problems at AWE Aldermaston occurred in the 1950s and 1960s, when the safety culture was even poorer than it is now. One of the problems of my constituency in particular, being downwind and downstream of AWE Aldermaston, is that at times of flash floods all sorts of radioactive materials are washed off the site. They have probably been buried for many years. The Ministry of Defence and whoever operates AWE Aldermaston do not know where, because the culture at the time in question was so different.
What I have described does not mean that since 1993, when immunity was lifted and the site came under the regime of the nuclear installations inspectorate and other bodies such as the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive were given a locus, the safety regime has been at all satisfactory; it is just that the lid has been lifted a little. As the hon. Member for Newbury said, there has been a prosecution in Newbury magistrates court. Two workers were contaminated as a result of plutonium leaks. If I may correct the hon. Gentleman slightly, on 13 December—the case is referred to in an early-day motion tabled in our names—the Environment Agency prosecuted the management of AWE Aldermaston for deliberately discharging radioactive material into the Aldermaston stream, which, before it flows into the Thames, flows into the River Kennet, from where Reading's drinking water is taken. That was a flagrant breach of safety procedures and the law, and a matter for some concern.
No wonder local people, including my constituents, are worried about the management regime at the plant. The decision to award the contract to AWE Management Ltd. was for most of my constituents a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire. We have heard about the appalling safety record of Lockheed Martin. I have been in contact with several people at AWE Aldermaston and elsewhere. In some cases, for employment reasons, they contacted me anonymously.
30WH
When they heard that Lockheed Martin was in the frame for the contract to run AWE, the overwhelming message was, "God help you." As was highlighted, its track record in the United States was little short of lamentable. That was before the blatant and deliberate falsifying of nuclear data at Sellafield occurred.
Like other hon. Members, I received a letter from Baroness Symons towards the end of November, informing me of the new management arrangements. I was concerned then, but I am far more concerned now that I have heard what has happened in Cumbria. The resignations and Ministers' statements that followed did not further reassure me—they made me absolutely convinced that the contract must be reviewed and that safety, and the interest of the local and national environment, must be made paramount.
I shall quote from a letter that I received two days ago from a worker at AWE Aldermaston, who signed it "A very concerned Worker". From the style of writing, I think that it is one of several communications that I have had over the past couple of years. It begins:
Dear Mr. Salter, I note from the recent press cuttings that you have some concern relating to the management of the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston and Burghfield, although your concerns seem only to be focused on the performance of the current contractor, HuntingBrae. While your concern has an undeniable basis, a far more significant concern has arisen in that AWEML will be taking over the management contract from April 2000 for a… period of 20 years. The first question you must ask yourself, is why did HuntingBrae lose the contract. Current opinion within the workforce indicates a lack of safety performance and a slowness in taking remedial action.
He lists details, and continues:
A further failure may have been the fact that the Liquid Effluent Treatment Plant for Radioactive Waste is still inoperable after eight years, and we are still using a plant that was condemned in 1977.
If it is true that HuntingBrae lost the contract through poor safety performance, why then are AWEML being allowed to manage such hazardous sites, bearing in mind the safety track records of BNFL and Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, which begs the question—
the first question that I should pose to the Minister—
are MOD PE Contracts Branch competent to carry out the required technical assessment.
In recent interviews with Junior Ministers, a lack of knowledge of the poor performance of the incoming contractor both at Sellafield and in the US has been profound.
Interface with AWEML during the lead in phase to the new contract engenders serious misgivings on the new contractors grasp of the management function required to control such hazardous processes.
My correspondent's next point worried me gravely. He wrote:
Throughout the early life of the new contract, the workforce is to be downsized by a further 1,500 personnel, although no specific areas have been identified as redundancy targets.
During the tenure of HuntingBrae the workforce has been seriously depleted, to such an extent that much of the technical knowledge and experience, particularly in the nuclear and chemical process areas no longer exists.
In an instruction to me, he wrote:
What you should be pursuing is the terms of the new contract—
and the way in which the Department concluded that a consortium including Lockheed Martin and BNFL were suitable for managing an atomic weapons establishment.

31WH
I should briefly pose five further questions. First, will the Minister give insight into what research the Department did, before awarding the AWE contract, into Lockheed Martin's record in the United States? Secondly, was the Minister made aware of how poor Lockheed Martin's safety record at the four sites that it managed for the Department of Energy in the United States was? Thirdly, is the Minister aware that members of the work force are unhappy that an American company will be running the UK's nuclear weapons plant? Fourthly, exactly what role will BNFL play in maintaining the UK's Trident programme at the Atomic Weapons Establishment? Fifthly, have the recent revelations about MOX data falsification at Sellafield caused the Minister to reconsider his decision to award the Aldermaston and Burghfield contract to AWE Management Ltd?
The need for ministerial intervention is clear. Only yesterday, I learned that an electrician was burnt on site at AWE Aldermaston and is currently undergoing treatment at a specialist burns unit for his injuries. AWE's track record on safety, under the MOD, Hunting-BRAE or any other management regime, is simply unacceptable. Will it be improved by the involvement of BNFL and Lockheed Martin? I think not. To put it simply, people who tell lies, falsify data and prove themselves to be untrustworthy should not be allowed to play with nuclear weapons, and they should certainly not be put in charge of this country's nuclear defence capability.
9.55 am
Mr John Redwood: I am grateful to the hon. Members for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) and for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) for asking those questions and for leading the debate on these sensitive issues in recent months.
I share many of the worries of the hon. Members who represent neighbouring constituencies. Burghfield is in my constituency and, as far as I can judge, my constituents' concerns fall into two categories. I say, "As far as I can judge," because I have received only a couple of letters on the issue in quite a long time. However, I suspect that that is not a fair reflection of the underlying concern. Those who are most directly involved express the first concern. Those who work in the organisation are worried in case too many jobs are cut, which not only would affect their immediate family circumstances but might jeopardise safety by removing too many people from the work force. The whole work force needs to be reassured that the new contractors, whoever they may be, will make safety their overriding priority and understand the need to motivate and retain a good work force who are dedicated to that task. That emphasis on safety must come from the top, but it must infuse the whole organisation. We need a work force who are persuaded by their management that safety is their overriding priority and who are given the operating climate and facilities to enable them to get on with the job of ensuring that safety is guaranteed.
The second worry of my constituents is more general. They wish to be reassured that they are living near a safe installation that will not pollute the rivers and
32WH
jeopardise health. Several inquiries have taken place to investigate whether the incidents that are known to have happened so far have had any adverse consequences on the health of the general population. As the hon. Member for Reading, West said, there may already be several nasty substances on the sites, which might leach into water courses during heavy rains or flooding. We would like to know more about that, as well as about what action will be taken in future to clean up and contain any problem that has accumulated over many years of operation.
Is the Minister at all persuaded by the comments of the hon. Members for Newbury and for Reading, West that the position is so difficult that the contract needs to be re-tendered? That is one way in which the Minister could proceed, but the Minister must also consider the contractual arrangements that have already been entered into and who else might be able to provide a better future, and he must think about the pickle that he has got himself into by having gone so far against the advice of the hon. Members for Newbury and for Reading, West. I am not one of those who has wanted to conduct a public debate about the issue because, although I share the enthusiasm of other hon. Members for openness and sensible publication of information, I believe that these sensitive issues are best sorted out by those in the know, whenever possible. I try to achieve that by correspondence rather than by rushing to the local newspaper.
A second possibility, which the Minister may prefer, is to continue with the current contract, which will come into operation on 1 April if nothing else changes. If that were to happen, the least that the Minister could do for the local community would be to explain what action was being taken, especially in the light of the discoveries at BNFL Sellafield, to ensure no repetition of any such conduct under the new contractual arrangements.
Some of the employees and many of my constituents, if asked, would expect a full review and statement from the Minister on how the new arrangements will differ from the mistakes made by participating companies in the past. We should need more than mere words; we should need a formal agreement to show that safety had been written into the contract from beginning to end, that there would be a substantial tightening of working practices and that safety would come from the top and be the absolute priority. It would also be useful if the Minister were to provide a statement on how any accumulated problem in the organisation would be approached. That statement should cover the questions of substances possibly already on site, and of staff training and motivation, so that the concerns expressed by Members and their constituents could be properly addressed.
I make those proposals in a constructive spirit, because this issue is too serious to turn into a party political row. One could say that Ministers were being complacent, or that they were not keeping up with the job. I received some very complacent answers from the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)—now the Leader of the House—when she was in overall charge of nuclear safety at the Department of Trade and Industry. However, this is not an appropriate occasion for that kind of debate.

33WH
This matters to our local communities, and I am here as a representative of my constituency. I agree with much that other Members have said, but I wish to make my own statement in my own way, because it is important for the Minister to understand the feeling in the constituency about the sensitive issues of employment and safety that predominate in local debate.
10.2 am
Mr. Quentin Davies: I congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) on securing this debate. It would have been unnatural if Parliament had not had an opportunity to discuss such an important matter at a time when the contracts for supervision of the two facilities might be about to be changed, against the background of the failures of the existing contractor and by the prospective contractors. It is extraordinary that the Government should place a contract with a consortium, both of whose partners have so dubious a safety record.
The hon. Member for Newbury summarised clearly the track record of British Nuclear Fuels and Lockheed Martin, and I need not go over that ground again. I understand that the Oak Ridge and the Idaho incidents have, rightly, been treated very seriously in the United States, which will affect the willingness of other public authorities—or, perhaps, private corporations—in the United States to put their trust in Lockheed Martin as a suitable manager of nuclear installations.
We have a great deal to be proud of over the past 50 years in the British nuclear industry. It would be wrong to conduct this debate without recognising that Britain had the first commercial fission reactor, and that the Aldermaston facility has done a superb job in providing for our essential nuclear deterrent over 50 years. Safety failures have occurred from time to time, but that should not eclipse the record of considerable achievement, for which we are all enormously grateful.
The British nuclear deterrent played a significant part in keeping the peace, and in our eventual victory, in the cold war. We must pay tribute to the generations of British scientists and engineers who have done a superb job. British Nuclear Fuels, which reprocesses nuclear fuel on behalf of some extremely sophisticated customers, has a fine record. There are no customers more sophisticated than the Japanese, Swiss and Germans. They have placed their confidence in British Nuclear Fuels and, as a result, very important business has been generated in this country.
In marked contrast to that positive record, we should be particularly concerned at recent events at Sellafield, which constitute a betrayal of that record and of the traditions of a plant that has served the nuclear industry and this country well for a long time. It was right for the chief executive, Mr. Taylor, to resign, although I assume that he was unaware of, and certainly did not authorise, any errors of commission or omission in respect of safety procedures under his control. It is right that those at the highest level should take responsibility for such a serious incident. Any putative successor should be made aware that, should a similar incident occur, his career would come to an end as well.
Mr. Taylor has taken the right action, and it is right that individuals involved in safety failures at Sellafield should also be fired, but even that response is not
34WH
adequate. There is prima facie evidence that deliberate, wilful and reckless breaches of safety rules have been compounded by the falsification of records. I shall go no further than to say that, if that is true, the individuals concerned should be subject to criminal sanctions. It is not for me to pre-judge decisions taken by the prosecuting authorities or the courts. However, Parliament should establish whether the law provides a suitable basis for an appropriate response to allegations not merely of inadvertent omissions—which, although they would not justify a criminal sanction, might justify a sacking but of reckless and deliberate safety failures. In such circumstances, mere corporate sanctions or the sacking of the chief executive is insufficient.
For all the reasons given by the hon. Members for Newbury and for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Workingham (Mr. Redwood), nuclear safety is important. Before we can reassure the public on this matter, we need assurances from the Executive branch of Government, and I hope that we shall hear them in a moment. It is also important that the legislative branch of Government take the matter on board by ensuring that the law is adequate and the penalties and legal deterrents appropriate to the gravity of the case. Mr. Cook—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. The hon. Gentleman is doing very well, and I do not wish to disturb the flow of his argument. However, all hon. Members will appreciate my reminding him that, when the House, in its wisdom, embarked on this experiment, it was decided that this Chamber should be an extension of the whole House, and that the Chairman be addressed as "Deputy Speaker" unless a Committee is in session. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate guidance on that matter.
Mr. Davies: I certainly appreciate that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I apologise wholeheartedly for that breach of protocol. This is the first time that I have taken part in a debate in this Chamber, and I hope that that might be considered a sufficient excuse, but I certainly take on board your point and I apologise for my mistake.
The hon. Members for Newbury and for Reading, West and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham were right to speak as they did. Given their constituents' profound anxieties about some of the recent safety failures, including that at Hunting-BRAE, which appears to have polluted the Kennet, they spoke in extremely measured tones. I can imagine the pressure that would be placed on me if there were a threat, let alone a case, of that kind in Lincolnshire. All three hon. Members showed considerable moderation in their comments. Their demands for reassurance from the Government are entirely reasonable, and I hope that they will be satisfied.
The central questions to which the Minister must give a concrete response are: what confidence we can have that these failures, which appear to be almost systemic in British Nuclear Fuels and Lockheed Martin, will not be repeated under the new contract? What new procedures and sanctions are in place? What is new about the way in which the contract has been framed?
I should be grateful if the Minister would deal with another issue. What is the role of the Ministry of Defence, especially the Defence Evaluation and

35WH
Research Agency, in such contracts? The Government plan to privatise DERA; they expect to raise £250 million pounds from doing so, and if they do not get it there will be another hole in the military budget. Is DERA acting as a dispassionate adviser to the Government on the specifications and negotiations involved in the contract? Is it a source of reliable independent technical advice—which the Government clearly need—or a potential rival bidder for the contract? In other words, is it one of the companies, which hon. Members have asked the Minister to list, that is an alternative to the Lockheed Martin and BNFL combined consortium? Clearly, one organisation or corporate entity could not adequately fulfil both roles without conflicts of interest arising.
Safety requires three key elements. First, it requires engineers and scientists of the greatest technical competence. Secondly, it requires the highest motivation and integrity—not only internal integrity, but an external framework of discipline in safety that includes the necessary sanctions for misbehaviour. That is essential in generating a culture in which safety is considered to be a central and non-negotiable element of the conduct of operations. Thirdly, it requires a proper set of checks and balances. A clear distinction between the role of the contractor and that of the customer is essential, so that it is plain who is advising one and who is advising the other, and how the chain of responsibilities operates. There must be no conflict of interest and no fudging of responsibilities.
Mr. Rendel: I believe that I can help the hon. Gentleman about DERA. The letter that we received from Baroness Symons when the contract was awarded stated that two consortiums had been unsuccessful, one of which included Hunting-BRAE. DERA was a member of that consortium, and is thus part of one of the competitor consortiums that bid for the contract when it was awarded to AWE Management Ltd.
Mr. Davies: As the hon. Gentleman may have surmised when I was speaking, I had at the back of my mind a slight suspicion that circumstances might be as he just described. I preferred to ask my question of the Government openly. Nevertheless, a response is required. It is important that we receive the relevant assurances from the Government. Time constraints should not interfere with the Government's ability to deal authoritatively with such important issues.
10.15 am
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): I certainly do not feel constrained by time. I am sure that hon. Members will be glad that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) excused himself for his performance on the grounds that he had been up all night in the Division Lobby. We would not otherwise have noticed. Unusually, and unnaturally for a Liberal Democrat, his speech was remarkably brief, which has allowed me more time.
Before I respond in detail to the points made, I want to take the opportunity to send best wishes on behalf of all hon. Members to the member of the contractor's staff who suffered flash burns in an electrical accident at
36WH
Aldermaston yesterday. He is in a stable condition in hospital, and we hope that he makes a speedy and complete recovery. As you will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have been asked to withhold his name to protect the feelings of his family. We do not yet have a report on the circumstances or causes of the accident, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) did not wish to imply that we already knew those circumstances, or that there was a particular cause.
On the main point of this debate, the MOD fully shares hon. Members' concerns about the safety record of the consortiums that bid for the running of AWE at Aldermasteron, and, indeed, the winning consortium. The Ministry fully supports the strong line taken recently by the Department of Trade and Industry in setting up an inquiry into BNFL's safety culture at Sellafield. That is clear evidence that the safety watchdogs established to oversee nuclear installations in this country are willing to act independently, quickly and robustly when incidents of such a nature are identified. I applaud such vigour, and I am sure that the watchdogs would be equally critical and responsive should such an incident affect any MOD installation.
As hon. Members know, the Department of Trade and Industry is due to produce a detailed report on BNFL by the middle of April, which slightly constrains today's discussion, in terms of the Government's response. Clearly, it would be inappropriate and imprudent for me to prejudge the issue today; I am sure that hon. Members will understand that. However, I should stress that the MOD is working closely with the officials carrying out the inquiry, to examine whether there are implications for safety operations at Aldermaston. Not only will we study the inquiry's findings carefully, as hon. Members would expect, but, if lessons are to be learned, the MOD will insist that they are fully implemented. Furthermore, I emphasise that, if necessary, existing contractual arrangements will be extended, or direct MOD management imposed, until new appropriate arrangements are made for the longterm running of the site. It is unusual to reach such a conclusion first, but it is appropriate in view of the concerns expressed by hon. Members. It makes clear the direction in which the Government are moving.
I am also aware that similar criticisms were levelled in the media, and repeated in this Chamber today, in relation to Lockheed Martin, which is one of the three shareholders in the new consortium. Those criticisms relate to its safety record at its facilities in the United States. Those facilities are subject to the closest scrutiny by the US regulatory authorities. In line with our traditional strong relationship with the United States on the defence and the scientific side, which has rightly been the subject of many comments in the House over the years, we understandably maintain regular contact with them.
The United States Department of Energy, the responsible authority, recently issued a report on an incident at the Oak Ridge facility in December last year, in which a number of workers were injured. We are studying the findings to see whether there are any lessons to be learned for AWE. However, the independent British nuclear installations inspectorate reviewed the incident at the time, as it does all incidents that may have a bearing on operations at Aldermaston

37WH
or elsewhere, even if they take place outside the United Kingdom, and concluded that the Oak Ridge case had no bearing on the operation of our installation at Aldermaston. Hon. Members who have had any involvement with the nuclear industry will know that there is a regular exchange of information between the major operators and inspectors around the world to ensure not only that lessons are learned in each country but that the highest standards are maintained.
The media suggestions that Lockheed Martin's contract to run the Oak Ridge site has been shortened as a result of its alleged poor safety record appear to be unfounded. We have looked into the matter, and I am advised that the contract has been extended and that the company is competing for the new contract when the current one expires.
Mr. Quentin Davies: As the Minister probably has better sources of information than I do, will he confirm, or perhaps refute, the suggestion that has been put to me that the United States Secretary of Energy, Bill Richardson, has refused Lockheed Martin permission to restart operations at the Oak Ridge plant in Tennessee
because of security concerns and its—
Lockheed Martin's—
failure to demonstrate in a practice run that it was ready for the safe restart of enriched uranium operations?
Is that report correct?
Mr. Spellar: I am not sure whether two issues are getting mixed up here. One is the general relationship between the United States Department of Energy and Lockheed Martin. The second is its view on whether a certain plant is technically ready and able to start up. One could have confidence in a company's general competence, but might consider that a piece of equipment was not yet ready and required further work and testing, particularly in the nuclear industry, to have the greatest possible assurance that it would run satisfactorily. There are a number of extremely competent defence contractors, but we would not necessarily accept a piece of equipment if we were not satisfied that it was technically compliant.
I shall look into the quote from Bill Richardson. However, following our inquiries, our opposite numbers in the United States Department of Energy have not suggested that their confidence in the company's overall performance has been undermined by the recent incidents. I give the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) the undertaking that, if he will let my office have a copy of the item to which he referred, we shall look into the matter. For the reassurance of the residents in the area, as well as anywhere else, we want to be clear about any uncertainty felt by anyone, especially someone of the standing of Bill Richardson. Previously, he was the United States representative at the United Nations and a distinguished congressman for New Mexico, a state that contains several of the USA's nuclear facilities, including the Sandia laboratories and the Los Alamos facilities.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 21 February, we have instructed the Chief of Defence Procurement, Sir Robert Walmsley, to
38WH
examine the terms and conditions of the Atomic Weapons Establishment contract to ensure the preeminence of public health and safety as it affects the public and workers at the facility. I join hon. Members in paying tribute to the skill and expertise of the plant workers, many of whom are at the leading edge of technology and science, in maintaining and advancing our nuclear deterrent. It would be improper not to use the debate to report the public's appreciation and understanding of their capability and dedication.
Mr. Rendel: I am grateful to the Minister for his commendation for the staff concerned. However, will he tell us why the Chief of Defence Procurement has only now been asked to consider whether the contract is sufficient in terms of its emphasis on health and safety? Would it not have been rather better to consider the contract before deciding what would be the new consortium?
Mr. Spellar: With the conduct of an installation such as AWE Aldermaston, safety questions are inevitably at the forefront of our thinking. In the light of incidents extraneous to Aldermaston, notably at Sellafield but also in the US, it was only right and proper to ask the Chief of Defence Procurement for further examination and insurance. That seems appropriate, and I can imagine the criticism that we would have faced had we not done so. It does not mean that we believe that the procedures are unsatisfactory, but it is obviously right to take this action, due to current public and parliamentary concern.
We have also insisted that all BNFL nominations to senior positions at Aldermaston are fully vetted and are unconnected to the incidents at Sellafield. That is important in the light of hon. Members' comments in the debate. If necessary, BNFL will be asked to replace nominations with other candidates of proven experience and reliability.
However, I stress that the safety of the Aldermaston site has always been our top priority, and we are determined to ensure that safety is not compromised for any reason. The new consortium is due to take over operations at Aldermaston at the beginning of April, subject to the caveats that I mentioned earlier. It will happen only if the independent regulator, the nuclear installations inspectorate, is fully satisfied that the consortium is in a position to implement the highest safety standards possible and is therefore willing to issue a licence to run the site. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford outlined the need for checks and balances, and the independence and vigorous approach of the inspectorate is a real check and balance in the nuclear industry in this country.
The licence is a precondition for the new contract to take effect. Even then, the licence can be revoked by the inspectorate at any time if safety standards are neglected for any reason. In addition, the Ministry of Defence maintains full-time compliance officers at the site, with the authority to inspect any aspects of activities and to examine any report or paperwork relating to operations. If those officials have any qualms over safety matters, they are obliged to report them immediately to the MOD. Again, the Ministry of Defence—as the customer—has the power to suspend operations at the site and to cancel the contract at any time if safety

39WH
matters are being affected adversely. I want no one to be in doubt that we shall exercise those powers if the situation requires it.
Mr. Salter: I am delighted that the MOD will not shirk its responsibilities to suspend operations or the licence if there is proof of safety breaches at AWE Aldermaston. Will the Minister say how many prosecutions it will take for the MOD to adopt that position? How many rivers will have to be polluted? How many prosecutions will there have to be in a magistrates court? Can we know what is, and what is not, an acceptable level of breaches of safety procedure under the law?
Mr. Spellar: If my hon. Friend does not mind, I shall deal with that matter when I deal with individual safety incidents. I stress that we shall insist on retaining the high level of safety standards that is already maintained. We shall be looking to whoever operates the site to act positively to improve current standards.
Before I come on to the record of Hunting-BRAE, on which I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West, it would be as well to go into the history of the site and explain how the particular situation has arisen with regard to its management. In the middle and late 1980s, AWE was struggling to complete its capital building programme and, equally significantly, to recruit, train and retain staff in sufficient numbers to cover the increase in work load that was created by the need to build and deliver the warheads for the new Trident system. For several years, such a problem had seriously concerned the Select Committee on Defence, which, as late as 1989-90, expressed the view that
the manpower difficulties to which we referred last year have worsened … Unless the remedial measures proposed prove effective, there is now a significant risk that some elements of the programme may fail to meet their scheduled delivery dates.
The remedial measures that the Defence Committee had in mind had been announced on 5 December 1989 by the Ministry of Defence. They involved the full contractorisation of the establishment, with land, buildings and other assets remaining in Government ownership—Government owned, contractor-operated, a GOCO site. The Ministry of Defence added that that move would require legislation and, until that could be achieved, it intended to appoint a managing contractor who would concentrate initially on manufacturing work and site support, and who would strengthen the establishment by bringing in, during 1990, a small number of experienced managers from the private sector. The MOD emphasised that there would be no change in the direction or purpose of the establishment's programme and that the first objective was to reinforce rather than replace existing AWE management.
It is worth while for me to dwell on the concerns of the Select Committee at that time. It was told that safety considerations would be one factor in the award of the eventual contract and that it was one of the areas where it was intended that the contractor would not be allowed to change or compromise on the current high standards. However, the Committee considered that, although the MOD compliance office would provide additional levels of scrutiny and audit, there was clearly some potential
40WH
contradiction between the imposition of new management who were intent on change and the need, rightly, to maintain the existing safety culture. The maintenance of high standards in the face of management pressures to reduce costs would, thus, be dependent on the calibre of staff and resources allocated to the compliance office.
The issue of radiation dose limits was a further factor that concerned the Defence Committee, with potential contractors having to bear in mind the possible financial implications for future liability for compensation.
The 1989–90 Committee concluded:
It is essential that the move to contractorisation is not rushed and that the details are very fully worked out before the contract is awarded. In particular, safety and security issues should be fully explored, and detailed and binding standards applied to all four sites set out in the invitation to tender and in the eventual contract. The financial implications of the proposal need further consideration and we remain concerned about the potential for conflict between commercial pressures—the need to make profits—and the requirements of the health and safety of staff at AWE and of the general public, of security and the work programme. We hope that by the time we come to take evidence on this subject again, the MoD will have made greater progress in establishing the detail of its plans and be able to offer satisfactory assurances on these points.
I mention those points because many of the concerns expressed by hon. Members were similar to those that we have heard today; in other words, that has rightly been a continuing theme.
By the 1991–92 Session, the Committee noted the MOD view that the interim contractor had made an encouraging start and had continued to meet stringent safety and security standards while achieving its programme commitments. The most significant element of that Committee's report, however, was that, for the first time in several years, it expressed no concern about AWE's ability to recruit and retain the necessary staff.
In the event, Hunting-BRAE took over the management and operation of AWE under the first term contract on 1 April 1993. As hon. Members will know, Hunting-BRAE was one of the companies that sought the new contract. Hon. Members asked about the composition of the various consortiums. The Hunting-BRAE contract included the existing members Brown and Root, Hunting Engineering and DERA, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford. AWE 2100 comprised Babcock Facilities Management, W. S. Atkins plc and an American firm, Science Applications International Corporation. The winning consortium, AWE Management Ltd., comprised Serco Defence Support, a British company, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. and Lockheed Martin, which, although primarily an American company, has a significant and increasing presence in Britain, which is very welcome.
In the seven years since Hunting-BRAE took over, it has delivered the programme. It has done so without increasing staff numbers. In fact, the numbers now employed at AWE are substantially lower than at the start of its tenure. Impressive as those achievements are, they would have been of no benefit if safety standards had been allowed to fall. I am pleased to remind hon. Members that no such diminution occurred.
The 1992–93 Committee noted that there had been several safety-related incidents at the establishment over the previous 15 years, the most recent involving the

41WH
release of a small amount of radioactive material from a damaged container on 8 December 1992. The Committee reported that there was some unease among staff and members of the public and that that could best be assuaged by an independent assessment of safety levels at AWE. It therefore welcomed the fact that the Health and Safety Executive was undertaking a review of safety procedures and emergency arrangements and considered it important that the findings were made available to the public.
The results of that review were, and remain, important. The Health and Safety Executive concluded that, although AWE was acceptably safe, its safety arrangements were not demonstrably safe, and weaknesses existed in health and safety management. The HSE made 18 primary recommendations and a further 46 to which it required a response. It referred not to Hunting-BRAE, which had only just taken over the contract, but to the circumstances inherited from the previous management regime.
Most significantly, the HSE recommended that the Secretary of State for Defence should remove AWE's immunity from the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, which would make the establishment subject to nuclear site licensing and bring it in line with other civil nuclear facilities. That immunity was subsequently removed, and Hunting-BRAE went on to achieve site licences for the Aldermaston and Burghfield sites in July 1997.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West asked about prosecutions. Two prosecutions were brought by the nuclear installations inspectorate. The first was brought on 18 February 1997 under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988, and involved an employee working with adhesives in a confined space who was overcome by fumes. The company involved was fined £2,000 and a further £2,000 costs. However, although the incident was regrettable and unfortunate, it did not involve nuclear materials, being more of a traditional industrial accident.
The second prosecution, which has already been mentioned, was brought under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 following an incident on 15 December 1997, when plutonium oxide was released during removal of a filter and was inhaled by three workers. The company was criticised for an inadequate safety culture, and was prosecuted and fined £22,000 with costs of £3,000.
The third prosecution, which my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West and the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford mentioned, was brought by the Environment Agency and related to discharging water contaminated with tritium into the Aldermaston stream. The Environment Agency stated that the discharges did not present a threat to public health or to the environment and, indeed, accepted that AWE could continue to allow such discharges. The Environment Agency's complaint related not to the nature of the discharges but to the fact that Hunting-BRAE had not sought formal permission from the Environment Agency to allow the discharges as it should have done.
Mr. Salter: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the discharges were within limits but were unauthorised. However, the company had no way of knowing whether the discharges would be within limits, because they were
42WH
the result of flash flooding on the site and the inability of the ground water storage system at North Ponds to cope. The incident involved low-level radioactive unstable nuclear material, and the company had no idea how much was involved. Because of the inadequacy of its control mechanisms, it had no option but to allow the discharge to go into the water course. In different circumstances, the company might have reached recommended safety limits.
Mr. Spellar: The level of radioactive tritium in the tanks was sufficiently low as not to pose a threat to health, as the Environment Agency fully accepted. It was not a case of keeping dangerous materials that were fortuitously diluted; there were low concentrations of tritium, and, as I understand it, the Environment Agency had subsequently accepted AWE could continue to discharge down that route. It was rightly concerned about what it saw as inadequate procedures in AWE for seeking and obtaining authorisation to take such action, and it is right that the organisation should be called to account for that. We must get the issue into perspective to decide whether there was or would have been a threat to public health. We should bear in mind the way in which the media tend to deal with anything radioactive and the fact that the public are not necessarily able to ascertain levels of radioactivity and risk.
Mr. Salter: I may have some advantage over my hon. Friend, perhaps because he has not been fully briefed. Is he aware that one of the reasons why the management of AWE Aldermaston was in the invidious position of having to let an unknown quantity of contaminated water run into the water courses was that the Pangbourne pipeline was operating to capacity? Is it not a matter of severe concern that the pipeline is starting to flake? The management of AWE Aldermaston has a problem: if it puts too much water down the authorised route, uncontrolled amounts of plutonium and uranium will flake off the scale that has built up on the pipeline for 40 years. Shortly, Ministers will have reports on their desks recommending that the Pangbourne pipeline be shut down and that an evaporator be installed. Would that not be a far better way of avoiding this Mickey Mouse system of getting rid of contaminated water from a contaminated site on the edge of my constituency?
Mr. Spellar: Again, my hon. Friend has included the answer in his question. The matter would be resolved by engagement between AWE and appropriate regulatory authorities. It was self-evident in his points that they are engaged in those discussions, and we will await the outcome. That is the right way to proceed and it provides the checks and balances that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said were required in the system. We must ensure that those checks and balances are working, and my hon. Friend's contribution showed that they probably are.
Mr. Quentin Davies: The Minister is describing failures relating to safety procedures that are found to be inadequate by experience and to inadequate investment and renewal of equipment. Does he accept that corporate sanctions are appropriate in such cases? The ultimate corporate sanction is to deny a contract

43WH
and to exclude the company from future bidding; other corporate sanctions involve fines. When different cases arise, however, I hope that the Minister will accept my earlier argument. I referred to cases in which procedures are in place but in which individuals wilfully and knowingly decide to breach them and, as was alleged about Sellafield, extend their misbehaviour by falsifying records. Does he agree that criminal sanctions are appropriate in such cases and does he believe that the criminal law is adequate for that purpose? I hope that he will address that specific point before he concludes his remarks.
Mr. Spellar: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is tempting me to stray beyond the bounds of my ministerial responsibility, even if not beyond those of the debate. His points should be directed at Ministers responsible for legislation on health and safety at work, for nuclear safety legislation and for the control of hazardous substances. He may need to check how his Front-Bench colleagues feel about extending the concept of corporate liability, but he may be aware that some moves have been made in that direction. I fear that we are stepping beyond the bounds of the Ministry of Defence and into areas controlled by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Education and Employment.
As well as the cases that I have mentioned, eight enforcement notices and 22 lesser communications have been issued by the nuclear installations inspectorate and the Environment Agency. Like prosecutions, those notices demonstrate the vigorous independence of the regulators and their determination not to compromise on safety at nuclear installations.
Mr. Redwood: The Minister said that the new consortium was still seeking a safety licence. Will he tell us what safety remit or requirement is being imposed on that consortium in the run-up to the granting of a licence? Has that remit been strengthened or amended in the light of recent events?
Mr. Spellar: The body that grants the licences, the NII, is independent of the Ministry of Defence, the Government and companies. It would be improper for the Government to engage directly in discussions between the incoming or outgoing consortiums and the NII. The inspectorate has an independent role within the regulatory framework. Consequent upon changes in legislation, Aldermaston and Burghfield are being treated as civil nuclear installations for the granting of licences.
As I said in response to a previous query—this may answer the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—we are satisfied with the safety provisions of the contract. In view of the present controversy, we believe that it is appropriate to ask the Chief of Defence Procurement to revisit those sectors to ensure that measures providing for the maximum possible safety are included in the contract. However, that is slightly different from the licensing of a company by an independent regulator.
Mr. Redwood: I partly accept that, but I hope that the Minister understands that the public and Parliament
44WH
regard the Government as the ultimate custodian of public safety and public interest in the matter. It is not of much interest to the public to know that different people with different hats are responsible, and that the Minister cannot answer for them.
I hope that the Minister will extend his answer a little to try to offer my constituents and those of the other hon. Members here today some reassurance that, in view of the public's concern and the concerns mentioned by the two hon. Members who represent the area, the Government have taken a grip on the matter, that higher and better standards are expected and that they have taken appropriate action.
Mr. Spellar: The Department of Trade and Industry has ordered an inquiry into Sellafield. I am reluctant to be drawn into speaking of the independence of the regulatory authorities on matters of health and safety, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. We would rightly be criticised if Departments that could have a direct interest were seen to intervene directly in the affairs of independently appointed regulators. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman understands that propriety must be maintained. That does not mean that Ministers and Government are unmindful of the need and desirability for health and safety matters to be considered, but it is enormously important that we maintain the integrity and perceived independence of the regulatory bodies. I accept that, when there is a question of profit and loss or pricing levels, more of a public debate is held. However, the Government—as customer, not just as legislator—should have an interest in the health and safety implications of their operations. Equally, it is vital for the maintenance of public confidence that we respect the independence of the regulators and the licensing authorities.
Within that context, I reject media suggestions that Hunting-BRAE lost the contract because it had a poor safety record. Indeed, hon. Members made allusions in that direction today. It is untrue. All three of the consortiums involved in the bid were fully compliant on safety standards. That is one of the main criteria for being considered in the first place. Hunting-BRAE did a good job of running AWE. That was one of the factors that encouraged the MOD to renew the Government-owned, contractor-operated system. Hunting-BRAE also put together a strong bid for the new contract. Indeed, all three bids from the consortiums that I identified were impressive.
During its tenure at Aldermaston, from 1993 until now, Hunting-BRAE positively promoted a safety culture by encouraging staff to report, on a no-blame basis, and anonymously if preferred, any safety-related incidents that came to their notice. Several thousand such incidents were reported, the great majority of them minor. Supported and encouraged by the MOD, the company also adopted a policy of transparency on safety matters. That included establishing local liaison committees, whose members, including local people, as hon. Members will know, are regularly briefed by officials from AWE, the nuclear installations inspectorate and the Environment Agency.
Mr. Rendel: Since we are getting close to the end of the time allowed, will the Minister use some of it to answer two further questions? He has just told us that he did not

45WH
exclude other consortiums for safety reasons. Can he therefore tell us on what grounds the successful consortium was chosen? Also, will he deal with my earlier point and tell us whether he or his Ministry conducted his investigation into the likelihood that, given BNFL's problems, there would still be a BNFL in a few months' time? How did that affect his choice of consortium?
Mr. Spellar: The winning consortium was ahead in all apects of the requirement, although all the bids were compliant. I outlined earlier how we shall respond on the other matters following the outcome of the inquiry next month.
Mr. Rendel: The Minister gave an outline of future possibilities for BNFL, but I was asking what effort he made before the contract was awarded to look into the possibility that BNFL might not exist in a few months' time.
Mr. Spellar: BNFL exists and is a major company. It would be improper to prejudge the outcome of the inquiry.
The site, as I said, is also open to visits from interested parties such as Members of Parliament, and it attempts to publish as much information as possible about its activities. It is ironic that many of the media scare stories about AWE, billed as the results of investigative journalism, rely heavily on information put in the public domain by the company, but quoted misleadingly. Safety reports are regularly placed in the Library of the House of Commons. The local liaison committee includes councillors, members of the public and local authorities. Annual reports are published and presented to the public and there is transparency of safety incident reporting among the staff.
Hon. Members will recall that newspaper reports in October claimed that AWE had been at risk of a catastrophic nuclear accident several times in the previous 12 months and that it broke safety guidelines so often that only luck had prevented an accident worse than that at Tokaimura in Japan. That is simply not true. It was sensational journalism of the worst kind, and I am sure that the Members of Parliament concerned deplore it. We are pleased that Hunting-BRAE has tried to promote an open culture.
In conclusion, although the consortium will have the day-to-day responsibility for running the Aldermaston site, it will be subject to independent safety regimes, many of which I have outlined. Those will include Ministry of Defence compliance officials operating at Aldermaston, the Health and Safety Executive, the Environment Agency and the NII.

Housing (London)
11 am
Mr. Andrew Love: I begin by apologising because, although it is Wednesday morning in Westminster Hall, I am still in Tuesday night. I hope that hon. Members will bear with me if I make mistakes.
The debate is about housing in London. London is the capital, but it is also a world city, bearing comparison with Tokyo and New York. As a result, it attracts people from all over the United Kingdom and the world. It is a city of diversity. Many communities live within London's boundaries. They have different cultural backgrounds and many languages are spoken. It is also a city of contrasts. Great affluence sits beside deep-seated deprivation. For example, the City of London is probably the most affluent area in the European Community, but it sits cheek by jowl with Tower Hamlets, which is one of the most deprived areas. Nowhere are those contrasts more stark than in housing. London is a city of mansions and slums. It is two different cities, and there is inevitably a great disparity betwen the housing choices that are available to the citizens of those two cities.
The pressure on housing in London is acute. That has an impact on all aspects of London life, from the needs of the London economy to the life chances of its ordinary citizens. In the public's mind, the pressures that are associated with housing are those that are highlighted in newspaper headlines on soaring house prices or market rents. Often, however, the pressures involve that other city within the city and reflect the problems of homelessness, which is vividly displayed by the common sight of people sleeping in central London streets. For many Londoners, the idea of housing choice is an illusion.
The more affluent people in London look to the owner-occupied sector to solve their housing difficulties, but during the past year, prices have spiralled by 23 per cent. In January this year, the average price for a London house was £159,000, and a first-time buyer had to pay £120,000. The comparison of those costs with the average salary of key professionals, especially in the capital's public sector, displays a stark difference. A teacher who works in outer London is lucky to earn £20,000 and would probably earn less than that, perhaps about £18,000. Such a person is priced out of the market. He or she would probably be able to take out a maximum mortgage of just over £50,000, which would not go far in the context of prices in London today. Indeed, two teachers who are a married couple might just about be able to buy a home, but they would still be far short of the average amount needed by first-time buyers in London.
In a yet-to-be published report on house prices sent to me by the London chamber of commerce, the rapid increase in house prices was characterised as reminiscent of the boom in the late 1980s. That is not the only organisation to make that comparison. Indeed, last week, at a lunch for mortgate companies, Howard Davies outlined some research carried out by the financial service authorities into the nine biggest mortgage lenders, which have more than 50 per cent. of the mortgage market. The report highlighted the increasing generosity in lending by those mortgage

47WH
companies, which are using salary multipliers of three and a half to three and three quarters. In addition to that generous lending, there is an estimated £83 billion of non-mortgage debt in the marketplace, we have high interest rates and, unlike in previous housing booms, inflation is unlikely to erode the value of mortgages because it is so low. That combination of factors led Howard Davies to urge lenders to act more prudently.
There is no mystery about why Howard Davies suggested that. Last year—eight years after the previous recession—30,000 properties were repossessed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise that the spiralling increase in house prices must be moderated. I would go further and say that, in consultation with those who set mortgage interest rates, the Government should consider introducing measures that will create sustainable home ownership. The previous Government failed miserably on that project and I hope that this Government will make a better fist of it.
There are more modest increases in the private rented sector—just 9 per cent. last year. A typical twobedroomed property, if someone is lucky enough to find one, costs £278 a week. A similar property in Manchester costs £65. That shows the disparity that has emerged in the private rented sector between the capital and the rest of the country, which can be traced back to a decision by the previous Government during the late 1980s to deregulate rents. The Minister at the time said, "Let housing benefit take the strain." Well, it did take the strain, and they did not wait long before deciding to introduce restrictions on the amount of housing benefit that they would allow to take the strain. Those restrictions took the form of local reference rents and single room rents. However, because of the concern and scepticism about the impact of the introduction of those restrictions, they agreed to review the operation of local reference rents and single room rents after two years. The Conservatives were no longer in government two years later, but the review was carried out by the present Government, and it demonstrated what most people at the time already thought: that, if a cap is put on housing benefit, that will undoubtedly restrain it. I am afraid that there is little evidence that the much-vaunted prospect that it would restrain rent increases has happened. There is a lot of evidence, however, that it has had no effect in London. The Conservatives' proposition has not come to pass.
The important feature is the impact on tenants. Research conducted by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department of Social Security said:
Few tenants were successful in negotiating lower rent levels with landlords … landlords said that they would rarely reduce the rent when a tenant was facing a shortfall as they saw paying the rent as the tenant's responsibility.
The evidence from reports and research suggests that the shopping incentive represented by local reference rents and single room rents does not work. As the departmental report says, landlords will not reduce rents, an especially important factor in areas such as London where there is a gross shortage of rented accommodation, and where all power is in the landlord's hands. Severe hardship is placed on tenants because shortfalls must be made up, normally through
48WH
their ordinary benefits. The report also shows that, in almost four in 10 cases, the shortfall was about £20 or more. Inevitably, tenants had to take a large sum from benefit or fall into arrears. Like other hon. Members, I have constituents who have fallen into arrears and have eventually been evicted from their properties.
What is the net outcome of the two years' experience of the shopping incentives introduced by the previous Government? The Residential Landlords Association commissioned a report based on the Government's housing benefit statistics. It claims that more that 300,000 low-income tenants in England have been driven out of the private rented sector by the housing benefit restrictions since 1996.
The problem in the social rental sector is not affordability, as it is in the other two sectors, but access. Access is difficult because there is an acute shortage of suitable and affordable accommodation. That is a major issue for all London Members of Parliament. The problems in inner London, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) spoke some weeks ago, were reflected in parts of outer London. One in four of the constituents who come to my surgery are involved in housing difficulty; the cases are mixed, but the vast majority relate to the lack of affordable rented accommodation. Neither the local authority nor I can do anything tangible to assist them. The situation must be remedied. The reason why it is so stark is relatively straightforward—250,000 housing units in London have been lost through right to buy since 1980 and have not been made up. There has been some building, a substantial proportion of which has been in the housing association sector, but it goes nowhere towards making up that loss.
Factors other than right to buy are involved—the matter is more complex than that. Net new lettings in the social sector in the past two years have fallen by 17 per cent., causing a crisis in the London housing market. The consequence has been greater housing stress, especially for those on low incomes who have limited choices. That is reflected in many different ways, one of which is an increase in the numbers on housing waiting lists across London. Almost every authority other than those that choose not to put people on housing waiting lists shows that increase. As I can vouch from my own local authority, many people live in dire circumstances and cannot be helped because there is no accommodation.
Another consequence is a massive increase in the use of temporary accommodation—30 per cent. over the past two years—and, the worst of all worlds, the reintroduction of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, which has doubled to 6,000 and is rising. It is the most appalling accommodation to send young families into. Those statistics measure the hidden homeless, not the high-profile person sleeping on the streets. People living in bed-and-breakfast or temporary accommodation, sharing the misery and squalor of a hotel bedroom, face real problems.
The Association of London Government has called it the worst housing crisis ever, rather like Classic FM, which calls every record produced the best ever. That is perhaps hyperbole, but it gives the flavour of the crisis in the social sector in London. Last year, 40,000 people were accepted as homeless, and the number is rising.

49WH
Because all the permanent and temporary accommodation has been taken up, the system has silted up, with disastrous impact on the single homeless.
Most people think that the single homeless are young and mobile people from other parts of the country who can be flexible and move on. That is not always the case. On its telephone hotline, Shelterline, Shelter deals with many single homeless people, many of whom are middle-aged, whose patterns of employment and/or social living have been disrupted by changes in the London market. Such people are now excluded from help. Although Shelterline rings around for hostel or temporary accommodation early in the morning, it cannot meet their needs: they are put back on the street.
What needs to be done? I begin by welcoming the Government's initiative to help rough sleepers, "Coming in from the Cold", which has started a process that we believe will reduce by two thirds the number sleeping on the streets by 2002. I welcome the additional hostel places that that programme is making available and, in particular, the permanent units of accommodation that will provide a long-term solution for those who are on the streets. However, they are just the tip of the iceberg. If we are to address the wider homelessness problem, we must increase the supply of affordable accommodation.
That may sound surprising, but that recommendation has appeared in almost every report produced about London's housing crisis. The London Housing Federation's report "Closing Doors" says:
there is an urgent need for the Government, together with the new mayor and Greater London Authority, to act to tackle the shortage of decent affordable housing for those living and working in the capital.
London Pride Partnership, a private/public sector partnership, called for a programme of new build to provide affordable accommodation. The idea behind that was to
provide a major economic boost to London—reducing dependency on benefits and bringing work to many. The programme meets an opportunity as well as a need.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North said in his last debate on this subject, the Association of London Government has introduced an action plan to deal with the immediate homelessness crisis in the capital, which will provide 5,000 additional units of accommodation over the next three years.
The Government also face a major challenge to address what is happening in London. Enormous misery exists among the homeless who live in squalor in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, many of them with young families. This is also an economic issue, because of the need to house key workers and professionals to make the London economy more efficient. The only way to do that is to increase the availability of affordable accommodation. The opportunity is the spending review 2000, which Ministers are discussing. If they listen to this debate, I believe that money will be made available to the public or private sector, or a combination of the two, to ensure an increase in the availability of affordable accommodation during the next five years.
11.20 am
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) for securing this debate. It follows a debate that I secured on 19 January on the problems of housing in inner London. I welcome the Minister again today. I suspect that he will return to this Chamber increasingly in the future, because the deep concern of London Members of Parliament about housing in the capital will not go away. Consistent pressure will be put on the Government to intervene much more in housing in London.
As the Minister and hon. Members will be aware, housing problems in London are markedly different to housing problems in other parts of the country. Buying a house in London in the private sector is far more expensive than anywhere else in the country apart from the richest parts of the south-east. Private sector rents are astronomical compared with any other part of the country, and council rents tend to be slightly higher. The increase in the provision of social housing is much smaller in London than elsewhere.
We are asking the Government to recognise that London has a serious and peculiar problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton pointed out, London is not a city of two halves, but a city of three quarters and a quarter. Three quarters of the population are not finding life easy, while a quarter find life extremely comfortable. The kind of inner-London constituency that I represent is portrayed as wealthy and a home to all things upwardly mobile. Although such people undoubtedly live within it, the majority of people with whom I deal in my constituency—I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) also has this experience—are living on below average or average incomes, and are finding life very hard.
The National Housing Federation report, "Closing Doors", which I am sure that the Minister has seen, is an excellent document that sets out the problems of council housing, private ownership, owner occupation and private rented housing. It then sets out the average private sector rents in London. In my borough, the average is £196 a week for a one-bedroomed flat, while, to rent a house in my constituency, one could easily pay £500 a week. Given average house prices, it is impossible for anyone living on an average income in central London—or almost anywhere in the capital—to even think about buying, unless they have an inheritance or other means of investing a large dollop of capital in a house initially. On average incomes of between, say, £15,000 and £17,000 a year, two people together—a joint income of £34,000 a year—would be lucky to get a mortgage of £90,000 or £100,000, which would not even touch base on a two-bedroomed flat in most parts of London. That is the stark reality.
The effect of the property boom on London as a whole is profound in many ways. All public agencies believe that they can cash in on the property boom by selling any piece of land that comes anywhere near their grasp, because there is a huge demand for land for private sector building. The social housing of the future is being sold as the empty land of today.
The London property boom is pricing poorer people out of central London. The problems experienced by teachers, nurses, lower-paid hospital medical staff,

51WH
postal workers and others are becoming increasingly well-known. Unless there is greater intervention in the housing market and social housing in London, a truly disastrous situation will arise in respect of people who do essential jobs in inner London. To judge by local schools in my community, excellent young teachers who are determined to turn our schools around and contribute to the community are entering the profession. However, life is not easy for a young teacher who lives in a bedsit or shares a flat with three or four other people. No one wants to live that kind of life for long. After a couple of years, such teachers move to an area where housing is cheaper and the job is perhaps a bit easier, and the community and the children lose talented teachers. The same can be said of nurses, doctors and almost any other community skill that this country and our society desperately needs.
The Government must bear in mind the example of the previous Government, who were profoundly opposed to virtually every action taken by local government, and in favour of selling off all public assets cheaply. In effect, they were selling £10 notes for a fiver. For a while, that was politically successful, but London is now paying the price in terms of housing problems.
The Government should accept that London's problems differ from those in the rest of the country, and look at the public provision of housing. On taking office, they said that they would release capital receipts for housing improvements. That policy, which was commendable, necessary and welcome, and which I wholeheartedly endorse, has helped to deal with some of the backlog of repairs to major estates in London. In May 1997, Islington—despite what The Daily Telegraph repeatedly says, Islington does not differ markedly from the rest of London—had a repair backlog totalling £500 million. That is just one borough. Were that sum multiplied to take into account the whole of inner London, the resulting figure would be massive. Capital receipts will not meet that repair bill; new money must also be spent.
Capital receipts from the sale of housing will not meet the cost of replacing houses that were sold off and thereby lost to the public sector. That is partly because a discount is offered on council property—it has been reduced to £30,000—and partly because many valuations of council property are peculiarly low. Many find those valuations difficult to comprehend, given private market prices and the valuations put on council properties that were subsequently resold to people who did not need social housing. I know that this is a politically difficult issue for the Government to grasp. We are talking about a social demand, rather than a prsonal desire to make as much money as possible and obtain the cheapest possible housing. However, the reality is that we must look at the housing needs of the community as a whole.
The Government are right to spend money on estate improvements. In a previous debate, I mentioned the anticipated success of the single regeneration budget schemes in King's Cross, Finsbury Park and other areas in my borough. I fully commend tenant participation and tenant self-management. A couple of weeks ago, we had a successful conference on tenant participation in the borough of Islington; 350 representatives of tenants
52WH
associations and residents groups turned up, and it proved to be a useful day's discussion. I welcome such developments. However, I do not welcome the pressure that is being put on local authorities to transfer their housing estates and stock to housing associations. That is presented as a free choice. Tenants can vote yes to the council or yes to a housing association. However, it is not a free choice because, given the borrowing restictions that are placed on local authorities, it is unlikely that they will be able to make any money available for the huge regeneration that is required on estates. That money is available only through housing associations.
I am worried that we are creating a massive community of housing associations, in which tenant participation, representation and democracy is sometimes good, but often truly appalling. The brick wall of administration that one comes up against in housing associations is far worse than local authority democracy. Although many people criticise what local government does, ultimately one can choose to elect or not elect one's councillor, but that is not so for one's housing association. It is important to protect democratic choice. Will the Minister deal with the need for a genuinely level playing field in estate transfers?
I turn to the administration of housing and housing needs. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton rightly mentioned housing benefit and the way in which the 1996 change in the regulations has lost many people their homes in the private rented sector. We should seriously consider the cost of housing benefit within our society. The Conservative Government had a passion for rent deregulation—ending any form of rent control and saying that the market rent must be paid through housing benefit. As a result, the public are creating millionaires every week through the bed-and-breakfast system and the private rented sector, because housing benefit has to pay the rent, whatever it is. I do not want to punish tenants or reduce their choice, but is it the best use of public resources to subsidise private landlords when we should be putting money into bricks and mortar for the future of the public? We should seriously consider how housing benefit can best be delivered.
I also ask the Government to examine the cost to local authorities of administering housing benefit. The benefit was created in the early 1980s, and local authorities were required to administer it—although there is no record of any authority wishing to do so; it was forced on them. The quality of administration varies enormously. During the debate in this Chamber on 19 January, I raised the problem of housing benefit administration in my borough. A company called IT Net runs the contract there and in the neighbouring borough of Hackney. The administration is appalling, as are the tension, stress and distress that that causes people. Many people have been threatened with eviction by the local authority and housing associations because their housing benefit has not been paid. An unknown number of private sector tenants have been threatened with the loss of their tenancies, which sometimes happens because people's benefit has been poorly administered. I am told that 24,000 unopened housing benefit application forms are held by my borough alone, and that Hackney holds a very large number. That figure represents 24,000 people who have, I presume legitimately, applied for housing benefit, and are not receiving it simply because the quality of adminstration in the privatised service is poor.

53WH
I do not expect the Minister to be an expert on the administration of housing benefit. That is not his function; he would not have time to do anything else if it were. However, I ask him to examine seriously the quality of service delivered by the privatised companies that have become involved in housing benefit in London, and the untold misery that they are causing.
Elderly people come to my advice bureau week after week in desperation and in tears. They are unaware that their rent is in arrears until the council tells them that that is the case because their housing benefit has not been paid. They try to trace their form, which has gone missing, and they are deemed not to have applied because there is no receipt date. They are then told that their rent is at least six months in arrears. They are in a desperate state as a result. I cannot stress too strongly how awful that is, at a human level, for those people. I want the Government to insist that local authorities administer housing benefit properly, and that those companies that cannot deliver the service should lose their contract immediately. That contract should then be given to a body that can deliver, preferably through the public sector.
The solution to housing problems in London has to be greater investment by the community as a whole in affordable rented housing for people who need it, otherwise social divisions and tensions in London will grow. The property boom is fine if one is already on the ladder. If one is nowhere near the first rung, one loses out entirely, and is faced with a lifetime of high rents. Private sector rents represent a higher proportion of salaries in London than in any other part of the country or, probably, of Europe. The Government must build on their achievements in estate improvements and in the rough sleepers initiative and, above all, put public money into building affordable rented housing.
11.36 am
Mr. Keith Darvill: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on securing this debate, and on his presentation of the case. I agree with his arguments, and with those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).
I approach the matter from an outer London point of view. Outer London is often considered an affluent area, without housing problems. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton said, that is not the case. Areas of deprivation and housing need, and unemployment blackspots, often exist alongside affluent areas.
My constituency of Upminster is part of the London borough of Havering, and is effectively divided into two parts. One consists mainly of owner-occupied housing; the other contains part of the Harold Hill estate—a large, suburban estate built to accommodate the severe housing needs of inner Londoners after the second world war. Those people moved out to Harold Hill in the late 1940s and early 1950s. In many ways it was a fine estate, planned by the London county council and later administered by the Greater London council and, most recently, the London borough of Havering.
However, the first of the area's problems that I shall outline is its geographical position, which is relevant to the debate, especially in the context of outer London. It
54WH
is completely surrounded by green belt. On one side, it is next to the M25, and there is also green belt between the London borough of Barking and Dagenham and the London borough of Havering, so there is little room for expansion into what would be greenfield sites. The green belt is preciously guarded and will continue to be so. Most of the land within the designated housing areas is taken up. Small pockets remain for development here and there, but there is little scope for increasing the supply. The housing is mainly low density, and there is limited opportunity for creating high-density housing within a planning context. That helps to create the scarcity.
In relation to the social factors, I echo the points made by my hon. Friends about the right to buy. There has been very high take-up of the right to buy in the area, because the available accommodation consists mainly of houses. That has led to a great reduction in the local authority's ability to meet the need for affordable housing. One must also consider the effect of the presence of an ageing population. People who moved out to the area just after the second world war are now in a later stage of their life. Many of them have lived in their houses since the early 1950s and will continue to do so. However, given that the actual number of people occupying each house is smaller, the housing stock houses fewer people.
Compared with other constituencies, mine belongs to the premier league in respect of the age of the population, which is very high. Matrimonial and family breakdowns mean that fewer people live in each house. Many young people remain unmarried for longer, which again leads to an increased demand for housing. As for the owner-occupied sector, the price of houses is very high. It costs about £250,000 for an average size semidetached house. Although statistics show the borough to be below the London average, the overall average disguises the real position.
The local authority housing stock is significantly smaller as a result of the right-to-buy scheme. Housing association stock is scarce because few associations in London have been able to move to the outer boroughs to expand their housing provision. Housing in the rented sector is scarce, too. Most owner-occupied housing is not available for rent. All that has led to a significant housing problem. The number of households on the housing register is 1,511 and the number on the transfer waiting list is 1,243. In the local authority sector, the average waiting time for a transfer to a three to four-bedroomed house is 38 months and for a twobedroomed house, it is 32 months, so we can understand how such a problem impinges on those who require housing in the area.
What does the present position mean? Many families now live in cramped conditions It is common for a family living in a two or three-bedroomed house to find that alternative accommodation is not available in the local authority sector, the housing association sector or the private sector. Often, when people get married and/or have children, they cannot find accommodation and have to live with their parents in crowded conditions. About 60 per cent. of my advice surgery cases are about housing. My constituents tell me horror stories about the conditions in which they are forced to live. Such living conditions result in health problems, dissatisfaction, disenchantment, social exclusion, family

55WH
breakdown and, in some cases, crime. They lead to significant social costs, such as costs to the health service, social services, police services and the legal aid budget. Such knock-on effects lead to investment in failure rather than success.
We must bear in mind the effect on public services. During the past fortnight, two head teachers have written to me complaining about their inability to attract teachers to the area because appropriate housing is not available, as a result of which they cannot provide the school curriculum that they want to provide. The Metropolitan police service has a similar problem. Frequently, after a few months new recruits move out to other parts of the country where housing is less expensive. How can the problem be resolved? I support my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, who said that there was a need for urgent intervention. Local authorities and other agencies should work with the private sector to identify brownfield sites. We need a programme to drive that along.
In the public sector, we must ensure that there is a programme working with housing associations to reduce the number of people waiting for accommodation. If the local community can see a reduction in the numbers on the waiting list, it will be confident that the problem is being tackled. At the moment, the opposite is happening, and lists and numbers are increasing. We must deal urgently with those serious problems.
There is a programme in east London for the regeneration of docklands and the Thames gateway. That will attract jobs to the area, but the lack of affordable private sector housing will have a detrimental effect on the regeneration programme. Employers will not be attracted to the area if the opportunities to create employment are reduced because the work force cannot find housing. Education is fundamental, as is the crime reduction programme. We all endorse such programmes and wish them success, but if we do not deal with the housing problem, they will be put in jeopardy.
11.46 am
Ms Oona King: I, too, would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) for securing the debate. Housing is one of the most important and least discussed issues in the House, which remains a scandal when we consider the situation that faces many Londoners, including many of my constituents.
I would like to echo everything that has been said about the need to tackle homelessness in London. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), needs little reminding about many of the issues that we have raised. Good work is being done. The rough sleepers initiative is a fantastic start, and I am confident that, with extra resources and Louise Casey in charge, the targets for reducing homelessness will be met.
The problem that affects my constituents and other Londoners most acutely is invisible homelessness. In Tower Hamlets, there are almost 17,000 households on
56WH
council waiting lists, 12,000 of which are in my constituency. In the past three years, I have met almost 1,000 families that live in overcrowded, substandard housing, and hundreds that live in homes that are damp and in much need of repair. There are so many stories of personal tragedy that I cannot compress them into a few minutes. When I come out of my surgery, I sometimes feel as though I need counselling, and that I am suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome. I cannot believe that there is so much human misery in 21st-century Britain, and I wonder whether British people—not to mention colleagues in parts of the country that do not face the crisis—realise what is happening.
Two weeks ago, a woman visited my surgery to explain that her entire family—her, her husband and her three daughters—lived in one room of a bedsit flat. Some people in my constituency live with six people to a room. There is a family of 13 in two bedrooms. A 19year-old woman came to see me who had lived in the same bedroom as her father for her entire life. That should be unacceptable and unnatural to Parliament, the Government and the country. It is a Dickensian life style. Moreover, poor housing obviously worsens health problems, creates family tensions, prevents children from doing well at school and reduces their chance of finding and retaining fulfilling employment. Not since the aftermath of the second world war have a Government poured the necessary resources into low-cost affordable housing. Instead, social housing has been provided on the cheap, and the social costs have been reaped later.
In my constituency, the new deal for communities has recognised many of the entangled problems of housing. I pay tribute to the Government for having introduced that programme, because it is truly radical. It empowers the community to say what it wants and gives it some control over housing, which traditionally only middle-class people have had. Working-class people have, on the whole, not had such control or empowerment. In addition, it tackles the problem holistically, which has not been done before. The programme is truly wonderful, but it is truly not enough. It affects only a small number of my constituents, and we have not been able to roll it out or to use the principles that it embodies in other areas.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, the cost of housing in London has spiralled out of control. I am worried, having witnessed it in my own constituency, that soon London will contain only the very rich and the very poor, and no one in between. That is especially clear from the experience of my constituency, as the City is pushing eastwards almost hourly. Local people and key workers are being pushed out. A nurse on £20,000 a year—a good wage, one would think—has absolutely no chance of buying a flat in my constituency. The same goes for other professions such as teachers and policemen, which goes a long way towards explaining the difficulties in attracting, and, more importantly, retaining staff in vital public services in London.
I am pleased that the Government have promised £35 million to build new homes and refurbish and repair existing properties in Tower Hamlets over the next year. It would be churlish not to acknowledge that that is three times the funding that the previous

57WH
Administration provided, and means that the Government have invested an additional £40 million in housing in the borough in just three years.
That money will help to ensure that urgent repairs and improvements to council properties are completed, and that some families living in overcrowded conditions are rehoused. It is more money than we have received from any Government in recent memory, but it is not enough. We need year-on-year increases in the housing investment programme for local authorities in London. That programme should ensure that teenage boys and girls do not have to share bedrooms with each other or with their parents, that people with disabilities are not stuck on the top floor of a block without a lift, and that people born and bred in the east end do not have to leave. We fail to give people hope if we do not tackle overcrowding and squalid conditions, which is the moral argument, and we fail economically if we cannot provide people in inner London with a home fit to raise a family, which is the economic argument.
Social housing must be not only decent but affordable. Council rents in Tower Hamlets have in the past compared favourably with those in other-London boroughs and housing associations. The decision to keep rents low was right at the time and helped keep many residents out of the poverty trap. Unfortunately, however, residents are paying the price for that now. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister recognises that a rent rise of 25 per cent. in just two years is not sustainable. I also hope that he will act on my public plea and ask his colleagues in the Treasury to grant Tower Hamlets an exemption from the rent rebate subsidy limitation regulations. If that is not granted, all the Government's excellent initiatives in Tower Hamlets will be negated by the huge rent rise.
I also hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take account of the concerns about the Court of Appeal's decision to block the Government's plans to protect sitting tenants who are paying registered fair rents from high rent increases. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions was refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords, but the Government plan to petition the Lords to reopen the case. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that every London Labour MP backs the Secretary of State in that petition. If it were rejected, my hon. Friend would have the support of every hon. Member to introduce primary legislation that would reverse the effect of the judgment and restore the limits on registered fair rent increases set in the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rents) Order 1999.
In conclusion, I should like to put the importance of housing in perspective. The case that I mentioned earlier, of the woman who came to my surgery, never leaves my mind. Her four-month-old baby had died and the doctor's notes said that it was due to the housing. It is a matter of life and death, and there is no greater social exclusion than death. Given the Government's commitment to tackling social exclusion and addressing child poverty within the next 20 years, I hope that they recognise that that can be done only if the housing crisis is tackled. Tower Hamlets is not in a position to make good the historical underfunding and poor-quality housing in the east end. To my deep regret, it is not hyperbole to say that children are dying because of housing conditions. Will my hon. Friend undertake to inject the necessary urgency into the debate and give housing what it requires—money?
11.57 am
Mr. Tom Brake: I congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on securing this key debate. I should like to consider several questions: whether there is a housing shortage—that is an easy one to answer—what the impact of the shortage is; where and how the housing should be built and who should be allowed to build it; what other measures will help the shortage; and finally, if time allows, what role the mayor and the Greater London Assembly will have in regard to housing.
On my first question, there is no doubt that there is a shortage of housing. Many hon. Members have cited evidence of a shortage: surgery cases, the actions that local authorities have to take—my own has had to call a halt to transfers—and soaring house prices. According to an estate agent in Kew, there are some nice starter homes in Kew costing £400,000. I am not sure who can afford starter homes at that price, but it is certainly not nurses or policemen—perhaps it is people in internet start-up companies. There are also the predictions. It is said that another 3.8 million homes will need to be built by 2021. There is clearly a shortage.
What is the impact of the shortage? We are witnessing a boom and bust in house prices. The hon. Member for Edmonton referred to a 23 per cent. increase in house prices. Overcrowding and homelessness are problems both on the streets and in some accommodation, where people are sometimes forced to stay for longer than they would like because they cannot afford to buy a local house. There is also the clear impact on public services and on public-sector workers to which other hon. Members have referred. The best example that I can think of is a school that tried to purchase a nearby house that became vacant. Unfortunately, it was unsuccessful, but it had wanted to provide cheap, rented accommodation for young teachers who could not afford to live in the area. Does the Minister accept that the Government need to consider London weighting and decide on action to make living in London more affordable for key workers?
There is broad agreement that housing should be built on brownfield sites, which is exactly what is happening in London. Clearer guidance on cleaning up contaminated land will be needed, and it becomes more important as the easier brownfield sites are used up, leaving heavily contaminated sites that require clear rules to be brought into use. A subsidy such as the greenfield development levy could be used to cross-subsidise the cost of decontaminating such sites to bring them into use. I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister may be considering that proposal, and I hope that the Minister will comment on it.
The problem can also be addressed by bringing into use unoccupied properties located above shops, but that will require much greater co-operation between a raft of organisations. A couple of weeks ago, I visited a site in my constituency where clearly the housing trust, a number of retailers—including a large retailer, Lidland others, such as the freeholder, should get together to improve security and to make what were fairly pleasant flats much safer for residents having problems with people breaking in at the back of the property.
The next question is: how should new housing be built? If there is a positive side to the requirement for

59WH
large numbers of homes to be built in London—Shelter cites a figure of 600,000—it is the opportunity to do something about sustainability. Properties can be built using tighter building regulations, improved insulation standards and greater energy efficiency, and can be placed closer to transport links as part of the sustainable integrated transport policy. Why are developers still allowed to build retail premises close to high street locations with good transport links—the areas where young people want to live—with no flats above them? Why is that empty space left, when it could better used?
Who should be allowed to build the homes? All the organisations currently building them should be allowed to continue, whether as registered social landlords or private developers, but local authorities should also be allowed to build. I cannot understand why the Government have inherited the previous Administration's reluctance to let local authorities build. As the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, at least people are able to get rid of local authorities when they do not like what they are doing on housing—an option that is not open with some of the other providers. Why cannot local authorities borrow to invest in housing stock?
What measures could help this dire situation? First, we could consider introducing tougher penalties for private developers on small sites who adopt a build-andrun philosophy. Such developers quickly build a development and go, as Nova homes has done in my constituency. They run away and leave the new occupiers with properties that are on unfinished roads, without streetlights or adequate landscaping. Government support is needed to ensure that developments are of an acceptable standard. In addition, there should be more part-rent, part-buy schemes for people who are entering the market for the first time or who are in difficulties and want to reduce their mortgage payments by switching to a part-rent scheme until their financial situation improves.
The mayor and the GLA have a positive role to play in housing. That needs to be highlighted because the mayoral debate has focused on personalities rather than policies, which is a scandal. It puts Londoners off what should be an exciting initiative. Instead, the wheeling and dealing, the fixing and fudging, have devalued the mayor's currency. There is an opportunity for the mayor and the GLA to get the different parties together and to use the spatial development strategy and the mayor's facilitating role. They could identify the housing need in London, which local authorities may be a little scared of doing. But when a local authority has played its part and delivered on its housing figure, the mayor should not impose an excessive quota so that the local authority has to make up the shortfall if other local authorities have not played their part.
There is clearly a shortage of housing in London. Everyone knows that. It has a massive impact on the ability of local authorities to house the homeless and asylum seekers, and to tackle overcrowding. There is broad agreement on where housing should be built. We have an opportunity to do something about the sustainable nature of homes. There is, of course, controversy over who should build them, but simple measures can assist us in dealing with that problem and
60WH
help to tackle the housing shortage. However, the Minister must answer the outstanding question of whether the Government have the political will to solve the housing crisis which, according to the Association of London Government, is the worst ever. If the Minister does not make that commitment clear, I hope that it will be given in the housing Green Paper. I look forward to the Government providing the financial means to prevent the housing crisis from turning into a housing catastrophe.
12.7 pm
Mr. Tim Loughton: I too congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on securing the debate and the excellent way in which he made his case. Given his experience with the all-party group on homelessness and housing need, he is well informed about the subject. As the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) said, the subject is important. It does not get aired enough in the House of Commons. The hon. Lady in particular knows some of the desperate problems that many of her constituents face in inner London.
London is not simply a microcosm of the housing problems that people face throughout the country. As the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, it also has specific problems, not least because of its high property prices and the high living costs that go with them. It is a tale of two cities—of three quarters and a quarter, as he non-metrically put it. Bearing in mind the Government's key pledge that everyone will have the chance to live in a decent home, it is interesting to note that the contributions that have been made, especially by Labour Members, highlighted the problems but contained little praise for the Government's achievements, with the exception of the rough sleepers initiative and the limited new deal projects in Bethnal Green and Bow. As the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said, it is truly not enough.
When on earth will the long-awaited Green Paper on housing be published? There is a housing crisis in London. About 184,000 households are on waiting lists and the number of households in temporary accommodation has doubled. As the hon. Member for Edmonton said, the number of people living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has doubled in the past two years to about 6,500.
The Association of London Government estimates that the number of temporary accommodation households will have risen to at least 51,000 by 2002. That will be a record. Temporary accommodation causes enormous disruption to families and to the communities in which they live and from which they are being pushed; it disrupts schooling, especially of children with special needs, and employment. That has a knock-on effect on the rest of the country, because many of those families are pushed out to resorts on the south coast, such as Worthing in my constituency.
Another subject that has not yet been raised is the fact that about 19,000 destitute asylum seekers, including families with children, are housed by London social services departments in temporary accommodation. That puts enormous pressure on temporary accommodation. Shelter estimates that about 40,000 households are officially recognised as homeless by the

61WH
London authorities; that figure probably represents more than 100,000 people. Another factor is that about 56 per cent. of those people are estimated to be from ethnic minorities. It is thought that that problem is felt disproportionately by those from ethnic minorities, not least those living in the constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow.
I have not mentioned the problem of rough sleepers. Despite the initiatives undertaken by the previous Government, particularly the rough sleepers initiative started in the early 1990s my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), more than 400 people still sleep rough on the streets of London every night. I would like to see more being done to help with the medical problems that many of those people suffer. I also want greater preventive measures to be taken to stop the break-up of families, which leads to young people, particularly those younger than 16, leaving home and living rough. The problem will not be solved by the appointment of a £90,000-a-year street czar whose opening gambit was to say that we need to destroy the culture of kindness—whatever that may mean.
Hon. Members have spoken of problems in the private market. We are experiencing a housing boom, and there is every chance that it will lead to a housing bust. The Chancellor would be prudent not to allow that; he often speaks about prudence and wanting to get away from the boom-and-bust mentality with which he so easily labels the previous Government.
There are many two-bedroomed flats; for example, I saw some in Hampstead advertised at the weekend starting at £400,000. There is a chronic shortage of affordable housing. None of us would deny that. The north-south divide causes enormous problems, with the great prices of London property being set against the much lower prices of the north-east and north-west of England. According to the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the number of repossessions is starting to creep up again.
There is a shortage of affordable private rented accommodation; that part of the market represents only 10 per cent. of all housing. We need to encourage the expansion of private rented accommodation, not merely put extra regulatory burdens on that sector. One problem is that lenders do not treat private rented landlords as favourably as they treat social housing landlords and other publicly backed agencies when it comes to raising capital. That is a barrier to more money being made available to that sector.
Other hon. Members have touched on the fact that we need not only more homes but homes that are inhabitable and that do not suffer from fuel poverty, as many do. I am sure that many hon. Members will support the reasoning behind the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill, which we shall soon consider.
So far, the Government response has been a lot of promises, reports and hot air. A study of the DETR annual report clearly shows a significant reduction in the total public expenditure on housing. The capital spend through the Housing Corporation has dropped from more than £1 billion in 1996–97 to a projected £686 million in 2001–02, and the revenue spend has been considerably reduced. The Government have reduced the social housing building programme for the coming
62WH
year by more than 25 per cent., which equates to 8,000 homes that will not be built. When does the Minister expect Government spending on housing to return to that of 1993–94, under the previous Government?
The subject of council house rents has been raised in the press recently. We are promised words soon from the Deputy Prime Minister on the possible equalisation of council and private sector rents. In somewhere such as Westminster, council rents—currently about £50 or £60 per week—would rise to £200 a week. That sounds like a crude approach that would result only in ghettoisation, with poorer people forced into cheaper rundown areas outside central London and some of the boroughs that have already been mentioned. I hope that it is not the crude attempt that it was portrayed as in the newspapers. If it is, the Government will succeed only in creating even greater housing apartheid.
Much work is going on. Let us not forget that the housing associations were a success story of the previous Government, bringing far more private and voluntary sector money into housing and freeing up local authority resources to concentrate on other priorities. Let us not forget the great success story of large-scale voluntary transfers; they were initially opposed, but more than 100 local authorities have now taken them up. The Alliance of Councils for Successful Stock Transfer was formed at the LGA conference last July to promote greater use of such transfers. Let us not forget the previous Government's imaginative rent a room proposals, and the estates challenge money.
We want to see a more imaginative and more radical approach, to bring precious resources into housing. We want to see a ladder approach to the provision of housing, with the homeless on the lower rungs given maximum mobility, and with private home owners on top. The Government and local authorities should work together to provide the encouragement and incentives to people to move up from rung to rung. Too many people are caught in a trap of declining public housing, often on hostile estates, lacking the resources to move out or up. Tenants are less likely to move out of social housing if other options become more expensive. The problem is being exacerbated. One wonders if that is why the Labour candidate for mayor of London currently occupies a council property in inner London.
We must see clear rewards and incentives for good public tenants who look after their homes and who do their bit for the community. There is precious little incentivisation at the moment. We must see greater encouragement for councils to improve turnaround times for unoccupied housing, with schemes to allow worse dwellings to be renovated by willing tenants with grant help, who could then qualify for a share in the house. We need much more imagination regarding flexible tenure, allowing young people especially to get their foot on the rung through accumulating greater shared ownership in houses. Schemes such as "do it yourself shared ownership" worked well. The Government must do more, and much can be achieved through imaginative community-based solutions, but they need to be sustainable and long term. Above all, we need a holistic approach, especially on homelessness.
I shall end with a handful of questions for the Minister, to which, given the shortage of time, he might like to reply in writing. When shall we see the housing Green Paper? What plans does he have to produce a

63WH
register of brownfield sites, especially in London when—or if—we see spending on new housing match the rhetoric and achieve the 1993–94 levels, so that we might not go for the soft option of new build on greenfield sites? When will the Government give details of the replacement for the estates renewal challenge fund, which is due to end next year? Will it involve real new, rather than recycled old, money? What practical proposals does the Minister have to promote affordable housing, and what definition of affordability would he use in the social rented sector? What is he doing to stop young homelessness at source, and to promote the maintenance of family home environments?
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) touched on the role of the new mayor and the GLA in tackling housing problems. What priorities have been set for them, and what will be the role of the mayor's spatial development strategy in promoting the development of affordable housing? Finally, why have lenders to the social housing sector been told that no decisions are being taken on London housing until after the mayoral elections, and that the Government office for London is simply minding the shop at the moment, and not making any operational decisions, while we all suffer the crisis that we have heard so much about today?
12.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) for initiating this important debate on a subject that I know is dear to the heart of every London Member. I appreciate that many of my hon. Friends have been up all night. It obviously takes more than an all-night sitting to deter my hon. Friends from representing their constituents as forcefully as they have done today.
The debate is the second that we have had in the past month or so on this important issue. As has been pointed out, the subject will not go away. I fully expect to be back here discussing the same issues in years to come. The problems are large and there are no overnight solutions.
I lived in inner London for many years until 1985, when I moved north and, of course, I am here three or four days a week. I therefore have first-hand experience of the problems described by hon. Members. In particular, there has been mention of the stark contrasts—as if between two different planets—affecting people who live cheek by jowl in different parts, or even different streets, of London. Where I come from, in the north, we have a different problem—a surplus of property. However, before any hon. Members cast envious eyes, I remind them that that brings its own social problems, which I do not wish on them when they have enough of their own.
It takes some restraint to reply in a dignified manner to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton). I do not recognise the figures that he read out—or rather, I think I do, but he gave a clever interpretation. He asked when we would return to the spending levels of 1993–94, but wisely missed out the
64WH
years in between. Under the previous Government, there was a year-on-year decrease in housing investment in London. Indeed, 1993–94 was a good year, by the standards of what followed. Much of the decline and many of the stark contrasts about which we have heard today—although not all, of course, since they would be a problem in the capital whoever was in government—came about on the hon. Gentleman's watch, or at least while his party was in control. There were year-on-year cuts in public housing throughout the country, but particularly in London, in that time. I am pleased to report that spending in the next financial year will be substantially up on even 1993–94, let alone 1997–98. It was then less than half what it will be in the next financial year. I do not think that we shall take any lessons from the previous Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton talked about moderating rent levels. I think it unlikely that we shall intervene in private sector rents, if that is what he was suggesting. We are laying down clear guide rules on rents where transfers occur—about which there is, I realise, concern—to make sure that excessive rent increases do not result.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) mentioned the difficulties with housing benefit administration, which apply not only to private companies but to some local authorities. That is a serious problem. We are promoting best value, and inspections of the delivery of services will be carried out in the hope that local government services can be improved across the board, but especially in relation to the administration of housing benefit. My hon. Friend asked about a level playing field for estate transfers. I acknowledge the importance of that and understand that it will be discussed by Housing Ministers.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends for acknowledging the efforts that have already been made. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham would do well to study them. The hon. Gentleman asked about the Green Paper—that is coming shortly, as we say in government. He also mentioned the problem of asylum seekers. London's problems, severe though they are, have been exacerbated by the large numbers of asylum seekers. One of the things that the Government have done to reduce the problem is to initiate a programme of dispersal around the country. Indeed, in Sunderland, where previously there were none, we are now accommodating asylum seekers in some of our surplus properties because we recognise that it is a national problem and should not be confined to the areas where those people happen to come ashore.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) asked about the rent subsidy limitation for Tower Hamlets. If she will forgive me, I shall write to her on that matter. I was asked many questions and I am unable to answer them all in the short time available to me. However, I want to make one general point. There is a huge imbalance in this country, as there is in other countries, between the capital city and other areas. Inevitably, there is a population drift in the direction of the capital city, and a policy of predicting and providing will not work in relation to housing any more than it works with roads. We can pour in extra resources, and we will do that. I acknowledge the bald point that has been made by many hon. Members, especially about creating affordable housing in London. However, we

65WH
should not imagine that simply pouring in resources, without asking sufficient questions about how those resources are spent, would solve the problem. Having lived in inner London for a long time, I know that many of the resources that were made available to deal with the problem were badly misspent, but that has considerably improved in recent years.
Mr. Brake: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Mullin: Forgive me, but I have only three minutes left.
The Government must implement a regional policy to moderate the reasons why people tend to drift towards London. Of course, one of the main reasons is for work, so we must create jobs and sustainable life in all parts of the country because that is one of the ways in which we can reduce the enormous pressure on London.
I want to say a few words about the increase in housing investment that we have made in the three years since we came to power. We have reversed the decline in housing investment presided over by the previous Administration and initiated a massive investment programme to improve both the quantity and quality of social housing in London. Allocations for housing investment by local authorities and registered social landlords in London between 1997–98 and 2001–02 will total about £3.8 billion, of which about £1.3 billion will come from additional resources made available by the Government. London boroughs have received £400 million of those additional resources so far. That represents almost 30 per cent. of the national total of extra resources and reflects the high level of deprivation to which my hon. Friends have referred. I believe that Edmonton received a 36 per cent. increase this year.
We have increased the resources made available to London through the housing investment programme. The 2000–01 settlement comprises a £613 million package, which represents a 54 per cent. increase on the resources provided in the previous financial year. The package also brings together several previously separate capital programmes into a single housing "pot", giving London boroughs greater flexibility in deciding their spending priorities. I am confident that authorities will take full advantage of that new freedom to strike the right local balance between investing in repair and renovation of their own housing stock, and encouraging the provision of new units of affordable accommodation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. Time is up.

Carers (Barnsley)
12.30 pm
Mr. Jeff Ennis: I am delighted to draw attention to the report that was published recently by Barnsley council's social affairs and health scrutiny commission, entitled "Care for Carers". That commission is chaired by my good friend, Councillor Len Picken, who is a carer himself. The report identifies many of the problems associated with carers that the Government must tackle. Last year, the Government produced a comprehensive and worthy report, entitled "Caring about Carers", a copy of which I have in front of me. It identified some of the problems, many of which the Government are addressing.
To set the scrutiny commission's report in context, it is important to remind hon. Members of some of the characteristics of my Barnsley constituency, which is in South Yorkshire. It is one of the most socially and economically deprived constituencies in the United Kingdom. One in three households has at least one disabled person—a legacy of the former mining industry. It is not surprising that South Yorkshire was recently granted objective 1 status by the European Union, given that, according to a recent estimate, the gross domestic product per capita is approximately 62 per cent. of the European average.
The former pit villages that make up the vast majority of my constituency are renowned for their close-knit community spirit. That is exemplified by the number of carers who provide help and support that might not otherwise be available. However, there are several reasons why it is not always possible to be precise about the number of carers. Many of those who carry out caring tasks do not see themselves as carers, and would not wish to be referred to as such. They see their role as one that any family member would fulfil for a sick or disabled relative.
Despite such difficulties, it is to some extent possible to quantify the number of carers. There are some 5.7 million carers in the United Kingdom who look after people who are frail, ill, disabled or unable to cope. In other words, almost one in eight people is a carer. Of those, some 1.7 million devote at least 20 hours a week to caring. Currently, three fifths of all carers receive no regular visitor support services. In Barnsley, there may be as many as 26,591 people acting as carers, 7,091 of whom devote more than 20 hours per week to the task. That estimate contrasts sharply with the carers' register, which is compiled by the carers' advice line. Despite a major effort to contact carers, only 2,500 are registered in Barnsley. More than 110,000 registration forms were sent out recently, but only 1,000 were returned.
The Government are keen to improve the information that they hold on carers, and intend to trial a new question for use in the 2001 census. It will focus on the provision of personal care and inquire about the number of hours of care provided per week. I fully support this initiative to identify the carer situation more accurately.
The difficulty of being sure about the number of adult carers pales into insignificance when compared with the difficulty of obtaining accurate information about the number of young carers. It has been estimated that in the United Kingdom there are some 51,000 young carers. Best estimates suggest that in Barnsley, 90 year 7

67WH
pupils care for a younger child every day or most days, 58 year 7 pupils care for an older relative every day or most days, 104 year 10 pupils care for a younger child every day or most days and 32 year 10 pupils care for an older relative every day or most days.
The impact of being a young carer can be severe. A recent national survey showed that many young carers suffer from depression, social problems and physical difficulties. It also showed that 70 per cent. of former young carers suffer long-term psychological effects, 28 per cent. have suffered health problems such as bad backs as a direct consequence of lifting the person for whom they are caring and 70 per cent. felt that their education had been affected, leading to poor exam results.
As many as 71 per cent. of young carers have been bullied because other children think that they are odd, 51 per cent. have been physically hit or grabbed, 79 per cent. have been called names and 20 per cent. have missed school as a result of being bullied. Most worrying is the fact that 33 per cent. of young carers have not seen their teachers about tackling the bullying.
When the commission took evidence relating to young carers it found that it was extremely difficult to establish the number. Hon. Members welcomed the new project being undertaken in partnership with education services to identify young carers and find ways to build up relationships to support them. As a result of that evidence, the director of education in Barnsley has been asked to liaise with all schools to raise the profile of young carers and highlight the social, psychological and educational consequences of being carers. He has also been asked to encourage all schools to incorporate specific references to young carers in their anti-bullying policies.
A common theme that emerged from the evidence-gathering session with carers' representatives was the difficulty of gaining access to the right information and support at the right time and in the right manner. A number of witnesses highlighted the need for a single point of entry to services and information. Any review of information requirements should include a feasibility study into the establishment of a carers' centre in Barnsley.
I am sure that the Government are fully committed to the principle of establishing carers' centres, particularly with the assistance of the voluntary sector and where carers are involved in the management. Carers' centres not only provide information, advice and support mechanisms but can also act as one-stop shops and help to give carers a break from their caring responsibilities.
The commission also heard evidence from witnesses who felt that existing support to carers was too focused on office hours. Many informal carers provide care 24 hours a day every day of the year. They may need support and information outside normal office hours. If they cannot get such help, they may feel let down or even scared. The focus of services in Barnsley should therefore be reviewed to assess support and information options outside normal office hours.
I know that the Government intend carers to access support and information on a 24-hour basis via the new NHS Direct telephone service, which has been available
68WH
in South Yorkshire since last December. The new NHS Direct service has been well received by my constituents, and is much appreciated. However, the Government need to monitor closely the future take-up of the service by carers, especially in out-of-office hours. I hope that NHS Direct will introduce mechanisms to achieve such close monitoring and scrutiny. If NHS Direct does not have the desired effect, serious consideration should be given to establising a 24-hour national carers' helpline, perhaps in collaboration with the voluntary sector. The Government already fund a helpline run by the Carers National Association, which operates during normal office hours.
It was clear from evidence given to the commission that carers are beginning to feel involved and that their concerns are being heard. In written evidence submitted by the Alzheimer's Society, concerns were expressed about the limited number of carers attending meetings of carers' forums. Those forums appear mainly to be attracting carers' representatives. Although I do not want to detract from that important work, such concerns raise questions about how representative the forums are, and whether the council is receiving the full range of carers' opinions. There was a feeling that social services should review, in partnership with carers and carers' organisations, the way in which carers are involved and consulted. The commission made a number of positive suggestions on the issue, including giving consideration to agreeing and establishing carers compacts, which would clearly set out the relationships between carers, carers' organisations, council officers and elected members. Like tenant compacts, they should be seen as a way of increasing local democracy and strengthening and sustaining local communities.
The scrutiny commission strongly believes that communication is one of the main underlying issues. A training programe for front-line staff, which is drawn up in conjunction with and attended by carers and carers groups, would go a long way towwards resolving such issues. Witnesses who gave evidence to the commission felt that the conditions of many carers and those for whom they care could be improved by providing a greater amount of training for the carer. Although it is recognised that formal carers, whether paid or voluntary, require training in many areas such as lifting, handling and moving, as well as the use of specialist equipment, often the same level of training is not often provided to the informal carer. The consequences of a lack of adequate training can be health problems for the carer, and may eventually lead to the need for more expensive support services. The commission feels that it is important and sensible to review the level of training given, especially to informal carers.
The Government's strategy for carers comprises three key approaches, which tie in closely with many of the recommendations made by the scrutiny commission. First, carers should receive improved information so that they can become real partners in the provision of care, and access wider and better sources of information about the help and services available. Secondly, support should be given to carers by the communities in which they live, in terms of the planning and provision of services used by carers, and those used by the people for whom they care. Policies should be developed in the workplace to assist in combining employment with caring. The Government are already taking action on

69WH
family friendly employment by offering employees unpaid leave for family emergencies, which is a step in the right direction. Thirdly, carers should be able to make real choices about the way in which they run their lives, so that they can maintain their own health and exercise independence and so that their role can be more fully recognised by policy makers and the statutory services. I commend Barnsley council's scrutiny commission report on caring for carers to the Minister for his consideration.
I congratulate Barnsley metropolitan borough council on being one of the first councils in the country, about a year ago, to modernise its structure to the new Cabinet-style model of local government, which the Government are trying to promote nationally. The scrutiny commission's report on carers highlights one of the many benefits to be gained by local councils in modernising for the benefit of the local council tax payer.
In conclusion, I believe that the Government recognise and support the major role that carers play in our society. In future, all organisations that are involved with caring must focus on not only the person being cared for, but the carer.
12.45 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) on choosing this subject for debate, and on his constructive and thoughtful comments. I am delighted that Barnsley council has responded so positively to the issues raised by the social services inspectorate's report "A Matter of Chance for Carers". I also welcome the fact that Barnsley's scrutiny commission has sought directly to involve carers in discussing current service provision and the best ways to develop services in future. Those are positive developments.
Such a framework is exactly what a best value authority should be developing in planning carer services. It is also exactly the kind of process that is encouraged by the national carers strategy, which stressed that such consultation with carers should form an integral part of each local authority's strategy for spending their carers special grant. The good news for carers in Barnsley is that the carers special grant for 2000-01 will be £234,000, which is more than double the amount of last year's grant. That new money for Barnsley will be spent on providing respite breaks for carers, which is a crucial service that carers value highly.
Another piece of good news for Barnsley is that it has been successful in bidding for Invest to Save money. Invest to Save is a Treasury-led scheme to promote new projects that bring together two or more public service bodies to deliver services in an innovative and more efficient manner. At £550,000, Barnsley's was the fourth largest single allocation of money to a local authority this year, and, at £918,000 over two years, was the second largest single allocation to a local authority. The Barnsley scheme focuses on developing a single information system for health and social care, allowing for integrated services in mental health, learning disability, children's services, physical disability and elderly care. The result will be services that are more convenient for service users and their carers, and more
70WH
effectively provided by integrated teams of national health service and local authority staff. That is excellent and positive news.
On a national level, the Government have taken several steps to address the "lottery of location" that was described in "A Matter of Chance for Carers". I do not have time this morning to explain what has been achieved in relation to all 78 commitments that the Government made in the national carers strategy. I will therefore confine myself to the issues that my hon. Friend raised and talk more widely about how we see matters developing in future.
Most importantly, I congratulate Barnsley council on its attempts to reach out to carers. Nationally, some 29 per cent. of heavily involved carers are receiving some form of social services help. Many carers do not approach services at all until they are in crisis. That underlines the importance of a good awareness-raising strategy based on better information for carers and a prevention strategy that helps carers to think ahead.
Some 40 per cent. of heavily involved carers change each year because of death, the change of the carer or admission to a residential care facility. In Barnsley, that would mean that about 2,800 carers each year may need a local authority assessment. Improving the quality of information about what carers want is therefore the key to making services responsive in the right way at the right time. That underpins the approach that has been taken in Barnsley.
It is for that reason that the Government have developed the referrals, assessments and packages of care project, known as RAP, to provide for the first time a coherent set of national statistics on adult community care. The first indications are that the number of assessments of carers—in terms of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995—between 1 January and 31 March 1999 was approximately 60,000 for England. The second dress rehearsal of RAP is running from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000. We are confident that it will yield a greatly improved level of response and that the impact of the national carers strategy will be to increase the number of carers' assessments undertaken by local authorities.
The new Carers and Disabled Children Bill will give carers new rights to assessments, even when a service user refuses one. This, and the new power for local authorities to provide carers with certain services in their own right, will give further prominence to carers' assessments. Alongside the additional resources for breaks, to which I have referred, and the greater awareness of carers through the national strategy, the Bill is also likely to increase the number of carers who come forward for assessment. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough will agree that those are positive developments.
The carers special grant to local authorities across England will provide £140 million over three years to help more carers to benefit from flexible breaks. Barnsley's carers plan for spending the special grant shows the effectiveness of this policy. Carers have been consulted at all stages of the development of the plan. They want the traditional services to continue; they also want greater flexibility and simpler access to breaks, hence Barnsley's new voucher scheme to maximise carers' choices. That is an excellent innovation. Those

71WH
are just the kind of flexible schemes that local authorities should be developing. The new Carers and Disabled Children Bill—sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry)—will give local authorities additional powers to develop schemes that allow carers and service users to have a choice between providers, as well as flexibility in relation to the timing and type of breaks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough spoke eloquently about the problems faced by young carers in Barnsley. The Government also want to ensure that young carers, like all children, have an education and enjoy good health and leisure time. Barnsley is right to focus on schools as the places in which to address the problems of young carers. The social inclusion pupil support guidance on pupil attendance published by the Department for Education and Employment in July 1999 included, for the first time, guidance on supporting young carers. It also suggests ways of linking to social services and local voluntary organisations.
In addition, learning mentors are being piloted through the excellence in cities initiative in six areas, to provide one-to-one support for children with problems at school, including young carers, and to help them to access external support. The Department of Health is also fully involved with proposals in the new youth support service, which will aim to provide a single point of contact for young people to get advice on social services, benefits, housing, careers and so on, and to put them in contact with relevant profesionals such as health and social workers.
Under the national healthy school standard, which is part of the healthy schools programme—a joint initiative by the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health—there are criteria against which school achievements will be assessed. One of those will be that pupils' views should be reflected in school activities, including pupils with special educational needs and health conditions, as well as disaffected pupils, young carers and teenage parents.
The Government are also committed to ensuring that local authorities recognise the need to sustain and enhance the number of young carers' projects. From the second year of the carers special grant, local authorities will be able to spend allocations on both adult and children's services. That will enable them to help carers of all ages and to fund projects focused on young carers' needs. I hope that young carers in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough will be able to benefit from that.
The Government intend to strengthen children's services planning by making it a corporate responsibility of local authorities and the Department of Health. Plans will be required to demonstrate coherence across all relevant local plans and to address national and local objectives. The quality protects programme relates to young carers and to the support of families caring for disabled children. Its contribution will be crucial.
Officials from the Department of Health will meet carers' and children's organisations later this month to discuss further support for young carers' projects nationally. Child and mental health services funding will
72WH
also be provided with £90 million between 1999 and 2002, some of which will have an impact on young carers' access to counselling services. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough that, last year, £105,000 was made available to support service enhancements in Barnsley and a further £105,000 will be provided in the coming financial year.
My hon. Friend referred to the need for carers to receive information about local services. The Carers' helplines offer crucial advice and support. Carers National Association's helpline, which is funded through grants from the Department, deals with 10,000 calls a year. Local helplines, through carers' centres, also provide a range of emotional support and information. Furthermore, 24-hour access to help and advice is currently available from several different sources, including the Samaritans, which provides emotional support for carers. For information on the national health service and related services, there is NHS Direct, to which my hon. Friend referred. It receives 100,000 calls per month.
There is also NHS Direct on-line and the new carers' website, which is available 24 hours a day for those carers with access to such technology. NHS Direct could refer on to local provision by social services emergency teams and ambulance services, as appropriate; otherwise, most information needs can be met during office hours. In fact, the experience of 24-hour carers' helplines throughout England has revealed that little use has been made of them at night and they have, therefore, reverted to office hours or extended office hours. We shall review the whole issue most carefully in future.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for suggesting that NHS Direct might seek to record contacts from carers to ensure that they are using the service. I understand that there may be some room for manoeuvre in the future as NHS Direct develops. At present, however, although NHS Direct offers an excellent service to carers, the questioning of callers to ascertain their exact caring status may not always be possible. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must continue to explore innovative ways in which to involve carers in planning and developing their services. Carers' centres have an important role to play, but we must make use of new technology. Carers' satisfaction surveys will provide useful information in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of those services.
I could say much more about what the Government are doing to promote services for carers as I could about what is happening in Barnsley, but what is enormously encouraging is that there is a clear willingness in my hon. Friend's constituency to engage with carers' organisations and carers themselves to review the current range of services that are provided and to use in imaginative ways the new and additional resources that the Government are making available to support local authorities. That is a positive step forward and I congratulate the council, as I do my hon. Friend on the support that he provides to it.
My hon. Friend began his speech by drawing attention to the high levels of deprivation in his constituency and the implications that that has for those who care for people with disabilities. In areas such as Barnsley and in my constituency, too, which has a similar profile, it is incumbent on us in government, local authorities and the national health service to

73WH
continue to explore ways in which to develop services, to put carers at the forefront of our concerns and ensure that our services are responsive to their needs. With the continuing support of the Government and that of my hon. Friend, I am sure that, over the next few years, we shall make significant progress, put carers firmly on the map at the top of our list of priorities and improve services and the range of support.

Health Authority Appointments (Essex)
12.58 pm
Mr. David Amess: There is much that I could say about yesterday's domination of the media by the national health service. The position on appointments is an absolute sham and I am delighted to have the opportunity to share with the Minister my thoughts on how my constituents in Southend, West have been badly let down. What I am about to do, Mr. McWilliam, is something that I have never done in my 17 years in Parliament. It goes completely against the grain to have to name individuals and talk about such matters publicly. I am completely frustrated, so I have followed all the proper procedures, written letters and talked to individuals. All the relevant documents have been copied to Ministers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to follow all the proper procedures, he had better start calling me Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Amess: I apologise. I checked with two individuals who gave me different advice before the debate started. I am sorry that I chose the wrong one.
I regret that I have to air the matter publicly, as we would not be in such a serious mess if representations had been listened to properly. I shall speak about a travesty in the health service. I have found complete abuse in relation to South Essex health authority, the appointments to the primary care trust and the merger of the Thameside and Southend trusts. What has been brought to my attention is appalling.
As the Member of Parliament for Southend, West, I was asked to give my views about two individuals who could have been appointed to the post of chairman of South Essex health authority. Other local Members of Parliament had the same choice. I knew one of the individuals, and I was passive in my response to the chairmanship. South Essex health authority has huge powers and responsibility, so the way in which it is managed is important.
My attention was drawn—not by Mrs. Rosie Varley, the regional chairman—to a report to the health authority and the eastern region of the national health service executive. It was prepared by Peter Brokenshire, the chairman of Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority, and I was flabbergasted to read it. The report was well distributed internally, but the chairman of the region and Ministers thought, for some reason, that local Members of Parliament had no need to see it. It clearly details an appalling set of circumstances. Relationships had completely broken down, to such an extent that the chief executive, the chairman of the health authority and a Labour councillor were not speaking to one another.
The Minister looks surprised, but the report contains evidence of a complete breakdown in relationships. People might say that I will quote selectively from the report, but I would be happy to quote it all if there were time. Mr. Brokenshire says that the achievements of the health authority are generally
good, the control, governance and accountability processes that are in place seem sound, so I have had to ask myself, why the current tensions and adverse climate between some Executive and some Non Executive Directors exist.

75WH
The report suggests that there were tensions from day one between the board and some executive and non-executive directors, and that
These tensions have escalated into a lack of trust and respect, because of the circumstances surrounding the deterioration of relationships between the Chairman … and the Chief Executive.
so much so that the chairman said that she had lost confidence in him and wanted him removed.
When new structures are set up and a new chairman is appointed to work with an existing chief executive, a learning curve will be involved. That learning curve had a disastrous effect on staff morale. Ministers and the chairman of the regional authority knew about the problem but did not have the common courtesy to alert Members of Parliament, who continually expressed anxiety in Parliament about their local health service. It is a disgrace.
The lengthy report states:
The Chief Executive considers that the Chairman does not understand the NHS and big organisation realities, raises expectations that cannot be met, gets involved in management issues and does not focus on the big picture.
It continues in that vein. The instigator of the report felt that the chairman's main charge against the chief executive was not as important as the chairman felt that it was.
The primary care group will become a primary care trust. I shall not bore the Chamber with my feelings about primary care groups and primary care trusts. I realise that the Under-Secretary was not in post when we considered the Health Bill in Committee last year, but I spoke at great length about how I feel about primary care groups and primary care trusts.
General practitioners in Southend were balloted, and the majority voted against becoming a primary care trust. In a letter from the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), to the chief executive of South Essex health authority, it is clear that the Minister is extremely worried that doctors have not been sufficiently involved in the process. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will have the letter. According to the letter, the Minister expects the primary care trust to demonstrate before 1 April 2000—a month's time—that all the problems have been corrected. That is utterly ridiculous.
The Government often consult us about such matters when no one is here, and we sometimes have only two weeks or 10 days, or are not consulted. I have categorical evidence that the Government have been central in controlling the end result. They make wonderful speeches and create wonderful photo opportunities while at the grassroots my constituents suffer.
Most doctors do not want a primary care trust. Interviews will be held tomorrow for the new chief executive of the primary care trust. I have read the recommendations for the interview procedure, which state that it would be preferable if a nurse were present, although it is not essential, but that at least one doctor should be present. However, it does not seem as though doctors will be involved in that appointment.
After 1 May 1997, Labour said, "We are in a new era now that we have got rid of the shocking Conservatives after 18 years. We know all about their political
76WH
appointments, and we are not going to have any of it. Politics doesn't come into it." However, day in and day out, politics dominates all appointments in my constituency. I was presented with a choice of two people, both of whom are active members of the Labour party. I wrote to Mrs. Rosie Varley to explain why I did not consider either of them to be suitable. Knowing about Mr. Brokenshire's report, I said that it was extraordinary that one of the candidates had recently been the subject of a critical report.
It must have been difficult for Ministers in conversations with Mrs. Rosie Varley about how to deal with the chairman of South Essex health authority. Ministers think that Members of Parliament are so lazy and uninterested that they cannot understand what is going on. I made all that known. Before Christmas, I had a most unsatisfactory telephone conversation with the chairman of the region; she listened to all that I had said, but I have categoric evidence to show that it has all been ignored.
On primary care groups and primary care trusts, there has been no improvement in general practitioner support since the vote. Services are substantially worse since the primary care group was established. There are major waits for appointments, surgery and accident and emergency services. There have been severe cuts in community services—for example, one doctor who had 0.6 of a health service visitor now has none at all. There has been a loss of occupational therapists, hearing therapists, dieticians, and of practice-based community staff, who have lost motiviation due to their new cramped and unwelcoming premises. Waiting lists for physiotherapy and for magnetic resonance imaging scans have increased to 26 weeks. We all know that the Government are fudging the issue of waiting lists. It is a disgrace.
Because the wretched Government are obsessed with targets and with trying to kid the people—for the general election next year—that all that they promised has been delivered, everything is being rushed. Either they do not understand the issues—which I think is the case—or they are concerned only with their own political interests. How else can one justify the problems that I have detailed? Morale is very low. The cardiologist at Southend, for example, has funding for only four NHS coronary angiographies a week. The number required is 10 times that, so several people on the list are dying. This scandal goes on and on.
I also wish to draw the Minister's attention to the merger of Thameside and Southend community NHS trust. Members of Parliament were, of course, consulted on that, but if they were Conservative Members, the consultation was a sham. Last year we were invited to talk about the trust and views were expressed that, although there was well-judged support for the merger, it should not be done in such a way as to constitute a takeover of Southend. That was said all along—yet an absolute takeover has occurred. Again, that is an absolute disgrace.
What angers me so much is the disgraceful handling of the appointments. We had a superb chairman of Thameside, Mr. John Vesey, but because the then Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancreas (Mr. Dobson)—who now wants to be mayor of London—instigated whistleblowing, when allegations concerning the chief executive of the trust

77WH
were reported to Mr. Vesey, an investigation followed. A constituent of mine was one of the informants. What happened? The two people who had done what the Secretary of State wanted and became whistleblowers—my constituent and the chairman—were removed. I have reports and papers on it. The person about whom the complaints were made, the chief executive, not only stayed in post but has now been appointed the chief executive of the new combined trust. That is another disgrace.
I have before me the lengthy audit report concerning allegations about a property, 87c Grand parade, being used as an office at considerable public expense, a trip to Paris and taxi expenses. I also have all the evidence on sloppy structures. The Government know all about that, but because it does not fit their agenda, they have reappointed the chief executive.
The appointment procedure was a fiasco. The job was advertised at short notice while people were away; someone who would have been an excellent candidate was told that it was not worth applying because it was a more-or-less foregone conclusion that the existing chief executive would get the job. That hypocrisy will affect my constituents.
When it came to appointing the chairman of the new combined trust, no one was consulted. It was the usual two-week period of consultation. The choice was between two people, one from Thurrock and the other from Southend. I said that, because Thurrock would be heavily represented, I wanted a Southend chairman. Was it a surprise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when yet again my input was wasted and the person from Thurrock was chosen—a person who had only a few months' experience of the national health service?
We have a primary care trust in Southend that the doctors do not want, with a chairman who has been the subject of a critical report. Thurrock and Southend have been merged, and we have a chief executive who was the subject of another critical report and a chairman from Thurrock. As it stands, only one person on the new merged trust will come from Southend.
I pay tribute to the British Medical Association, the NHS Confederation and the others who have briefed me. The information that I have shared with hon. Members this afternoon has come from the many doctors and local practitioners who have approached me on the matter.
I feel uncomfortable at what I have had to say today. Three weeks ago, I was here on another matter; I thought that I had dealt with it fairly, but I got absolutely nowhere. However, as a result of that debate, I received a letter the very next day from the Prime Minister, and the matters that I had brought to the attention of the House are now being dealt with.
I am sick to death of dealing with a Government who say that they are democratic, who say that they want to embrace the whole community and who say that they want to listen, but who listen only to their supporters. I have clear evidence that if the Government were being even-handed, and if they did not take account of the fact that they were dealing with a Conservative Member of Parliament, they would act in the best interests of my constituents in matters of health care. They clearly have not done that.
1.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on securing this debate on the health authority appointments and structures in Essex. As the Minister with responsibility for non-executive appointments, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels aggrieved that his views on recent appointments in south Essex were not taken into account. However, he is mistaken to believe that.
It may help if I say how the national health service non-executive appointments are made. The preliminary sifting and interviewing of candidates are overseen by an independent person whose role is to ensure that the procedures comply with guidelines issued by the commissioner for public appointments. As well as the independent member, interview panels normally include two NHS representatives from outside the area of the organisation involved, typically the chairmen of health authorities or health trusts. That panel decides which candidates should be included on a regional register of those judged suitable for appointment. When trust and health authority vacancies arise, the regional chair recommends to Ministers preferred and alternative candidates who are either on the regional register or serving as non-executives and eligible for reappointment. For chair appointments, the interview panel usually includes the regional chair and an independent member. The panel decides which candidates have the qualifications and abilities to carry out the role of the chair. The regional chair has ultimate responsibility for the shortlist of names that goes to Ministers for consideration.
The Secretary of State is responsible for deciding the criteria for candidates. Ministers, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, are responsible for the final decision on who should be appointed. Ministers can become directly involved in the initial sifting and interview process only if the correct procedure has not been followed or when there is evidence of unfair discrimination. That is properly and strictly in accordance with the guidance issued by the commissioner for public appointments, which we are required by law to follow. There is no scope for Ministers to substitute names of their choosing. They can ask the regional chair for alternative names, but only when they have good reason for believing that none of the recommended candidates should be appointed. Ministers are obliged to inform the commissioner if a complete slate of recommended candidates is rejected, and they must specify their reasons for that decision.
Members of Parliament are consulted by the regional chairs on the names that they are planning to recommend to Ministers for chair appointments. Their comments are passed on to Ministers and they, not the regional chair, take them into account before reaching a decision. I was struck by the hon. Gentleman's choice of words when he referred to being given the "choice" between candidates. Along with other hon. Members, he was asked for his opinion, but Members of Parliament do not have the right to choose. Their views are part of a range of views that are sought in the selection process. As with Ministers, Members of Parliament are not able to substitute names of their

79WH
choosing for those recommended by the regional chair, nor can they provide additional names. That would run counter to the clear guidance produced by the commissioner for public appointments.
All candidates for the appointments must be able to demonstrate a strong personal commitment to the NHS and the needs of the local community. Candidates are considered solely on their merits and the contribution that they can make, not their politics. The hon. Gentleman referred to allegations of political bias that have been made by Opposition spokesmen in the past few years. In response to those allegations, the commissioner for public appointments announced last July that she would scrutinise the NHS appointment process. She rightly stated:
it is clearly in the interests of all concerned that the appointments process in the NHS is above suspicion.
The Government entirely agree with that sentiment.
We welcome the scrutiny and have given the commissioner every assistance in the work involved. The results are expected shortly and we shall make a statement on the report. However, it is worth noting that, after previous annual audits of NHS appointments, the commissioner has been substantially content with the integrity of the system. In the 1998 annual report, the then commissioner wrote that his audit of NHS appointments had found
no evidence of Ministers intervening to ensure the advancement of their nominees.
He went on to say:
patronage on behalf of individuals is clearly not an issue.
Now that I have established the principles of the appointment process, I shall refer to specific constituency issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. He must be only too aware of the additional demands placed on the NHS in Southend by the area's large elderly population and the fact that it has the largest area of social deprivation in south Essex. Southend has specific health needs, and the Government investment programme demonstrates our commitment to meeting them. The aim of everyone interested in health care in the area must be to work together to tackle those needs and inequalities and thereby raise the health status of the residents.
One of the steps taken to achieve those goals is the development of the Southend primary care group to primary care status, which will take effect on 1 April. It provides an unparalleled opportunity for local stakeholders, including family doctors, nurses, midwives, health visitors, social services and the wider community that they serve to shape services so as to provide better health care and to work to meet the needs that I have identified. I know that the hon. Member for Southend, West has reservations about the move to trust status and that the local medical committee GP ballot did not show an overall majority of support for the move to trust status. However, it appears that the reasons for that result are varied and are not unrelated to the timing of the ballot, which did not allow the PCG to visit all the general practitioners' practices, to explain the objectives and overall vision of the primary care trust or to address the concerns of individuals before they were asked to vote.
80WH
I turn to the Brokenshire report and to Katherine Kirk, the chair of the health authority, who is now appointed to take over the PCT. The report makes clear the strained relations between the chair and chief executive of South Essex health authority. However, as it points out, those problems must be considered in the context of the exceptional circumstances in which the new South Essex health authority board was launched. The board faced a huge agenda of change which was made all the more difficult because all but one of the serving non-executive directors left, which resulted in a continuity problem. The report suggests that more could perhaps have been done properly to induct the new board members.
Importantly, the report states that many of the difficulties mentioned have been addressed. South Essex health authority, of which Katherine Kirk is currently chair, performed well throughout the year. It is on target to achieve financial balance and its in-patient waiting list target. In addition, it coped well with significant winter pressures, working closely with NHS trusts and other agencies to deliver its winter plans. The report refers also to a lack of focus in responsibility and roles, which is probably the crux of the matter. I hope that the hon. Member for Southend, West will be reassured to know that the regional office is keen to ensure that new PCT chairmen are given appropriate induction, training and development opportunities. In addition, they will have specific development opportunities and added learning facilities to help them fit into their roles.
I am extremely disappointed to learn that the merger of the community trusts, which was supported by all parties, is being promoted as a takeover by Thameside community trust, with the implication that it is at the expense of Southend community trust. I find the view of the hon. Member for Southend, West all the more baffling considering that the appointment process has not yet been completed. To date, the chairman and two non-executive directors—one from each existing trust—have been appointed, and at least another three remain to be appointed. They have been and will be chosen from the whole pool of locally approved candidates. Those already on NHS boards will be considered alongside those on the regional register.
It was made clear that the chairman would be expected to provide evidence to the regional office to show that the support of local GPs for the PCG move to trust status had increased when approving PCT status. The chairman will also be responsible for ensuring achievement of the PCT objectives, in particular that of improving the resident population's health and health services in the key areas specifically outlined in the consultation process.
The hon. Gentleman's objections on the abolition of fundholding related to community involvement and to working together. It is, however, exactly those things that the new PCT will provide. The local community now has a tremendous opportunity to move forward and open a new chapter in health care in south Essex.
I urge all involved to put the differences of the past behind them. Everyone needs to grasp this opportunity to develop and improve health services. Local residents will be the losers if we fail.

Family Reunification
1.30 pm
Mr. Neil Gerrard: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate a subject on which for some years I have tried to explore and influence Government policy.
Usually people who have been given exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom will originally have applied for asylum and been given exceptional leave instead. However, there are other people who fall into that category. The current policy is expressed by the Home Office as a concession, allowing family reunion once someone has had exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom for four years.
A couple of examples illustrate how that policy can operate. In a case that I came across a year or so ago, a man from Sri Lanka who had arrived in 1991 as an asylum seeker was given exceptional leave in 1993—so he had waited two years for that decision. Four years later, in 1997, his family in Sri Lanka—his wife and three daughers—applied for family reunion. The wife and two of the daughters were given entry clearance visas, but the third daughter was refused, on the ground that she was no longer dependent because she was 19. I remind hon. Members that the man had been in this country six years when this happend. In every other respect he fitted the immigration rules.
That is not an isolated case. I recently saw a man who was worried about his family. He has been given exceptional leave and knows that he may now have to wait four years before his family can join him. He is suffering serious mental health problems caused by stress.
The consequence of our present policy on people with exceptional leave is, in some cases, permanent separation. When the wife of the Tamil man was told that one of her daughters could not come to the United Kingdom, she said that in that case she would not come. She would not leave her 19-year-old daughter on her own in Colombo.
The policy certainly makes it far more difficult for people to settle down and adapt to life in a new country. Also, it leads to pointless appeals against refusal of asylum. When a person whose asylum claim has been rejected, but who has been given exceptional leave, discovers that the latter status does not allow family reunion, he or she appeals on the asylum claim. The result is the clogging-up of tribunals with appeals that are pointless because the person has permission to remain here in any case.
I recognise that there is an argument that exceptional leave to remain is not the same status as asylum and that the very strict terms of the 1951 convention are different from the other grounds that permit someone to stay in this country. Once we have granted exceptional leave to remain, for a year in the first place and then, usually, for three further years, the numbers of people who do not qualify for permanent permission to stay are absolutely minute. The last time that I asked for figures on the number of people who were refused an extension of their exceptional leave at the end of one year, then after four years, the numbers for any one year could be counted on one's fingers. The reality is that those who are given
82WH
exceptional leave will, in time, be given permanent permission and qualify for family reunion. All that the present policy does is delay the process and cause problems.
I want to concentrate on the broader context of the issue and consider how our policy on family reunion fits in with other changes. In October this year, the Human Rights Act 1998 comes into force and the European convention on human rights will become part of UK law. The convention includes an article on the right to family life. The Government are also emphasising the importance of family life in other contexts. Last year, the Home Office published a welcome consultation paper on the settlement and integration of refugees—the first such paper—which referred to the importance of people being able to settle, put down roots and develop a normal life. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees believes that a reunited family is in a better position both to settle and to consider its options. Some UNHCR papers refer to the possibility that a family might consider voluntary repatriation to its country of origin if conditions there have changed, and is more likely to do so if it can discuss the issue as a family living together rather than as one that is scattered.
The policy must also be regarded in the light of the draft EU directive. In October last year, in Tampere, the European Council reiterated the point that the European Union must try to offer fair treatment to third-country nationals who reside legally in the EU. As one of the steps towards that objective, the Commission now says that third-country nationals legally resident in EU member states should have rights of family reunification, subject to several conditions. The Commission makes the point—a fair one—that family reunion in its broadest sense is the main form of legal immigration to most of the EU, as it has been for some years and as is the case in north America. Reunification of families produces stability and enables people to lead more normal lives and put down roots.
We now have a draft EU directive and we have seen the first response from the Home Office in the explanatory memorandum. I suspect that this is, if not the first, one of the first of several such proposals that we shall have to consider during the next few years in the field of asylum and immigration law, which flow from the Amsterdam treaty. The key issue for the UK is to decide what our position is in relation to that treaty and whether to opt in to the proposals. Therefore, it is appropriate to examine the directive and the initial response of the Home Office. I have some concerns about the Home Office initial response, although I agree with parts of it. I am not clear why the Government believe that action at Community level, rather than at member state level, will not produce benefits. If we do not opt into the directive, we might operate family reunification policies that do not reach the level of such policies across the rest of the EU. I am not sure to whose benefit that would be.
The directive would give a right to family reunion to EU citizens who are not exercising their right to free movement, and to third-country nationals who are legally resident. Safeguards are built in, although I have doubts about the wording of some of them. One that especially caught my eye would allow member states to reject an application if it could be shown that the marriage was contracted for the sole purpose of

83WH
enabling the person concerned to enter or reside in a member state. That reeks of the return of the primary purpose rule, in a form little changed from the one that we rightly abolished a couple of years ago.
The directive requires applications to be decided in six months. The Home Office's response is that it needs flexibility to allow for geographical and seasonal variations in application numbers. It might have other reasons for not wanting such a time limit. However, saying that decisions cannot generally be made within six months is not a strong argument.
A key issue, relating to my earlier point about people with exceptional leave, is the provision that the qualifying residence period for family reunification must not exceed one year. I was puzzled by the Home Office response, which suggested that, at present, families could join the sponsor only when they had been given indefinite leave to remain—when they had permission to remain permanently in the UK—and that the time scale for that would vary depending on the nature of the case. It would vary, but it would do so because of where it happened to be in the Home Office computer system, rather than the nature of the case.
We do not restrict family reunion to people given permanent permission to stay. I have heard it argued that the status of exceptional leave cases is temporary—different from refugee status, which is permanent—and that we should therefore not give family reunification. However, we allow people with temporary status to bring families to the UK, such as students and people with work permits. The argument about temporary status does not hold water, even for our present policies. If we have a policy that allows students, who are certainly not regarded as permanent residents, to bring their family with them, it seems odd that we would not allow families to join people given exceptional leave—technically a temporary status, but one that would almost certainly become permanent.
A couple of the articles talk about settlement given to family members who have been in the UK for more than one year, and whose family situation is changed by separation, divorce or death. I am again puzzled by the Home Office response, which talks about the current policy on victims of domestic violence and people who become bereaved, because it applies to such people during their first probationary year. They would get indefinite leave to remain once they had got through that year in any case—they would have a right to permanent permission.
Our current policies are somewhat harsh and cause problems for families. In time we may find that some of those policies fall foul of the Human Rights Act 1998 and end up being less generous than the EU proposals. The key issue is how we approach those proposals, given that they may be the first of many on immigration and asylum.
It would be a mistake if the immediate signal that we gave was that we were likely to pull out because we were not interested in being in there. We should agree that the gap between the rights of EU nationals and third-country nationals is too wide and we should recognise the value of family reunion. We must approach the directive from the point of view of the desirability of
84WH
agreeing and achieving good common standards across the EU and influencing the parts of the directive about which we have doubts. I hope that we will be fully engaged in that process and thereby improve our own legislation. By becoming involved in influencing the directive, we shall contribute to a fairer system across the EU.
1.46 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): First, I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on securing a debate on this important issue. He and I may approach it differently, but we agree that it is important. I congratulate him most warmly on bringing it to the attention of this Chamber, because these proceedings are followed closely by people outside. My hon. Friend comes to the debate not only with constituency expertise, but as the distinguished chairman of the all-party group on refugees.
The Government have made it clear that they are determined to operate asylum policies that are fair, firm and fast. That is why, when we took office, we commissioned the work that led to the White Paper and put in place measures to ensure that the legislation operates as we wish it to, in what is perhaps the most comprehensive overview of recent immigration and asylum matters. Our family reunion policies not only form part of that legislation, but right the wrongs in the system that we inherited.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, although the families of those recognised as refugees in the United Kingdom are eligible to join them in this country immediately, the families of those who have been refused asylum but granted exceptional leave to remain must normally wait until they have completed four years in that category before their families are eligible to join them. My hon. Friend has covered the reasons for that, but it is worth my mentioning them briefly.
As I am sure hon. Members appreciate, exceptional leave to remain may be granted for a variety of reasons. As my hon. Friend conceded, a person who is granted exceptional leave does not have to meet the strict criteria required of someone recognised as a refugee under the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees. Therefore, there is a considerable distinction between the two groups.
People who have been granted exceptional leave to remain have considerable entitlements in the United Kingdom, but I am not persuaded that it would be appropriate to offer them the full range of benefits currently available to refugees. Under the 1951 convention and the way in which it is applied by countries that are signatories to it, that is a special status and carries with it special entitlements. It is right to maintain those special entitlements.
I must make it clear—my hon. Friend will know this from his constituency experience, as do I—that our family reunion policy includes a concession with some flexibility, which allows discretion for humanitarian reasons. There is some discretion within the family reunion concession and, in such cases, consideration is given to whether the families of people with exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom should be allowed to join them in this country before the four-year

85WH
period has elapsed. My hon. Friend will have brought such cases to the attention of the immigration and nationality directorate.
When considering whether it is appropriate to exercise discretion in that way, we have regard to the United Kingdom's international obligations. The circumstances of the sponsor in the United Kingdom, or the applicant abroad, may merit compassionate treatment. It is not possible, and would not be right, to detail all the factors that might be taken into account when deciding whether to exercise discretion, but they include the degree of dependency, the hardships faced by the applicant, the health of the sponsor or the applicant, and the age of those concerned. I emphasise for the record that that is not an exhaustive list, because exceptional circumstances are, by their nature, exceptional and it is not possible to list them in one place.
It is important to point out that we are prepared to extend the family reunion policy in response to international circumstances, particularly when the need to provide immediate protection warrants that, as was the case during the Kosovo crisis when we operated a humanitarian evacuation programme. Under those arrangements, procedures were put in place for applications to be processed quickly and allowed members of asylum seekers' extended families to join them in the United Kingdom if that was justified.
My hon. Friend referred to the European Union draft directive on family reunion and I am grateful to him for doing so, because it provides me with the opportunity to outline the background. I fully appreciate that the Commission's proposal is intended to identify guiding principles for a common European policy on family reunion. However, if the United Kingdom opted in, many of the directive's provisions would entail changes to our family reunion policy which we would find it difficult to accept. Some of those difficulties are that the sponsor in the United Kingdom should make the application for the family reunion, no fee should be payable, there should be a minimum standard for maintenance and accommodation—my hon. Friend may not be happy with some of those provisions—and family members should have an autonomous right to settlement. The Government also have difficulty with the aim to make the position of European Union citizens who have not exercised their right to free movement comparable to that of citizens who have exercised it by bringing them within the ambit of Community law. That would significantly weaken the United Kingdom's marriage rules and efforts being made to tighten them up in the face of marriage abuse for immigration purposes.
86WH
Furthermore, we would also have the difficulty with existing Community law in relation to dependent relatives, who are currently required to meet strict qualifying criteria. I hope that that is helpful background information, in addition to that provided in the explanatory memorandum. We will consider our position in relation to the proposal, and will advise Parliament accordingly. I assure this Chamber that we will participate in discussison of the text, and that policy issues will be drawn to the attention of the Commission and other member states.
I want to deal with others issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. I am delighted that he mentioned the paper on refugee integration, which I regard as an important contribution to the debate. I am sad that it has not received the publicity and focus that it deserves. It is vital to those who are interested in the issue. Those to whom refugee status is given should be aware of all the possibilities available to them to make a new life. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's endorsement of that aspect of our work.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the delays in the process. However exercised he is on the matter, he is not as exercised as I am, as it is my job to speed up the process as much as possible. I am sure that he will have seen the figures that we published on Friday, which show record numbers of decisions being made. We want to make progress on that. I am not complacent; I appreciate that much remains for us to do, and that people's individual circumstances and futures are at stake. Delays in the asylum process are unacceptable. They disadvantage those involved in the process, which is why, as he will know, we took steps to improve the system inherited from the previous Administration. Resources are being introduced to ensure that all initial asylum decisions are taken within two months, and appeals resolved within four months. That is the target towards which we are working.
My hon. Friend also raised the issue of the four-year period for entry clearance. I assure my hon. Friend and this Chamber that we are trying to apply the principles of joined-up government to the processes. A joint unit to combine the work of the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be established, which we hope will drive the speeding up of the process.
I end as I began by congratulating my hon. Friend on securing the debate and presenting it in the manner in which he did. Fundamental issues are at stake, and we are at one in wanting to speed up the process, and on the need for it to be firm, fair and fast.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 1 March. [111213]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning, I had meetings with Ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister how many senior civil servants from an ethnic minority background are employed in his office; and how many of them are(a) men and (b) women. [110676]

  The Prime Minister
  As at 1 April 1999, 55 members of the Senior Civil Service were from ethnic minority background (1.7 per cent.).

  Information on ethnic origin in the Civil Service is collected on the understanding that it will be treated on a confidential basis. To protect the privacy of individual members of staff we do not disclose data relating to fewer than five people.

  The Cabinet Office monitors ethnicity but not at individual unit level. The Cabinet Office and Number 10, which for these purposes are taken together, have fewer than five people of ethnic minority background in the Senior Civil Service.

  Downing Street Receptions
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister if the cost of the Countryside Reception held at No. 10 Downing street on 2 February was borne from public funds. [112069]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: Yes.

TREASURY

  Stock Exchange
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he proposes to effect the transfer of the Competent Authority for listing from the London Stock Exchange to the Financial Services Authority. [112936]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Given the need for planning purposes to have a precise target date for the transfer of the Competent Authority for listing function, we have decided to make the transfer by means of Regulations made under the European Communities Act 1972. These Regulations are being laid in draft today for the approval 266W
  of Parliament with the intention that the transfer should take place on 1 May. The proposed new legislative framework for the Competent Authority would then be brought into effect as soon as possible after the enactment of the Financial Services and Markets Bill.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the income from the vehicle excise duty levy in 1999. [111977]

  Mr. Timms
  Figures are available only on a financial year basis and are shown in table B9 of the 1999 pre-Budget Report, p.154.

  Israel
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what investigations Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has conducted of imports to the UK during the past three years of wines produced in wineries located in(a) the Golan Heights and (b) the Israeli West Bank settlement of Barkan; and what its findings have been concerning imports under preferences during that period. [111882]

  Dawn Primarolo
  From examination of entry records Customs and Excise has identified small quantities of wines from the Golan Heights and the area Barkan. Details have been passed to the European Commission.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 14 February 2000,Official Report, column 447W, concerning imports from Israeli settlements in occupied territories, whether the documents referred to in the answer declared products imported to the United Kingdom in violation of Article 38 and the provisions of the Protocol on Rules of Origin of the EC Trade Agreement with Israel to have originated in Israel. [111874]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As indicated in my answer of 14 February, the documents failed to substantiate the alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the Agreement between the EC and Israel.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what post-import verification procedures Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has initiated with Israel's customs service for products imported from Israel following indications that the products in question may have been wholly obtained or significantly processed in territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including in Israeli settlements. [111883]

  Dawn Primarolo
  None.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has made of its ability to establish the origin of products that may have been produced in territories occupied by Israel since 1967 if Israel's customs misapply the origin rule protocol and the territorial clause in its agreements. [111884]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The European Commission is taking the lead in establishing the origin of products imported into the European Union, that may have been produced in territories occupied by Israel since 1967. The Commission has not yet provided an assessment of the likely outcome of this initiative.
  267W
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what investigations Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has conducted and what information it has obtained concerning carpets imported to the UK under preferences from a manufacturing firm in the Israeli West Bank settlement of Barkan, or carrying the name or trademark of such a firm. [111879]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs and Excise has identified a number of consignments of carpets from the area Barkan which have been imported into the UK under preferences. Details have been passed to the European Commission.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 14 February 2000,Official Report, column 447W, what the information was concerning products processed in Israeli settlements in occupied territories which may have been imported into the UK in violation of Article 38 and the provisions of the Protocol on Rules of Origin of the EC Trade Agreement with Israel; and if Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has identified (a) importations to the UK under preferences of dates from the Israeli exporters in question and (b) the UK importers and consignees. [111881]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It comprised details obtained by the European Commission of a range of goods together with information from another source about dates produced in Israeli settlements. Customs and Excise has identified importations into the UK under preferences of dates of Israeli origin but, as indicated in my answer of 14 February, scrutiny of the customs entry documents has failed to substantiate the alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the EC-Israel trade agreement.

  Agriculture (Fuel Tax)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total revenue which the Treasury received in each of the last five years from the agricultural sector of the economy; and how much of this arose from taxation on fuel. [111789]

  Mr. Timms
  The estimated amount of revenue received from the agricultural sector (including the forestry and fishing sectors) for each of the last five years is:

  £ million

  PAYE and NICS

  Other Taxes 1

  Total

  1994–95

  1,000

  -250

  750

  1995–96

  1,090

  -315

  775

  1996–97

  780

  -245

  535

  1997–98

  n/a

  40

  n/a

  1998–99

  n/a

  -140

  n/a

  1 Capital Gains Tax, Corporation Tax, Self-employed Income Tax and VAT.

  Note:

  Figures of income tax and national insurance contributions collected via PAYE cover employers classified to agriculture, forestry or fishing. They are available only to 1996–97, due to problems with the NIRS2 computer system.

  In addition to the revenues shown, stamp duty is payable on transactions of agricultural property, but cannot be separately identified.

  It is not possible to identify the amount of excise duty or VAT relating to fuel in the agricultural sector.

DEFENCE

  Video Conferencing
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what use experience of video conferencing exists in(a) the Army and (b) the RAF; and what were the locations linked and the bandwidth used; [110851]

  (2) if he will list the Royal Navy ships which have video conferencing facilities, indicating the bandwidth used and the locations where video conferencing has been (a) successful and (b) unsuccessful for each ship. [110852]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 21 February 2000: VideoTeleConferencing (VTC) is used both operationally and for normal business across Defence. Because it is primarily used in a joint environment, the questions are answered together.

  HMS Illustrious, Invincible and Fearless are permanently fitted with VTC facilities. HMS Chatham, Campbeltown, Cumberland and Cornwall are also fitted to receive VTC, but the terminal equipment is not carried routinely unless the ship is in Flag Ship role. They typically operate at bandwidths of either 64 kilobits per second or 128 kilobits per second and use dedicated military satellite services, although some ships can also use Inmarsat if required.

  The Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) is the main sponsor of deployed, operational VTC. VTC was first deployed on operations in 1997 in the form of a capability trial. The trial was successful and VTC is now routinely deployed on operations to provide the Chief of Joint Operations with one of his primary command tools. The PJHQ has a significant VTC capability and is able to conduct secure VTC with a wide range of UK and allied Headquarters and deployable formations. In addition, HQ Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps, for which UK is framework nation, is in the process of being equipped with VTC. Secure high quality VTC links also exist between the PJHQ and the Defence Crisis Management Centre that are used to conduct crisis planning and to provide operational updates to Defence chiefs. The bandwidth employed by operational VTC services varies between 64 kilobits per second and 384 kilobits per second. It forms part of the overall information exchange requirements package for a deployed formation which takes account of the operational requirement, whether or not the end user is in a mobile or static environment, and the available capacity in the overall communications planning scenario.

  Within the Royal Air Force, VTC systems exist in the main Headquarters of Strike Command and Personnel and Training Command among other locations. Additionally, a Closed Circuit Television System is used in Headquarters Strike Command to support operational briefings for senior staff. Commercially available systems are employed which typically utilise a bandwidth of between 128 kilobits per second and 384 kilobits per second, connected via Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) lines. These allow dial-up connections to be established to other sites with similar facilities.

  Within the Army, VTC is being used for a variety of applications including communication between the main locations of the Adjutant General's staff in Upavon, Glasgow and London and also with in Headquarters Land

  269W
  and at a number of garrisons. Again these systems typically utilise a bandwidth of between 128 kilobits per second and 384 kilobits per second. Initiatives are currently being studied to extend this connectivity to provide VTC facilities in other major Army headquarters to support a variety of business activities in the future.

  One specific application under investigation is the use of VTC in support of Custody Hearings and Summary Appeal Courts under the control of the Courts Martial Administrative Office (CMAO) to support the processes set out in the Armed Forces Discipline Bill. On 18 February 2000, CMAO staffs completed a two week trial which included links to sites in Germany, Brunei and Canada. The purposes of this trial were: to demonstrate to the Judge Advocate General's department the proposed Custody Hearing process using VTC; to prove the principle of using VTC for Custody Hearings; to examine the possibility of taking evidence from witnesses in overseas theatres and to examine the possibility of conducting Directions Hearings by VTC. The trial report is expected to conclude that the aims of the study were achieved although some processes and procedures would need to be refined. The report will recommend that a detailed Statement of Requirement be prepared for a VTC system to be procured and installed later this year.

  In the event, however unlikely, that a soldier needs legal advice on a Summary Dealing matter while in an operational theatre, it will firstly be sought from other Service lawyers in theatre (RAF or RN). Should these not

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Access denied

  0

  1

  0

  3

  1

  Browsing

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Password abuse

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Privilege abuse

  0

  5

  2

  1

  1

  Data stolen/disclosed

  0

  2

  0

  0

  1

  Files deleted/damaged

  1

  2

  2

  1

  0

  Fraud

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  The following information is recorded against each hacking incident:
  installation/system, main use of the system, date, intent/success, effect of incident, assets compromised, additional free text on why, how and actions taken.

  Bloody Sunday
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 February 2000,Official Report, column 648W, on Bloody Sunday, what efforts his Department is making to recover the 10 rifles which were used on Bloody Sunday and were identified as having been sold to private companies. [111712]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: The Ministry of Defence/West Mercia Police investigation, which I announced on 17 February, is urgently investigating the whereabouts of the Bloody Sunday rifles that have been sold and whether it might be possible to recover them.
  270W
  be available then the use of telephone or VTC will be made available subject to operational priorities. If the matter was sufficiently serious for the CO to believe that detention is necessary, he will almost certainly wish the individual to be removed to a rear area where he can be appropriately dealt with.

  Computers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence,pursuant to his answer of 14 February 2000,Official Report, column 372W, on computers (1) if he will list the eight different categories of misuse by which internal hacking incidents are categorised; and the number of hacking incidents by category for each of the last five years; [111112]

  (2) what information is held on his Department's incident recording system about each internal hacking incident over the last five years. [111110]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: My Department is a contributing Department to the Government wide Unified Incident Reporting and Alert Scheme (UNIRAS). Internal hacking incidents are categorised into the following eight types of misuse: access denied; browsing; password abuse; privilege abuse; data stolen/disclosed; files deleted/damaged; fraud; other.

  The number of internal hacking incidents, by category, for each of the last five years is:

  Bagshot Park
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 21 February 2000,Official Report, column 729W, concerning Bagshot Park, what payment was made on surrender of the property; and what its value was at that time. [111941]

  Dr. Moonie
  In accordance with the terms of our contractual arrangements with the Crown Estate, my Department made a payment of £1.8 million on the surrender of Bagshot Park. The value of the property is not a matter for the Ministry of Defence.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Affordable Drugs
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with pharmaceutical companies about ensuring that developing countries have access to affordable drugs. [111509]
  271W
  Mr. Byers
  The issue of healthcare in developing countries and access to medicines was raised at the recent WTO Ministerial Conference in Seattle, and while there I met representatives of the pharmaceutical industry and NGOs. Since Seattle I have received representatives on this issue from pharmaceutical companies and NGOs.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much ECGD cover was granted in respect of(a) heavily indebted poor countries, (b) lower middle income countries and (c) higher middle income countries in each of the financial years (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98 and (iv) 1998–99 indicating in each case the percentages for civil aerospace and defence cover. [111008]

  Mr. Byers
  The following table lists the information requested on the basis of the country categorisations which informed ECGD's recent evidence to the International Development Committee. For completeness, ECGD has included details for all Low Income countries (not all of which are HIPCs) where ECGD cover has been provided.

  ECGD cover for HIPC, LMI UMI countries

  Total business (£Million)

  Defence (%)

  Civil (%)

  Aero (%)

  FY 1995–96

  HIPC

  190

  0

  100

  0

  LMI

  2,874

  15

  82

  3

  UMI

  1,086

  47

  36

  17

  Value of ECGD cover in respect of guarantees issued in 1998–99—top ten exporters

  Company

  Nature of Projects

  Markets

  Value of ECGD cover (£ million)

  BAe Systems

  Civil Aerospace

  Belgium, Canada, China, Croatia, E1 Salvador, Greece, Hong Kong, Republic of Korea, Portugal, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United States, Uzbekistan

  769

  BAe Systems

  Defence

  Saudi Arabia, Republic of Korea

  1,020

  Marconi Communications; Marconi Electronic Systems

  Radio Communications and Defence

  India, Sweden, Brunei, United States, Japan

  607

  Mitsui Babcock

  Power Station

  China

  264

  Kvaerner

  Media Production and Blast Furnace Equipment

  Egypt, Republic of Korea

  137

  Vickers

  Defence

  Oman

  131

  ALSTOM

  Power Generation Equipment

  Mexico, Anguilla, Saint Kitts and Nevis

  75

  Rolls Royce

  Aero Engines

  China, United Arab Emirates

  73

  Bechtel

  Power Generation

  China

  54

  Dennis

  Buses

  Hong Kong

  51

  Coflexip

  Offshore Pipelines

  Brazil

  38

  Values shown in respect of Bae Systems include also amounts in respect of Rolls Royce aero engines.
  272W

  ECGD cover for HIPC, LMI and UMI countries

  Total business (£million)

  Defence (%)

  Civil (%)

  Aero (%)

  FY 1996–97

  HIPC

  161

  0

  63

  37

  LMI

  1,950

  8

  77

  15

  UMI

  465

  52

  30

  18

  FY 1997–98

  HIPC

  17

  0

  100

  0

  LMI

  1,156

  10

  44

  46

  UMI

  914

  29

  67

  5

  FY 1998–99

  HIPC

  21

  0

  100

  0

  LMI

  924

  3

  56

  41

  UMI

  1,249

  84

  15

  1

  Notes:

  1. HIPC: Highly Indebted Poor Countries

  2. LMI: Low Middle Income

  3. UMI: Upper Middle Income

  It should be noted that countries do move from one category to another. The case records available do not indicate the category of the market at the time the guarantees were issued.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the 10 companies in receipt of the highest level of export credit guarantees for the financial year 1998–99, indicating the amount of cover given to each company and listing the projects for which it was given. [111009]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is in the following table:

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Clean Development
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have taken place outside the remit of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change between his Department and the Governments of developing countries relating to the design of the Clean Development Mechanism. [112170]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since the Fifth Conference of the Parties in Bonn in October-November 1999, there have been no discussions relating to the design of the Clean Development Mechanism between members of the UK Government and governments of developing countries. However, the intensified process in the run-up to the Sixth Conference of the Parties in November 2000 includes several opportunities for such discussions by Ministers and officials, both within and outside the formal UNFCCC process.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's definition of clean development. [112171]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the context of the Clean Development Mechanism established by the Kyoto Protocol, there is no agreed international definition of "clean development". However, under the Kyoto Protocol, Clean Development Mechanism projects are defined as those that contribute to the overall objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—to reduce and stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere—and assist the developing country host in achieving sustainable development.

  Nuclear Power Projects
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy with regard to nuclear power projects as eligible projects in the Clean Development Mechanism, currently developed under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. [112168]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government believe that all projects under the Clean Development Mechanism must contribute to the overall objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—to reduce and stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere—and assist the developing country host in achieving sustainable development. The detailed rules that will govern the Clean Development Mechanism are due to be agreed at the Sixth Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in November this year. In advance of that, the Government have noted the case for prior exclusions as a way to ensure environmental integrity, and also attach importance to the need for developing countries to play a key role in determining their own sustainable development needs and priorities.
  274W
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from(a) Commonwealth and (b) other Governments concerning the UK's policy on the eligibility of nuclear power projects under the rules for the Clean Development Mechanism. [112169]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UK Government have had recent representations from Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth Ministers regarding the potential exclusion of nuclear power projects from the Clean Development Mechanism. At the Fifth Conference of the Parties (CoP5) in November 1999, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions received representations from Indian and Chinese Ministers. Both Ministers were concerned that the UK should not support specific exclusions from the Clean Development Mechanism and that the host developing country should determine whether projects met their own sustainable development aims. At CoP5, some EU Ministers and I briefly discussed project eligibility for the Clean Development Mechanism. I understand that the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has not received any representations.

  Overseas Missions
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the differences in the activities of a British Council office and a Foreign and Commonwealth Office mission abroad. [112005]

  Mr. Hain
  The British Council is the United Kingdom's principal agency for cultural relations abroad. Its overseas offices engage in a range of people-to-people activities in pursuit of the FCO' s cultural policy objectives. Foreign and Commonwealth Office missions overseas engage primarily in government-to-government relations across the range of the Department's objectives. The activities of British Council offices and our diplomatic missions are carefully co-ordinated to ensure complementarity and avoid duplication or overlap.

  UK/China Forum
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the role of the UK/China Forum in creating closer links between the UK and China. [112015]

  Mr. Battle
  The UK-China Forum is a high-level non-Governmental organisation, whose membership is drawn from senior individuals in the worlds of politics, business and industry, the law, education, science and technology, the media and the arts. The purpose is to develop contacts at all levels between Britain and China, with the aim of building stronger links between the two countries.

  The first meeting of the Forum, held in London on 21 and 22 October 1999, identified a number of areas where bilateral contacts and joint activities could be strengthened. Preparations are now underway for the second meeting of the Forum, to be held in Beijing in October 2000.

  Istanbul Summit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list his Department's programme and that of its Agencies to implement the proposals set out in paragraph 44 of his report on the OSCE Istanbul summit relating to police activities and training. [112130]

  Mr. Vaz
  We currently provide 10 UK police officers to the Police Monitor Group within the OSCE Mission to Croatia. Their role is to ensure the local police force continues to improve in its professionalism. In addition, we also provided 40 UK police officers to the OSCE Police Training School in Kosovo. Their role is to recruit and train a multi-ethnic Kosovo Police Service in order to help them gain the skills and equipment needed to engage effectively in police activities.

  Congo
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role Britain is playing in international efforts to bring peace to the Democratic Republic of Congo and the surrounding states, with particular reference to Rwanda and Uganda; and if he will make a statement. [111782]

  Mr. Hain
  Britain is playing an active and constructive role in international efforts to resolve the 'crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Our aim now is to: help all the parties, including Rwanda and Uganda, implement the Lusaka Agreement; support the early deployment of the UN observer force to DRC as soon as conditions allow; and get the national dialogue on the future of DRC under way; and keep DRC at the top of the international agenda.

  We are also providing practical support: British officers are deployed in the region as part of the UN mission; and we have made contributions of £160,000 for the Joint Military Commission, and £25,000 for the National Dialogue. We are ready to do more, as the parties actively demonstrate their commitment to the Lusaka Agreement.

  Child Soldiers
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the numbers of child soldiers in Sudan; what assessment he has made of the number of other countries in Africa where child soldiers are being used in significant numbers; and what steps the Government are taking to alleviate this problem. [112324]

  Mr. Hain
  There are no reliable estimates of the number of child soldiers in Sudan. Over the past year, reports of the use of child soldiers in Africa, including internal conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, Uganda, and Angola.

  We are committed to bringing to an end the use of child soldiers which is in contravention of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Our approach is based on a combination of: support for international efforts in this field, in particular the work of the UN Special Representative for Children in Armed Conflict; strengthening international standards; urging the
  276W
  governments concerned to tackle this abuse; and, with the Department for International Development, support for practical measures to address this issue.

  Kosovo
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many international police officers have been deployed to Kosovska Mitrovica. [112103]

  Mr. Hain
  The United Nations report that on 28 February 2000 there were 541 international police officers in Kosovska Mitrovica.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many police from the United Kingdom have been deployed, and how many have been pledged to be deployed, to(a) Kosovo, (b) Pristina and (c) Kosovska Mitrovica. [112104]

  Mr. Hain
  The United Kingdom has deployed 60 police officers to the United Nations International Police (UNIP) in Kosovo. In response to a UN request, we are increasing that contribution to 120 officers. We have also recently increased our contribution to the OSCE-run school training the future Kosovo police service from 32 to 40 officers. We are also considering deployment of additional specialists to help combat organised crime in Kosovo.

  The United Nations is responsible for determining where UNIP officers are deployed. Of the 60 UK officers with UNIP, 59 are based in Pristina and the surrounding area (the most densely populated region of Kosovo).

  A senior UK police officer has been deployed full-time to Mitrovica (as the Deputy Regional Commander) and several officers have been on short-term secondments to the Mitrovica region. 230 UK troops, from the Royal Green Jackets, were also deployed to Mitrovica between 15 and 22 February.

  British Council, Africa
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about funding for the British Council in Africa. [112327]

  Mr. Hain
  The grant in aid allocated by the British Council to its African directorates from 1994–95 to 1999–2000 has increased in cash terms from £13 million to £14 million (though this represents a 6 per cent. reduction in real terms). However, the overall level of activity undertaken by the Council in Africa over the same period has declined from £106 million to £59 million, as the result of a downturn in the management of development and training contracts.

  Sierra Leone
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made to him by the United Nations requesting troops for the Sierra Leone peacekeeping operation. [112326]

  Mr. Hain
  We strongly support the UN's efforts in Sierra Leone to create a climate of confidence for the implementation of the Lome Peace Agreement.
  277W
  We were asked by the UN to provide military observers and logistical support to the UN peacekeeping operation in Sierra Leone, UNAMSIL. We currently deploy 15 military observers to the force Observer Group, including the Group's Chief of Staff, and an eight-man movement control detachment to assist the rapid deployment of troop contingents in-country. We have also offered the UN assistance with airlift of troops and/or equipment.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the second report of the Secretary-General, pursuant to Security Council resolution 12780 (1999) on the United Nations missions in Sierra Leone, in particular the report's assessment of the United Nations' ability to maintain a major military presence in Sierra Leone. [112325]

  Mr. Hain
  We agree with the Secretary-General's assessment that the establishment and maintenance of security in Sierra Leone is essential to the success of the Lome Peace Agreement. We therefore supported his recommendation that the UN peacekeeping operation in Sierra Leone, UNAMSIL, be substantially expanded to take on some of the security tasks formerly carried out by the departing Economic Community of West Africa (ECOWAS)' peacekeeping force, ECOMOG. We strongly backed UN Security Council Resolution 1289 of 7 February which authorised the deployment of up to 11,100 troops and observers.

  We also agree with the Secretary-General that the UN, already under considerable resource pressure, will not be able to maintain a major military presence in Sierra Leone for a prolonged period; and that the responsibility for the success of the peace process ultimately lies with the people and leaders of Sierra Leone.

  In order to help Sierra Leone to take responsibility for its own security, we are working closely with the Government of Sierra Leone to help rebuild new, democratically accountable Sierra Leone armed forces, and a new police force.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the situation in Sierra Leone; and if he will make a statement. [111982]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) on 15 February 2000,Official Report, column 762.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the state of human rights in Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement. [111983]

  Mr. Hain
  Although the Sri Lankan Government have taken some steps to improve their human rights record, we remain concerned about continuing violations and failures to prosecute violators. We are also concerned about human rights abuses committed by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and reports that they are still using child soldiers. We will continue to raise our concerns and stress the need for effective machinery to protect and promote human rights.

  Turkey
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received concerning disputes between Turkey and neighbouring states over water resources. [112097]

  Mr. Vaz
  The governments of Syria, Iraq and the League of Arab States have registered their concern about the potential impact of the Ilisu Dam on their water supply from the Tigris river. We have also received several letters from NGOs on the same subject. Water is a sensitive issue in the region because of scarcity of supply. The Ilisu Dam is, however, a hydro-electric project, not an irrigation proposal. Continued flow of water would be needed for the dam to function.

  Sombrero (Wildlife)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the ecological value of(a) reptiles, (b) grasshoppers, (c) beetles, (d) carved flies, (e) scorpions and (f) lizards on the Island of Sombrero. [111172]

  Mr. Hain
  No assessment of these matters has yet been carried out. However, information on the ecological value of the fauna and flora of Sombrero is being gathered for the review of Beal Aerospace's proposal for a commercial space rocket launch complex on the island. This review is being carried out for the Government of Anguilla by a UK Planning Inspector. It will cover material in the Environmental Assessment submitted by Beal Aerospace as well as other reports, including ones submitted by the Royal Society for the protection of Birds on invertebrates and lizards.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds about the development of Sombrero Island near Anguilla. [111171]

  Mr. Hain
  The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (and others) have made a number of representations to HMG and to the Government of Anguilla expressing concern about the Environmental Assessment submitted by Beal Aerospace in support of its proposal to develop a commercial rocket launch site on Sombrero. At the request of the Government of Anguilla we have therefore arranged for a UK Planning Inspector to review the evidence, so that decisions can be taken with the benefit of his advance on environmental aspects of the proposal.

  The most recent representations followed surveys of the island in November 1999 and included reports by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on Seabirds, by Fauna and Flora International on Lizards and by Dr. Michael Ivie of the University of Montana on Invertebrates.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  London Underground
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the escalators that were not working on 14 February 2000,
  279W
  on the London Underground; for what reasons each was not working; and what measures will be pursued to ensure that all escalators are in full working order. [110745]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: This is an operational matter for London Transport. However, I understand that at 14 February 2000, 47 escalators out of 381 were out of service.

  These are as follows:

  Station

  Number of escalators

  Reason

  Old Street

  1

  1—

  Oxford Circus

  1

  1—

  Victoria

  1

  1—

  Notting Hill Gate

  2

  1—

  Warren Street

  1

  1—

  Bethnal Green

  1

  1—

  Kings Cross

  1

  1—

  Holborn

  2

  1—

  St. John's Wood

  1

  1—

  Tottenham Court Road

  1

  1—

  Hyde Park Corner

  1

  1—

  Manor House

  2

  2—

  Wood Green

  1

  2—

  London Bridge

  1

  Power supply problems

  Canada Water

  4

  Station construction work

  Shepherds Bush

  1

  3—

  Oxford Circus

  1

  3—

  Waterloo

  1

  3—

  Old Street

  1

  3—

  South Wimbledon

  1

  3—

  Clapham North

  1

  3—

  Clapham South

  1

  3—

  Euston

  2

  3—

  Baker Street

  3

  3—

  Oxford Circus

  4

  3—

  Kings Cross

  1

  3—

  Brixton

  1

  3—

  Vauxhall

  1

  3—

  Walthamstow

  2

  3—

  Highbury

  1

  3—

  Victoria

  1

  3—

  Seven Sisters

  1

  3—

  Charing Cross

  1

  3—

  1 Planned replacement or refurbishment

  2 Tracking and guidance system repairs

  3 Replacement of machine drive shaft

  London Underground is implementing a new programme of expenditure on escalator maintenance and repair of nearly £140 million over the years 1998–99 to 2000–01 (1998–99 £26 million, 1999–2000 £44.8 million, 2000–01 £66.1 million).

  Revenue Support Grant
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the percentage contribution from central Government funds towards local authority expenditure in England in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000; and if he will give the estimated percentage in 2000–01. [111617]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information is as follows.280W

  Government funds as a percentage of Englich local authority revenue expenditure1

  Year

  Central government funds2 (percentage)

  Non-domestic rates3 (Percentage)

  1997–984

  50.4

  25.5

  1998–994

  50.3

  24.9

  1999–20005

  48.1

  25.3

  1 Local authority expenditure is defined as "revenue expenditure to compare with TSS" which is expenditure to be met from Revenue Support Grant, Specific and Special Grants in Aggeregate External Finance, SSA Reduction Grant, Police Grant. Central Support Protection Grant (1999–2001), Non-domestic rates, council tax and appropriations from reserves.

  2 Central Government Funds Comprise Revenue Support Grant. Police Grant and Central Support Protection Grant (1999–00 to 2000–01).

  3 This represents the distributable amount from the non-domestic rates pool and City Offset.

  4 Outturn

  5 Budget

  Note:

  The percentages for 2000–01 will depend on how much local authorities spend.

  Clean Development
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the Government's policy on the handling of radioactive waste from nuclear power stations in developing countries; and what account he has taken of the environmental and health impact of radioactive waste in formulating his position on the eligibility of nuclear power projects for inclusion in the Clean Development Mechanism. [112075]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have made no generic assessment of the impacts of radioactive waste in the context of the suitability of nuclear power projects for inclusion in the Clean Development Mechanism. Although international rules for the Clean Development Mechanism have yet to be agreed, the Government have noted the case for prior exclusions of certain project types, including nuclear power, as a way to ensure environmental integrity. The Government also attach importance to the need for developing countries to play a key role in determining their own sustainable development needs and priorities.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the Government's policy on the design of the Clean Development Mechanism being developed under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, with particular reference to the inclusion of nuclear power and large hydro projects in the Mechanism. [112074]

  Mr. Meacher
  This Government believe that all projects under the Clean Development Mechanism must contribute to the overall objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—to reduce and stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere—and assist the developing country host in achieving sustainable development. The design of the Clean Development Mechanism, including the eligibility of certain project types, will not be agreed until the Sixth Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in November 2000. In advance of that, the Government have noted the case for prior exclusions of certain project types as a way to ensure environmental integrity, and also attach
  281W
  importance to the need for developing countries to play a key role in determining their own sustainable development needs and priorities.

  Biodiversity
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he expects the Government to sign up to the OECD agreement on The Global Biodiversity Information Facility; [111991]

  (2) what commitments the Government have made to implement the terms of the agreement on The Global Biodiversity Information Facility. [111992]

  Mr. Meacher
  We recognise that there is a need for global biodiversity data to be collected and managed, and therefore used to underpin the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. The National Biodiversity Network, to which the Government have announced a £250,000 contribution, aim to do this for the UK. We recognise too that there is already much work going on globally producing many results and outputs. However, because there is no set protocol of compilation or standardisation of such work, its full potential, particularly when coupled with modern information technology, is not being realised.

  The OECD has usefully identified this gap through its Mega Science Forum and has carried out some preliminary work in suggesting ways for promoting a mechanism to meet these needs.

  Plans for the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) are still being drafted and will not be ready for adoption and signature until the end of the year. We have, however, demonstrated our interest by playing a full part in the discussions so far and shall continue to do so. Our aim is to secure a GBIF which will meet its objectives cost effectively, and through collaboration with all information providers and collectors, all interested countries, and other arrangements and institutions including those associated with the Convention on Biological Diversity.

  Buses
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the effect of introducing buses with a maximum width of 2.55 m on existing bus services, with particular reference to the impact of such a change on the number of bus routes that would have to be discontinued. [112408]

  Mr. Hill
  Following an extensive consultation, the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 were amended in 1995 (SI 1995 No. 3051) to allow vehicles to operate at a maximum width of 2.55 m. No problems were raised at the time of the consultation in respect of this increase. The dimension is a maximum allowance and, therefore, it is permissible to operate buses at less than 2.55 m on routes that require narrower vehicles to be used.

  Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy in respect of the addition of methyl tertiary butyl ether to petrol; and if he will make a statement. [111892]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government remain neutral on the use of MTBE in petrol. It can provide worthwhile improvements in air quality through the reduction of vehicle pollutants, e.g. carbon monoxide by 25 per cent. and hydrocarbons by 15 per cent. On the other hand, not all petrol sold in the United Kingdom contains MTBE. The average concentration of MTBE in UK petrol is about 1 per cent., well below that permitted under EU law.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the maximum concentration of methyl tertiary butyl ether allowed in petrol. [111893]

  Mr. Hill
  Directive 98/70/EC stipulates that member states may not prevent, restrict or discourage production, marketing and free movement of blended petrol that contains 15 per cent. or less MTBE by volume. This requirement has been implemented in UK law by the Motor Fuel (Composition and Content) Regulations 1999.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the locations where methyl tertiary butyl ether has been found in groundwater supplies in excess of maximum safe levels in the past three years. [111894]

  Mr. Mullin
  Environment Agency monitoring of groundwater has not encountered any concentrations of MTBE which the Agency considers excessive. The Agency is currently undertaking a research project on the incidence of MTBE in England and Wales, the results of which will be available this summer.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made in developing the Government's road safety strategy; and if he will make a statement. [112908]

  Mr. Hill
  Today, we have published our road safety strategy, "Tomorrow's roads—safer for everyone". This sets stretching new targets to reduce the number of casualties on our roads, particularly child deaths and injuries. By 2010 we want to see a 40 per cent. overall reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured and a 50 per cent. reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured, compared with the average for 1994–98. We also want to see a 10 per cent. reduction in the rate of slight injuries, measured per 100 million vehicle kilometres.

  Measures to achieve these objectives include:
  expecting local authorities to use their powers to introduce self-enforcing 20 mph zones around schools and in residential areas;
  a robust package of measures to further reduce drink driving;
  strengthening enforcement of drug driving, including a commitment to legislate to give police the powers to test for drugs at the roadside;

  283W
  consulting the public on a package of measures designed to encourage young and new drivers to take a more structured approach to learning to drive;
  continuing to monitor the driving test to ensure it is sufficiently stretching and appropriate for modern driving conditions;
  developing information schemes and advice for older drivers and publicity on the dangers of driving while using a mobile phone;
  expecting a 30 mph speed limit to be the norm for villages;
  increasing resources for Local Transport Plans, which will include local road safety plans and targets, to £1 billion next year;
  setting up a Road Safety Advisory Panel which will include representatives of the main stakeholders and will help us to review our targets and strategy; and
  raising the standard of road safety education, particularly promoting child pedestrian training in deprived areas, where we know children are at greater risk.

  Enforcement of road traffic law will have a major part to play in improving road safety. The Home Office is conducting a major review of all road traffic penalties, including those for speeding and careless driving, which will report in due course.

  The Government's detailed review of speed policy has also been published today. "Tomorrow's roads—safer for everyone" reflects the findings of this review. It does not recommend blanket changes to existing speed limits, but acknowledges that there is a place for lower limits in specific areas where there is an accident problem.

  Copies of the documents published today—the Government's detailed review of speed policy; the Government's response to the ETR Select Committee's report, "Young and Newly Qualified Drivers: Standards and Training"; the Government's response to the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety's report, "Road Traffic Law and Enforcement; the Highways Agency's safety plan, "Making the network safer—Highways Agency strategic plan for safety" and a report by the Transport Research Laboratory, "The numerical context for setting national casualty reduction targets"—have all been placed in the Library.

  Motorcycle Licensing
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to revise motorcycle licensing rules following the safer motorcycling consultation exercise undertaken by the Driving Standards Agency last year. [112909]

  Mr. Hill
  The document, "Tomorrow's roads—safer for everyone", which is published today, sets out the broad context for how we propose to deliver road safety improvements for motorcyclists. A detailed report of the decisions taken in response to the consultation exercise has also been issued today, and I shall place copies in the Library of the House.

  We are removing unnecessary restrictions while improving training and testing for learner riders. We shall abolish the rule that means learner riders lose their provisional licence after two years, and we shall improve the training they receive. New licences will be valid until age 70 years, providing the rider holds a current training certificate. New car drivers will have basic safety training before riding a moped.

  British Waterways Board
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the External Financing Limit for the British Waterways Board. [112973]

  Mr. Mullin
  The 1999–2000 External Financing Limit for the British Waterways Board will be increased by £340,000 from £58,690,000 to £59,030,000. This will enable them to replace a life expired pumping facility at Gloucester Docks. It will be funded by an increase in grant in aid to the Board arising from savings elsewhere on Class III, Vote 3.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many tickets for the Millennium dome have been sold from outlets based in Wales to date; and what percentage they represent of overall sales to date. [110849]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 28 February 2000, Official Report, column 85W. This represents around 1.16 per cent. of the total sales to 6 February.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he has revised his estimate that the Millennium dome will attract 12 million visitors this year. [112050]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: The New Millennium Experience Company continues to aim for 12 million visitors for the year.

  Right of Reply
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will take steps to introduce a statutory right of reply in respect of factual inaccuracies in the media. [109996]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government have no plans to introduce a statutory right of reply in respect of factual inaccuracies in the media. We believe that current self-regulatory arrangements on the media are working satisfactorily.

  Tourism Summit
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what is the budget for his Tourism Summit; [112086]

  (2) what is the catering budget for the Tourism Summit. [112085]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: The budget for the Summit is £1,000. This includes the cost of catering, which will be provided by the in-house catering service at the Globe Theatre. We have chosen the most economical of the lunch options available.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish the agenda for the Tourism Summit. [112079]
  285W
  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: There are four main parts to the agenda. Ministers collectively will review the progress made in implementing Tomorrow's Tourism, and consider what ought to be done over the next year. There will be a progress report on the work of the better Regulation Task Force in this area, and a discussion of its implications. Progress in improving accommodation quality following the launch of the harmonised gradings will be discussed, and Ministers will receive the report of the Tourism Consumer Working Group and decide on their response to it. As promised in the original strategy document, we will then publish a report setting out our conclusions on progress to date and detailed recommendations for the future.

  Dome Celebrations (Transport)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on transport arrangements for the dome celebrations on new year's eve 1999. [105980]

  Janet Anderson
  Over 10,000 guests were invited to the dome opening celebration. Some of those arriving via Stratford suffered lengthy delays, although everyone arrived in time for the opening show. The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) and the Metropolitan police have apologised for the delays and NMEC has offered free dome tickets to all those who used Stratford.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Public Services (Modernisation)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for taking forward work on the modernisation of public services. [112802]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Like all members of this Government, I am committed to delivering efficient and responsive modern public services that provide excellence for the many, and not just the few. My Department has published a booklet today on what it has done and is planning to do to take forward the Government's long-term programme of reform to modernise the public service. These plans, which will evolve over the coming months, will lead to changes in the way MAFF does its business. Copies of this booklet, "MAFF's Part in Modernising Government", are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Modernising Government gives MAFF an opportunity to deliver better services to our many customers. We will make the most of this opportunity.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times bad weather was forecast for planned sailings of ships carrying live sheep for export from Dover Port to the continent in 1999; how many times his inspectors discussed the weather with the master of vessels carrying live sheep; how many such sailings were undertaken when winds were force 7 or 286W
  higher or when the state of the sea was rough; and how many such sailings were postponed due to bad weather. [111373]

  Mr. Morley
  Ministry staff track forecasts of weather and sea conditions on all occasions when there are plans to take live food animals out of Dover by sea. The trigger for the Department's inspection staff at Dover to initiate discussions with the master of the vessel is a clear forecast, when the master imminently intends to sail with animals, that force 7 winds and/or rough sea conditions are likely to prevail. Inspection staff discuss the conditions with the master of the vessel to ensure that the master has exercised his judgment as to whether animals are likely to be caused injury or unnecessary suffering as a result of weather and/or sea conditions likely to be encountered during the voyage (as required by article 4(2) of the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997). The 1999 discussions were initiated with the master on 24 occasions. Thirteen sailings commenced in force 6–7 winds and/or rough sea conditions and nine in calmer conditions. Two sailings were postponed.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many notices were served by his staff under Article 18 of the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 at Dover Port in respect of live sheep destined for export; how many such sheep were removed at his inspectors' instructions from livestock vehicles at Dover Port and for what reasons; and how many documentary queries were made by his inspectors at Dover Port in respect of consignments of live sheep destined for export in 1999; [111371]

  (2) how many (a) live sheep and (b) live pigs destined for export from the United Kingdom in 1999 were declared to be unfit to travel by (i) his inspectors at Dover Port and (ii) Local Veterinary Inspectors when carrying out inspections prior to issuing an export health certificate. [111372]

  Mr. Morley
  Seventy-eight (78) notices were served by MAFF staff during 1999 at Dover Port on consignments of slaughter/further fattening sheep. 257 sheep were removed. 160 of these were removed to improve stocking densities; 82 were removed because they were unfit; 15 dead animals were removed. There were 19 documentary queries.

  Separate figures for animals declared unfit for travel by Local Veterinary Inspectors are available only from 31 May 1999 when changes to pre-export inspection arrangements were introduced. Between then and 31 December 1999 12,558 sheep and 188 pigs were rejected as unfit to travel.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has taken a decision in the case of Senator Pinochet. [110636]

  Mr. Straw
  I expect to make a decision in the case of Senator Pinochet at 8.00 am tomorrow. I will give full reasons for my decision.

  Waterhouse Tribunal
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he was told by the Waterhouse Tribunal of the urgent need to instruct police authorities to search for those persons named as being unsuitable to work with children; and if he will make a statement. [111370]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Waterhouse Tribunal made no such proposal. The desirability of tracing those concerned was recognised by the Government on publication of the report.

  CS Spray
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will suspend the use of CS spray on people known to be in mental distress until research into the effects of CS on people using neuroleptic drugs has been carried out. [111803]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Police officers need some means of protection against attacks, even when committed by people who are mentally disturbed, and the safety of CS spray to all concerned must be compared with that of alternatives, such as physical restraint or use of batons, which themselves involve an element of risk. Nor is it always clear when an attacker is suffering from a mental disorder which might require medication. The Guidance on the use of CS spray in such circumstances are set out in paragraphs 6.5, 8.4 and 8.5 of the guidance published by the Association of Chief Police Officers on this subject, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Police Radio Communications Project
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on the Police Service Radio Communications Project; and if he will make a statement. [112636]

  Mr. Straw
  On 13 January, I laid before Parliament a Departmental minute notifying a non-statutory liability arising from the issue by the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO) of a letter of instruction to proceed to British Telecom plc. This letter authorised them to invest in the project infrastructure, pending satisfactory conclusions of the final contract negotiations. I can now confirm that yesterday evening PITO signed a contract with British Telecom plc for the provision of the Public Safety Radio Communications Service (PSRCS) to all police forces in England, Wales and Scotland. I will be announcing shortly further details on the scope and timetable of the project.

  Racing Greyhounds
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what safeguards exist concerning the welfare of racing greyhounds(a) during their working lives at (i) registered tracks and (ii) independent tracks and (b) after they retire; and if he will make a statement. [112391]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Provisions safeguarding the welfare of all domestic and captive animals in this country, including greyhounds whether on course or in retirement, are included in the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and the Abandonment of Animals Act 1960.
  288W
  The British Greyhound Racing Board and the National Greyhound Racing Club, who are responsible for the sport, have regular meetings with the major animal welfare organisations. The industry also supports the work of the Retired Greyhound Trust, which is currently concentrating on expanding and properly financing local home finding schemes for retired greyhounds.

  Global Cultural Diversity Congress
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish an independent public inquiry into the collapse of the Global Cultural Diversity Congress. [112464]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have aske d the incoming Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, Gurbux Singh, to consider urgently the lessons to be learned from the collapse of the Global Cultural Diversity Congress and to produce a report. I hope to indicate the time scale for the report shortly.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the report of the Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality into the collapse of the Global Cultural Diversity Congress to be completed; and if he will place the report in the Library when it is available. [112463]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have asked the incoming Chairman, Gurbux Singh, to undertake the review as a matter of urgency. The terms of reference and timetable for the review will be published shortly and the key findings of the review will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he plans to take in respect of the civil servants and members of the Commission for Racial Equality who are directors of Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd.; and what role his Department and the Commission for Racial Equality had in their appointment. [112462]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My Department was not involved in the appointment of its Directors and no Home Office officials are Directors of the company.

  The role of the Commission will be examined in the context of the review which I have asked the incoming Chairman, Gurbux Singh, to conduct.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 22 February 2000,Official Report, column 863W, to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), if he will place the accountants' report on Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd. in the Library. [112465]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are no plans to do so.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which Ministers and officials in his Department were responsible for supervising the organisation of the Global Cultural Diversity Congress by Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd.; what was the nature of that supervision; and if he will make a statement. [112461]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Commission for Racial Equality decided to stage the Cultural Diversity Congress and took a collective decision to set up Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd. to organise the event.
  289W
  Operational supervision of the arrangements was a matter for the Commission.

  Metropolitan Police
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the change in the total number of police officers in the Metropolitan Police Service over the next three financial years; and if he will make a statement. [112394]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the revenue budget for 2000–01 should be sufficient to enable him to maintain police officer strength at around 25,600. He also aims to maintain front-line policing strengths for the following two years, subject to sufficient funding.

  From 3 July 2000 budgets for the Metropolitan Police Authority will be a matter for the Greater London Authority, subject to my reserve powers to set a minimum budget.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy that there should be more police officers in the Metropolitan Police Service at the end of this Parliament than at the start; and if he will make a statement. [112458]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under the Police and Magistrates Courts Act 1994, it is for the Commissioner to determine the actual number of police officers in the Metropolitan Police Service at any one time. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out his policy as regards the number of police officers in all forces in England and Wales in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) on 9 February 2000,Official Report, columns 172–74W.

  Mike Tyson
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department further to his answer of 14 February 2000,Official Report, columns 419–20W, and his letter to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and the Weald of 18 February 2000, what assessment he has made of the compatibility of his instruction to admit Mike Tyson under paragraph 1(3) of schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 with the Immigration Rules. [112401]

  Mr. Straw
  My instruction under Paragraph 1(3) of schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 to admit Mr. Tyson was entirely compatible with the Immigration Rules, including paragraph 320(18). Whereas under that paragraph refusal of entry should normally follow in the case of someone with a criminal conviction of the sort prescribed in the absence of strong compassionate reasons, the paragraph leaves a residual discretion, confirmed by the courts, to depart from that normal course.

  Stansted Hijacking
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his considerations of the claims for political asylum made by some passengers on the aeroplane recently hijacked to Stansted airport. [112937]
  290W
  Mr. Straw
  Of the total 170 people on the aircraft, 73 returned voluntarily to Afghanistan on 14 February. Four members of the flight crew are due to return with the aircraft when necessary clearances have been given. Two passengers have also asked to return to Afghanistan. Arrangements are being made for them to do so. 14 individuals are the subject of criminal charges in relation to the hijacking. This leaves 44 passengers who have made a claim for asylum under the 1951 Geneva Convention together with some 33 dependants.

  I have postponed a decision in six claims made by the relatives of those charged because I have been advised that the effect of considering their claims could prejudice the trials of the hijackers. I have postponed a decision in two cases in which I am expecting further information from the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture and a further six cases in which further inquiries need to be made.

  I have personally considered each of the remaining claims, including the representations made by the legal advisers representing each applicant. I have also taken into account advice I have received from Counsel and the Home Office Afghanistan country assessment. I have now reached my decisions. I have decided to grant refugee status in two cases, because I am satisfied that their applications disclose a well-grounded fear of persecution on a ground set out in the 1951 Convention. In both cases, as it happens, the applicant's case for asylum arose before they had boarded the flight, and it was a matter of chance for them that it was hijacked. Indefinite leave to enter will be granted to the wife of one of these applicants as his dependant, although she had claimed asylum in her own right. The claimants in these cases have five children who will also be given indefinite leave to enter. I have rejected the claims in the remaining 27 cases on the grounds that I am not satisfied that they have a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of their race, religion, nationality or membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

  In considering each of these claims, I have taken proper account of the United Kingdom's obligations under the 1951 Convention. I have taken account of all necessary legal requirements. These requirements are such that it would have been improper in the cases I have considered for me to take into account at that stage other factors, such as the need to deter future hijackers, and I have not done so. However, in determining the future status of those whose claims I have rejected, I have a different duty, to take into account all relevant information including public interest points in deterring future hijackings.

  In these cases, I have decided that the public interest in deterring future hijacks for the purposes of claiming asylum is a very strong one and, therefore, I have decided that they should not be given permission to stay in this country. Accordingly, I have given instructions that they should not be granted Exceptional Leave to Enter, which would give them this permission. We are ready to make arrangements for them to return to Afghanistan voluntarily. Given the current situation in Afghanistan, it is not proposed immediately to set directions for their enforced removal to Afghanistan. Instead, we are continuing to explore the possibility of removing these individuals to other countries. In the meantime they will be offered bail conditions to be set by a Chief Immigration Officer involving a recognisance, restrictions on their

  291W
  address, and conditions for regular reporting to the Immigration Service. Arrangements for accommodation will be made centrally and the cost will not be borne by local authorities. For the time being we will continue to detain those on whom no decision has been made.

  The events surrounding this terrorist act of hijacking have shown serious weaknesses in the way in which international conventions relating to refugees, terrorism and human rights operate. We shall be raising our concerns with like-minded countries and with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Education (Asia)
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's support for education initiatives in Asia. [111178]

  Clare Short
  The Government are working to strengthen the international effort to meet the International Development target of achieving universal primary education by 2015 and gender equality in primary and secondary schooling by 2005. To meet targets we must make greater progress in Asia where 50 million children are still out of school. The UK has major projects working to improve state systems in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal and we are working hard to try to ensure that the UN led Conference in Dakar on 26–27 April drives forward progress in meeting the 2015 target across the world.

  Globalisation White Paper
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what consultations she intends to carry out prior to the publication of the White Paper on Globalisation. [111179]

  Clare Short
  We will consult widely as part of the preparation of the White Paper on Globalisation and Development. We will provide an outline of the White Paper and establish a website containing the outline. We will invite submissions widely from individuals and organisations in the UK and from developing countries and international organisations.

  World Bank Development Report
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what has been the response of her Department to the World bank development report 2000–01 consultation draft, "Attacking Poverty", with particular reference to population issues. [111180]

  Clare Short
  I welcome the draft World Development Report and I welcome the fact that for the first time the World bank has put it out for wide consultation on the internet before publication in September. My Department has fed in detailed research to the report team, including a major study of the views of the poor across the world. We alongside others have suggested that the contribution of demographic change to economic growth should receive greater attention within the report.

  Kosovo (Health Services)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on health services in Kosovo. [111181]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Medical services in Kosovo suffer from 10 years of neglect and poor maintenance, the dismissal of Albanian Kosovars from health administration and from the aftermath of the conflict. Our immediate priority is to ensure that access to urgent medical assistance is widely available. The UK is taking the lead in essential services at Pristina University Hospital under a neutral international management team, and is supporting primary health care provision for some 800,000 people. We are working closely with Joint Administration and key donors to develop longer-term sustainable health programmes.

  EU Development Work
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on progress in reforming the EU' s development work. [111182]

  Clare Short
  I welcome the commitment of the new European Commission to major improvement of the European Union's development programmes. Most of the damaging splits in responsibility within the Commission have been removed, a development policy statement will be tabled this month, and the structure of the European Development Fund was significantly improved during the negotiations on the next Lomé convention.

  The UK advocated all these changes in the strategy we published over a year ago. But the impact of these measures has not yet been felt on the ground or reflected in the allocation of EC development spending. We will continue to press for much greater effectiveness and efficiency in EC programmes so that the EU plays a more effective role in meeting the international poverty eradication targets.

  Monitoring
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what monitoring her Department will carry out of the uses to which funds which are released as a result of debt cancellation are put. [111183]

  Clare Short
  The revision to the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) initiative agreed last year requires countries to develop national poverty reduction strategies. Resources arising from debt relief will be spent within this framework. I place great importance on civil society and the international community being able to monitor the implementation and outcomes of these strategies, and I recognise that increased international support will be required to ensure that this takes place. We are devoting additional resources to improve the statistics essential for monitoring progress in HIPC countries, as part of the new Partnership for Statistics for Development in 21st Century initiative, launched in November 1999.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has received relating to UK aid to Zimbabwe; and if she will make a statement. [111184]
  293W
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what non-financial assistance she is giving to Zimbabwe; and if she will make a statement. [111191]

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the future of the aid programme to Zimbabwe. [111200]

  Clare Short
  Appalling economic management has brought Zimbabwe to a crisis. The International Financial Institutions are urging the Government to take action to improve economic management and focus on the reduction of poverty. We have also made it clear that there is a strong case for land reform and that we would provide support for a programme that was fully transparent and focused on helping poor farmers.

  Some 70 per cent. of Zimbabwean households fall below the poverty line. Cutting aid would hurt the people who have suffered most through economic mismanagement. We will continue to work with progressive forces in Zimbabwe, where we judge our aid can be effective.

  Debt Reduction
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has received on the reduction of third-world debt. [111185]

  Clare Short
  I have discussed debt relief, and the contribution it can make to poverty reduction, on a number of occasions recently ranging from a meeting with the Ugandan High Commissioner to children from Rhyl school. On 21 December, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I hosted a seminar for representatives of the UK faiths and non-governmental organisations to discuss these issues. I continue to receive many letters on debt from members of the public.

  School of Tropical Medicine (Liverpool)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the contribution made by the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine to international development. [111186]

  Clare Short
  The Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, alongside other UK institutions, is a valued partner in our work to improve the health of the poorest and our efforts to attain the international development targets.

  The school has responded to international needs for applied research and training in Malaria, Child Health, Reproductive Health, Filariasis (Elephantiasis), Onchocerciasis (River Blindness), TB and HIV/AIDs, as well as Health Sector Development.

  Gender Inequality
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the progress being made towards eliminating gender inequalities in basic education. [111187]

  Clare
  In the 10 years since the first Education for All conference in Jomtien considerable progress has been made in spreading support for the education of girls 294W
  in developing countries. Countries themselves are increasingly convinced of the need to include girls and progress is being made. The research evidence is clear that educating girls leads to major development gains as the girls grow up in smaller families, improved child survival and enhanced household income. We are committed to mobilising increased international commitment to the international development targets of universal primary education by 2015 and gender equity in primary and secondary schooling by 2005.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what humanitarian assistance Her Majesty's Government plans for Sierra Leone during 2000. [111188]

  Clare Short
  Our Programme in Sierra Leone is directed mainly at supporting the peace process and assisting with the preparations for elections in 2001.

  We are continuing to support a number of international and local non-government and civil society organisations which are working in the country on food security, basic health care, basic education and water and sanitation projects. During the last 18 months we have committed over £5 million towards these humanitarian assistance activities.

  The deployment of the expanded United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone force and continuing progress with the disarmament and demobilisation process will improve the prospects for access to areas which have until now been behind the rebel lines. DFID will continue to support effective co-ordination of humanitarian assistance and will be ready to respond to sensible, well-targeted proposals.

  Security Sector Reform
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the progress of her Department in promoting security sector reform. [111189]

  Clare Short
  Our policy on security sector reform in developing countries is set out in our policy statement on "Poverty and the Security Sector" which was launched in March 1999.

  In many countries bloated, ill-disciplined security sector forces, absorbing disproportionate resources, abuse their power and sometimes lead to coups and conflict which hold back development and cause the growth of poverty. We are focused primarily on providing assistance to strengthen the democratic accountability and transparency of the security sector and where appropriate to facilitate the transition to peace. We are also working to improve objective assessment of threat and security services of appropriate size and that are properly trained.

  We are currently working in this way with the FCO and MOD in Sierra Leone. We have funded a number of projects involving both UK and Commonwealth officials who are working very closely with the Government of Sierra Leone on a wide range of governance and security sector reform measures. Positive steps are also being

  295W
  made in Nigeria, where the three Departments are supporting the Government of Nigeria in its efforts to reform the security sector.

  A copy of DFID's policy statement on Poverty and the Security Sector, along with the two papers and speeches from the February symposium have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which countries have agreed to adopt poverty relief or education programmes to qualify for debt relief and further aid. [111190]

  Clare Short
  The revision to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative requires the 41 countries to develop and implement national poverty reduction strategies to qualify for debt relief. Other counties who access the most concessional resources of the IMF and World Bank will also need to produce these strategies, which will then form the basis for IMF and Bank lending operations. These strategies will be centred on achieving the international development targets, including the provision of universal primary education. The development of these strategies is now underway across the world.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the impact of multilateral debt relief on development projects funded by her Department. [111196]

  Clare Short
  The revision to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative requires countries to produce national poverty reduction strategies to qualify for their debt relief. These strategies will set out policies and priority actions for governments, and provide a framework for all donor assistance. Where they are credible, the international community should support them wholeheartedly. I welcome the decision of the World bank and the IMF to tie their assistance to these strategies.

  Sanctions
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she will reply to the second report from the International Development Committee, Session 1999–2000 (HC 67) on "The Future of Sanctions"; and if she will make a statement. [111192]

  Clare Short
  I welcome the Committee's report and commend its proposals. We will be considering the conclusions and recommendations carefully and we will produce a detailed response in due course. The Department for International Development (DFID) is already taking action on some of the recommendations. There will be a joint FCO/DFID mission, probably in the last week of March, to the UN to explore how the UN Secretariat can be assisted in offering better advice to the Security Council on the design and implementation of sanctions, and what role the UK may play in this.

  Pakistan (Ophthalmic Services)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance she is giving to the Government of Pakistan to help to set up and maintain ophthalmic services in rural areas. [111193]
  296W
  Clare Short
  We are not currently giving any such assistance to help set up and maintain ophthalmic services in rural areas of Pakistan. Such services have benefited indirectly in the past from our contributions to Pakistan's Social Action Programme which aims to improve basic social services including health. Since last October's military coup, our development assistance to the Pakistan Government has been frozen. We have advised the new administration that if they make clear commitment to action on poverty reduction—requiring better economic management, action against corruption and an early transition to democracy, we will reinstate our support.

  Agriculture (Africa)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has received about her Department's policies on the development of the agricultural sector in Africa. [111194]

  Clare Short
  Officials maintain regular contact with developing country governments, civil society and the private sector on the development of the agricultural sector in Africa. We seek to improve the livelihoods of the rural poor and reduce poverty.

  We have recently commissioned an independent evaluation to assess the impact of our sustainable agriculture strategy. The study will be completed later this year.

  Mozambique Floods
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's response to the recent floods in Mozambique. [111195]

  Clare Short
  Since my statement to the House on 28 February 2000,Official Report, column 21, the situation in Mozambique has continued to deteriorate and is likely to get worse.

  The UN is providing a senior administrator who will arrive today to improve co-ordination. The UK has provided a further five helicopters, 76 boats and 39 life rafts with a team of expert volunteers. We stand ready to do more.

  UN Education Conference
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the United Nations conference on education to be held in Senegal in April. [111197]

  Clare Short
  The World Education Forum in Dakar from 26–28 April will assess progress achieved in the 10 years since the World Conference on Education for All in Jomtien. This International Consultative Forum has been convened by the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the World bank. I will attend the Forum.
  297W
  Our priority in Dakar is to obtain a strong commitment from North and South to the implementation of strategies for achieving effective primary education for all by 2015. In assessing the progress that has been made since Jomtien, it is important that the Forum pays particular attention to analysing why some countries, including some of the poorest, have managed to achieve considerably more than others.

  UNCTAD Conference
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the recent UNCTAD conference in Bangkok. [111198]

  Clare Short
  The UNCTAD X Conference was devoted to the theme of globalisation and how developing countries can best take advantage of it. Its concluding Declaration emphasised the importance of the multilateral trading system and of building the capacity of developing countries to participate in it fully. The Conference also agreed a Plan Of Action, which sets out the priorities for UNCTAD' s work for the next four years. This will increase the complementarities between the work of UNCTAD and that of the WTO, strengthening its ability to contribute to efforts to build developing countries' capacity to manage their integration into the global economy.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade spoke in the interactive debate on 13 February. I attended the conference on 16 February and spoke in the interactive debate on trade and development. My statement (a copy of which is in the Library of the House) stressed the importance to developing countries of attracting investment, of maintaining the momentum of the multilateral trade system and of starting a new round of trade negotiations in which the developing countries can advance their interests. My bilateral conversations with the heads of multilateral agencies and developing countries' trade ministers were supportive of the priorities outlined in my speech.

  Both the UNCTAD Secretary General and his staff, and the Thai authorities are to be congratulated for preparing and organising this constructive and forward-looking conference.

  Fair Trade Fortnight
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking to support Fair Trade Fortnight. [111199]

  Clare Short
  My Department takes every opportunity to promote fair trade products and support ethical trading in mainstream business. We support the efforts of the Fair Trade Foundation, Comic Relief, the Co-Operative Bank and others, to inform consumers of how they assist poor producers in the developing world by purchasing fair trade purchases. Tomorrow I will be attending the launch of Fair Trade Fortnight, at St. Martin in the Fields in London, where I will sign the Fair Trade Pledge promising to buy a different Fair Trade product every month. I would urge members to follow suit and help 298W
  ensure that farmers in the developing world are being paid a fair wage, without exploitation or damage to their environment, that their families have access to education, and that they are able to invest in improving basic health and well-being.

  Water
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the work her Department is doing to promote poor people's access to water in developing countries. [111201]

  Clare Short
  Access to clear, safe water is a major focus for our programme as it is crucial to health, agriculture and industry and freeing women and girls' time for education and production. We are giving increased priority to water and sanitation in our work. One billion people still lack access to clean water and three billion to sanitation. It is estimated that by 2025 one in three people will be living in countries subject to chronic water scarcity unless water resources are used more efficiently.

  Kenya (Schools)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to support the development of schools in Kenya. [111202]

  Clare Short
  We have recently made a grant of £13.36 million over a period of three years to assist the Kenyan Ministry of Education to strengthen primary education. In partnership with the Ministry of Education we will provide textbooks for the poorest schools in 25 of the poorest districts as well as implement a schools-based teacher development programme. Through this project we will work with the Ministry of Education to encourage key reforms and strengthen our dialogue with the Government of Kenya.

  We are also supporting management training of all primary head teachers and all women primary deputy head teachers throughout Kenya in order to help increase the efficiency of primary school management and contributing to improved attitudes towards girls, and children with special needs.

  Aid Statistics
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of British(a) bilateral and (b) multilateral aid was allocated to states in (i) Africa, (ii) Asia, (iii) Latin America and (iv) Europe in (1) 1996, (2) 1997, (3) 1998 and (4) 1999; and what is her estimate of the equivalent figure in 2000. [112114]

  Clare Short
  The information requested is given in the table for the Department for International Development expenditure only (other UK aid is excluded as we do not have the required details for the later years). Multilateral assistance cannot be readily broken down by region but we conduct special exercises periodically to estimate the geographical distribution of our contributions to multilateral institutions. The latest exercise was conducted in 1997.
  299W

  DFID programme expenditure

  percentage going to

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000 estimated outturn 1

  2000–01 plans 1

  1997 imputed multilateral share 2

  Africa

  32

  33

  39

  32

  35

  37

  America

  6

  9

  9

  6

  6

  10

  of which:

  Caribbean

  4

  6

  6

  —

  —

  0

  Central

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  5

  South

  2

  2

  2

  —

  —

  4

  Asia

  30

  28

  27

  23

  25

  28

  Europe

  13

  11

  7

  6

  6

  24

  Other Bilateral

  19

  19

  18

  32

  28

  1

  Total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  1 General allocations (eg humanitarian assistance, scholarship schemes) which cannot be assigned to regions in advance are included in 'other bilateral'.

  2 Includes contributions from other government Departments to multilateral institutions.

  Note:

  Columns may not usm to totals due to rounding.

  Congo
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps the Government are taking to alleviate the suffering of those people in the Congo who are under immediate threat of severe hunger. [112322]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 27 January 2000,Official Report, column 320W.

  China
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what assessment she made 300W
  of the human rights record of the People's Republic of China before her Department became involved in the exchange arrangements between the Scottish Police College and the State Police of the People's Republic of China; [112455]

  (2) if she will make a statement about the role of her Department in the exchange arrangements between the Scottish Police College and the State Police of the People's Republic of China. [112454]

  Clare Short
  My Department has played no role in any exchange arrangements between the Scottish Police College and the State Police of the People's Republic of China.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Fraud
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the local authorities inspected by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate which were found to have Housing Benefit application forms that did not ask for a claimant's(a) income and (b) National Insurance number. [111240]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: To date the BFI have completed 41 local authority inspections. They found:
  no cases where the Housing Benefit application form did not ask for any details of a claimant's income, although there were examples where the claim form did not request information on all relevant income required to determine entitlement to benefit;
  one case (London Borough of Croydon, inspected in June 1998) where the form did not ask for the National Insurance number. There were other examples where the request for the National Insurance number was restricted to specific circumstances.

  Since 6 September 1999, a person making a claim for Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit must provide (in relation to themself and any partner in respect of whom they are claiming benefit) a National Insurance number and evidence that that number has been allocated to them; or information to allow one to be to be traced or allocated. LAs should, therefore, now have procedures in place to ensure that claimants meet this requirement and to be able to show that this procedure has been followed.

  The Verification Framework, available to all LAs as good practice guidance and a mandatory set of instructions for those LAs which receive additional funding, requires that the claim form should collect the NINO for the claimant and the partner.

  Welfare Reform
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how many(a) widows and (b) widowers will benefit from the Welfare Reform Bill and by how much in (i) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (ii) Shropshire; and if he will make a statement. [111447]

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

  Estimates of the numbers of widows and widowers who will be affected by the Welfare Reform Act in Great Britain, and the average gain

  Widows

  Widowers

  Numbers affected

  Average gain (£)

  Numbers affected

  Average gain (£)

  Bereavement Payment

  40,000

  1,000

  15,000

  2,000

  Widowed Parents Allowance

  —

  —

  25,000

  145–50

  Bereavement Allowance

  —

  —

  10,000

  130

  1 Per week (net)

  302W
  Notes:

  1. Figures shown are for the first full year (2002–03), assuming implementation date of April 2001.

  2. Numbers affected are rounded to the nearest 5,000.

  3. Bereavement Payment numbers are total payments made over the financial year. Weekly benefit numbers are an average stock figure for the financial year.

  4. Not all the numbers affected will be financial gainers as there may be offsetting income-related benefit reductions. Average weekly benefit gains are net of income-related benefits.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the amount of housing benefit paid to each local authority in respect of non-local authority rented housing for the years(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99, and (e) 1999–2000, indicating the average number of recipients for each authority. [110949]

  Angela Eagle
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  CSA
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many compensation payments from the Child Support Agency have been awarded since its establishment of(a) under £100, (b) £101 to £500, (c) £501 to £1,000 and (d) £1,001 to £5,000; and what has been the total amount paid in compensation payments. [111437]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. Douglas Alexander, dated February 2000:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency.
  You ask about the number of compensation payments that have been awarded since the establishment of the Agency within certain pay-bands. The Special Payments section was introduced in 1995 and the data provided has been given from April of that year.
  I am sorry I am not able to give you the information in the format you requested. Information that is available is provided in a table at the attached Annex.
  The second table provides figures for advance payments of maintenance. These are payments made to the parents with care to provide redress where maladministration has caused substantial arrears to accrue. A payment is made which is equivalent to the amount of maintenance the parent with care would have received had maladministration not taken place. These payments are subsequently recovered from future maintenance payments made by the non-resident parent.
  The number of compensation payments has increased as a result of our action to clear the backlog of maintenance applications which were over 52 weeks old. The number of these cases currently stands at 39,246, compared with over 225,000 which were outstanding at the end of March 1997.
  Additionally, we have increased our customer awareness of special payments by advising them, where appropriate, how to apply. This has also had an effect on the number of compensatory payments made.
  303W

  Breakdown of compensatory payments into pay-bands

  £

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1 1999–2000

  Under £250

  63

  455

  1,341

  3,630

  2,257

  £250–£499.50

  42

  136

  311

  690

  256

  £500–£999.99

  37

  180

  205

  327

  118

  £1,000–£4,999.99

  41

  203

  266

  643

  206

  Over £5,000

  3

  9

  13

  225

  64

  Total

  186

  983

  2,136

  5,515

  2,901

  Total amount paid in year

  114,979

  655,821

  1,101,313

  4,373,295

  1,471,955

  Advance payments of maintenance

  Number of Payments

  Total amount paid (£)

  1998–99

  151

  458,206

  1999–20001

  216

  395,323

  1 Up to 30 September 1999

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the combined value of child dependency addition and child benefit for the child of a widowed mother(a) in cash terms, (b) in real terms and (c) as a percentage of average earnings, in (i) November 1979 and (ii) April 1997; and what is his estimate of the equivalent figure in April 2000. [111809]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  The combined value of child dependency addition and child benefit for the child of a widowed mother (a) in cash terms, (b) in real terms, (c) as a percentage of average earnings, in November 1979 and April 1997

  (a) Actual rate of child dependency addition and child benefit

  (b) Real value of(a) uprated to April 2000 Prices 1 (£)

  (c) Actual rate of (a) as a percentage of average earnings 2

  First child

  November 1979

  11.10

  31.15

  11.0

  April 1997

  20.95

  22.65

  5.5

  April 2000

  26.35

  26.35

  n/a

  Subsequent children

  November 1979

  11.10

  31.15

  11.0

  April 1997

  20.20

  21.85

  5.5

  April 2000

  21.35

  21.35

  n/a

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

  2 Average Earnings are taken from the New Earnings Survey (NES) estimates of earnings for all full-time adult employees, as published by the Office for National Statistics.

  n/a = Not available.

  Note:

  The figures are rounded to the nearest 5 pence at each uprating date.

  Peat Compost
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Sopcial Security, Pursuant to his answer of 21 February 2000,Official Report, Column 787W, what percentage of compost used in his Department"s estate gardens is peat; when peat compost will be phased out by his Department"s estate; and if he will make a statement. [111932]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Department estates partner Trillium has now confirmed that only peat substitutes are used in the Department. A further re-check of suppliers has been instigated and if any peat usage is found it will be phased out by June 2000.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Literacy and Numeracy Poster
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the cost of(a) reprinting the recent poster on literacy and numeracy and (b) additional postage. [111952]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The cost of reprinting and distributing the "Every lesson counts" posters is £20,000. The cost has been met by the Centre for British Teachers which has a contractual responsibility for proofing and publishing the posters.

  Class Sizes (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many classes of 30 and over for five to seven-year-olds were recorded for schools in Shrewsbury and Atcham(a) in May 1997 and (b) at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement. [111916]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The latest available information on infant class sizes in the parliamentary constituency of Shrewsbury and Atcham is shown in the following tables. The class size count for January 2000 is currently being undertaken and provisional national estimates are expected to be published in April.

  The Government are well on course to limit all infant classes for five, six and seven-year-olds to 30 or below by September 2001 at the latest.

  305W

  Number and percentage of Key stage 1 classes taught by one teacher with 30 or more pupils in maintained Primary Schools in the parliamentary constituency of Shrewsbury and Atcham 1997 and 1999

  Position as at January

  1999

  1997

  Number of classes with 30 or more pupils

  19

  31

  All classes

  113

  123

  Percentage of classes with 30 or more pupils

  17

  25

  Number and percentage of Infant classes taught by one teacher with 30 or more pupils in maintained Primary Schools in the parliamentary constituency of Shrewsbury and Atcham 1997 and 1999

  Position as at September

  1999

  1997

  Number of classes with 30 or more pupils

  7

  1—

  All classes

  117

  1—

  Percentage of classes with 30 or more pupils

  6

  1—

  1 Information was not collected

  Network Consultancy Group
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many meetings of the New Local Government Network consultancy group on new models of local education have been held in his Department; [112006]

  (2) if he will list the councillors who are members of the New Local Government Network research project on new models of local education; [112007]

  (3) on what basis his Department is participating in the New Local Government Network consultancy group on new models of local education; [112008]

  (4) what staff, material and other support has been extended by his Department to the New Local Government Network consultancy group (a) in the course of its research project on new models of local education and (b) otherwise; [112009]

  (5) how many civil servants are members of the New Local Government Network consultancy group on new models of local education; and on how many occasions they have attended meetings of the group; [112010]

  (6) what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of his Department's participation in the New Local Government Network's consultancy group on new models of local education. [112011]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  One member of the DfEE's staff agreed to be a member of the group established by the New Local Government Network, and has met a member of the secretariat, but has not so far attended any meetings. This involvement was intended to improve the group's understanding of relevant central Government policy and activity. No meetings of the group have been held in the Department and no staff, material or other support extended to the group or to the Network, so there has been no cost to public funds. One of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools is also a member of the group, but has not attended any meetings. The full membership of the group is a matter for the New Local Government Network.

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures he has taken to support children with dyslexia in schools; and if he will make a statement. [111979]

  Jacqui Smith
  Under the Education Act 1996, schools and local education authorities have a duty to identify and make suitable provision for all children with special educational needs, including children with dyslexia. The Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs, which came into effect on 1 September 1994, gives guidance to schools and local education authorities on how to meet this duty. Paragraphs 3:60 to 3:63 provide guidance on specific learning difficulties and have particular reference to dyslexia. The Code is currently being revised to update the guidance and provide examples of good practice, with an increased emphasis on early identification and support.

  In recognition of the need for partnership working to address children's dyslexia a seminar was held in July 1999 bringing together the main Government Departments and agencies, and external partners for an exchange of views on the key educational issues. Ways in which individual expertise and resources can be pooled were identified, and a consensus reached over a shared agenda for tackling issues in the areas of early identification, teacher training, and the use of ICT. An informal working group has since been focusing on the training of teachers of children with dyslexia.

  To assist schools in recognising dyslexia we have produced simple guidance which provides hints to primary school teachers to help them identify children who may be dyslexic. In addition the Department has recently provided a grant to help the British Dyslexia Association reprint the schools resource pack entitled "Achieving dyslexia friendly schools". Two copies of the pack have been distributed to all local education authorities in England. With funding from the Department, the Dyslexia Institute is undertaking a two year study programme which seeks to evaluate the effects of structured programmes of intervention for seven-year-old pupils who are experiencing specific difficulties in learning to read, write and spell. Two key aspects of the programme are to develop activities that parents can do at home and to share the knowledge and skills of specialist teachers more widely.

  New Deal Plaques
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the projected costs of supplying plaques to schools which receive improvement grants under the New Deal for Schools. [111499]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: The average cost of a plaque is £29.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the reasons behind the decision to supply plaques to schools which receive improvement grants under the New Deal for Schools. [111498]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: It is normal practice to acknowledge the source of funding in public building projects. Projects completed with funding from the European Union and National Lottery also have plaques displayed.

  Supported Employment
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on(a) the extra demand for and (b) the extra provision of supported employment places in each year since 1997 and projected forward to 2003. [112117]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: A report on research conducted by the Institute of Employment Studies into the Supply and Demand for Supported Employment was published in July 1998. A copy is available in the Library.

  Some 22,234 Supported Employment places were provided in 1996. In 1997 this rose by 506 places to 22,740 (a 2.2 per cent. increase) and in 1998 by a further 184 places to 22,924 (3 per cent. over 1996). Figures for 1999 are not yet available but for this year and for the period to 2003 I expect numbers to continue to increase.

  Access and Hardship Funds
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements he will put in place for monitoring, standardising and accounting for payments of access fund bursaries for(a) mature and (b) young students. [112120]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: We will issue guidance on the bursary schemes for higher education institutions which will include the monitoring and accounting arrangements. It will be for HEFCE to publish this guidance. Arrangements for awarding the bursaries will be at the discretion of institutions, within the guidance provided.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will issue revised guidance to the HEFCE and higher education institutions on the use of the Access and Hardship Funds. [112119]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: We plan to issue guidance on the Access Funds in March, and on the Hardship Funds shortly after Easter. It will be for the HEFCE to pass this on to the higher education institutions.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if Scottish students studying at English universities will be eligible for(a) Access Fund bursaries and (b) the Hardship Fund. [112121]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: Access Funds and Hardship Funds in England are administered by higher education institutions, following guidance provided by the Department. We have no plans to change the current eligibility conditions for payments from the Hardship Fund. Eligibility for the Access Fund Bursaries will be set out in Guidance to be provided to higher education institutions.

  Special Educational Needs (Sittingbourne and Sheppey)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the provision for special educational needs in Sittingbourne and Sheppey. [111085]

  Jacqui Smith
  Children with special educational needs in Sittingbourne and Sheppey are usually placed either at one of the 64 mainstream primary and secondary schools or at one of the two special schools or at one of five special educational needs units, all of which are within the Swale District of Kent local education authority.

  Child Care Places
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if places on holiday play schemes and privately financed sports weeks are included within his Department's figures for the number of child care places created; and if he will list the number of such places included in, and the proportion they represent of, the total new child care places announced since May 1997. [111027]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: Since May 1997 we have announced the creation of 149,606 new child care places.

  Between May 1997 and March 1999 a total of 73,316 new child care places were created. Most of these places were created through the Out of School Childcare Initiative (OSCI). We do not hold separate figures on holiday play schemes. Privately financed sport weeks would not have attracted OSCI funding.

  Between April and September 1999 Early Years and Childcare Partnerships (EYDCPs) reported the creation of around 76,000 new child care places. Of these 29,724 (39 per cent.) were holiday play scheme places. Some 60 per cent. of these holiday places were in the voluntary sector, 25 per cent. were in the private sector and 15 per cent. were in the maintained sector. Some of the play scheme places in the private sector may have included privately financed sports weeks, but we do not hold separate figures.

  Employment Zones
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to allow the Employment Service to bid for new contracts as part of the Employment Zone initiative; and if he will make a statement. [111022]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: In our bidding guidance for both rounds of the competition to run Employment Zones, we invited bids from the private, public and voluntary sectors. The Employment Service chose to bid under the name of 'Working Links' in partnership with two leading private sector companies. They proceeded to win eight out of fifteen Zones, subject to post-tender negotiations.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the successful bidders for Employment Zone contracts for the long-term unemployed. [111007]
  309W
  Ms Jowell
  Subject to negotiation, contracts will be awarded to: Working Links (a consortium of Ernst and Young, Manpower plc and the Employment Service) in Heads of the Valleys and Caerphilly, Brent, Brighton and Hove, Glasgow, Plymouth, Southwark, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland and Tower Hamlets; Reed and Partners in Haringey, Liverpool and Sefton, Newham and Doncaster; Pertemps in Birmingham; the North West Wales Partnership in North West Wales and the Nottingham Employment Zone Partnership in Nottingham.

  Remploy
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on current developments at Remploy. [110371]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: A new Chairman, Alan Pedder, took up appointment on 5 January 2000. He has been working with his Board to develop a strategy for the Company.

  The key elements of the strategy are to:
  create more opportunities for disabled people, including continued expansion of Interwork and support for disabled people to progress to unsubsidised jobs;
  use existing Remploy factories more effectively to provide training and development, as well as work, for their employees, thus supporting people to progress both within and outside Remploy;
  continue to modernise factories to drive for increased business opportunities;
  streamline the commercial management and administration of the Company;
  increase marketing initiatives to generate new sales.

  Education Funding (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the cash and percentage funding variance of Leicestershire county council from the county council Standard Spending Assessment average in each year between 1991–92 to 2000–01. [110840]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Variance in Education SSA

  Cash £ million

  Percentage

  1990–91

  49.2

  21.6

  1991–92

  56.6

  21.4

  1992–93

  61.4

  21.7

  1993–941

  56.4

  22.1

  1994–95

  53.3

  20.5

  1995–96

  52.8

  20.0

  1996–97

  64.5

  24.0

  1997–982

  -50.1

  -19.9

  1998–99

  -35.5

  -14.2

  1999–2000

  -30.2

  -11.7

  2000–01

  -31.5

  -11.6

  1 In 1993–94 Education Standard Spending was reduced by the creation of the further Educatiion funding Council and the subsequent reduction in post-16 funding.

  2 In 1997–98 £527 million was removed from Education Standard Spending for the Nursery Voucher Scheme. Leicestershire was also affected by Local Government Reorganisation—the old Leicestershire LEA was split into Leicester City, Rutland and 1997 Leicestershire. The figures from 1997–98 to 2000–01 quoted in this table are for 1997 Leicestershire.

  Citizenship Education
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what plans he has to issue guidance for teachers on the teaching of controversial subjects as part of Citizenship education at key stages 3 and 4; [110936]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the amount of curricular time needed for the teaching of Citizenship as a foundation subject at key stages 3 and 4; [110937]

  (3) what factors underlay his decision to require pupils at key stage 3 to be taught about regional identities in the United Kingdom as part of the programme of study for Citizenship; [110938]

  (4) what plans he has to implement the recommendation of the Advisory Group on Citizenship for the establishing of a Commission on Citizenship Education to monitor and scrutinise the implementation of Citizenship education; [110939]

  (5) what estimate he has made of the number of additional teachers who will need to be recruited in order to teach Citizenship at key stages 3 and 4; [110940]

  (6) what estimate he has made of the annual cost of implementing Citizenship education at key stages 3 and 4. [110941]

  Jacqui Smith
  The introduction of Citizenship education in schools was supported during the consultation on the review of the National Curriculum. We are actively taking forward plans to implement the new arrangements for the introduction as a statutory subject at Key Stages 3 and 4 in 2002. I chair a working party in the Department for Education and Employment developing a package of measures to support schools in delivering the Citizenship programme. The Working Party's membership is drawn from head teachers, advisers, Citizenship education groups and the churches. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) is also a member. It includes representatives from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, the Office for Standards in Education and the Teacher Training Agency. It is considering the requirements for teachers and teacher training for Citizenship education as part of its remit along with other issues such as assessment, community involvement and resources.

  Standards Funds of £18 million have already been made available from April 2000 to support schools in implementing the revised National Curriculum—some £12 million of that will support Citizenship and Personal, Social and Health Education, of which £5 million is for Citizenship at Key Stages 3 and 4. The wider costs to the Government of introducing Citizenship education are being considered as part of the Citizenship Education Working Party's work.

  Pupils will be taught, within the Citizenship programme, about the regional identities in the United Kingdom as part of learning about the diversity of our society and the need for mutual understanding and respect. The teaching of controversial issues arises in other subjects as well as in Citizenship. There are well established safeguards in law to guard against biased and unbalanced teaching. The report of the National Advisory Group on Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools acknowledged these in its final

  311W
  report in September 1998 and included a note on the teaching of controversial issues. Guidance for schools on this and other matters will be provided as part of initial planning guidance to be issued by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

  There are no current plans to establish a commission to monitor and scrutinise the implementation of Citizenship education but the matter is to be kept under review. Teaching and learning in Citizenship will be monitored in the same way as for other subjects. Citizenship comes under the remit of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to monitor and review the curriculum and the teaching of it in schools will be inspected by the Office for Standards in Education.

  Sure Start
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of the local Sure Start programmes already(a) announced and (b) running, operate in rural areas. [110789]

  Yvette Cooper
  Of the 60 'trailblazer' and 69 Round 2 local authority districts announced to date as eligible for a local Sure Start programme, five can be classed as 'remoter mainly rural' (Boston, Fenland, Sedgemoor, Penwith and Kerrier). In addition, the trailblazer Sure Start programme in East Cleveland covers what is essentially a rural area, while a further seven districts are a mix of urban and rural, and coalfield areas (Isle of Wight, Easington, Wear Valley, Sedgefield, Derwentside, Ashfield, Bolsover). The trailblazer programmes in Fenland and East Cleveland are up and running now and Minsters hope to agree the programmes in Penwith and Sedgemoor soon. The remaining programmes are part of the second round and should be up and running by the summer.

  New Deal
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate how many 18 to 24-year-olds have benefited from the New Deal in the Vale of York. [111377]

  Ms Jowell
  To the end of December 1999, 168 young people had benefited from the New Deal in the Vale of York constituency. Eighty-one of these have gained jobs through the New Deal and 51 have gained valuable training and work experience through the New Deal options.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people had left the New Deal for Young People for unsubsidised jobs up to the end of October 1999. [109704]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: Between January 1998 and the end of October 1999, 104,380 people left the New Deal for Young People for unsubsidised jobs.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people in Wales have had their benefits stopped for failing to take up a New Deal option. [111688]
  312W
  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: In Wales, from April to the end of September 1999, the latest date for which data are available, 239 sanctions were imposed for failing to take up a New Deal Option.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement regarding the cost per participant of the New Deal. [109612]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: The New Deal for Young People is designed to provide the help and support each individual joining the programme needs. Accordingly the cost of participation varies greatly from individual to individual.

  We estimate that the overall average cost of helping a young person who takes part in New Deal is about £2,000.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to enhance the functioning of the New Deal Gateway. 1111124]

  Ms Jowell
  The New Deal Gateway is already working effectively—almost 116,000 young people have already moved into work from this first stage of the New Deal.

  We intended to use our continuous improvement strategy to build on this success. From spring 2000 there will be a nationwide expansion of the intensive Gateway approaches currently being piloted, which will take into account lessons learned from the evaluation of these pilots. In addition we have already developed the New Deal Gateway by ensuring early diagnosis of any literacy and numeracy needs, and by strengthening our arrangements to ensure that young people are moved with pace and purpose through the Gateway.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many injuries related to participation in the New Deal have been reported by New Deal participants since April 1998. [111123]

  Ms Jowell
  Since April 1998, there have been 149 injuries reported by New Deal participants. 128 of these injuries were classified as minor.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of those leaving the New Deal for Young People for jobs lasting less than 13 weeks have found jobs lasting less than(a) one week, (b) two weeks, (c) four weeks and (d) eight weeks. [109812]

  Ms Jowell
  The information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of those lone parents who have been sent a letter inviting them to join the New Deal for Lone Parents have gone on to find jobs on the scheme; how this figure relates to Government targets; and if he will make a statement. [109277]
  313W
  Ms Hodge
  Invitation letters are sent to those lone parents whose youngest child is aged over five years and three months, after they have received Income Support for eight weeks. Other lone parents with younger children are able to join the programme but are not sent invitation letters. These invitation letters are not appointment letters; their aim is to tell lone parents about NDLP and the benefits that can be gained from participating in the programme.

  There have been 443,700 invitation letters issued to lone parents. Of these, 36,990 have attended an initial interview, of which, 4,680 have left the New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP) to go into employment. At the end of November an additional 6,070 were receiving support from their personal advisers while in work on NDLP. These 10,750 lone parents represent 2.4 per cent. of those sent a letter.

  In addition, 74,320 lone parents who did not receive an invitation letter attended an interview. Therefore, total interviews and/or letters was 518,020, total jobs found was 32,710, which is 6.3 per cent. of those who were either interviewed or sent a letter.

  In total, 112,570 lone parents have attended an initial interview, of whom 89 per cent. have agreed to participate in the programme.

  The Employment Service has a target to place 15,000 New Deal for Lone Parents participants into work during 1999–2000. The Employment Service is currently expected to exceed this target. As a result of NDLP, many lone parents are also gaining jobs without a direct Employment Service referral.

  Austria (Bilateral Meetings)
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many bilateral meetings were held between his Department and its Austrian counterpart in each of the last five years; and what was discussed at each meeting since May 1997; [109875]

  (2) if he will list those previously planned meetings and their subject, between his Department and its Austrian counterpart which have been cancelled since the formation of the new Austrian Government. [109896]

  Ms Jowell
  Before the formation of the new Austrian Government the Department for Education and Employment or its predecessor Departments had a range of bilateral contacts with the relevant Austrian Ministries. Since May 1997 discussions have concentrated on education and training policies and programmes and were mostly in the context of the Austrian Presidency of the EU.

  No DfEE bilateral meetings had been arranged at the time that the new Austrian Government was formed.

  Farmers
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent assessment he has made of the need of farmers who are employed on a part-time and seasonal basis to find employment in periods when they are out of work. [109809]
  314W
  Ms Jowell
  Although no specific assessment of this kind has been made, a national network of Employment Service Jobcentres exists to provide all individuals who need it help with finding work, including those who work on a part-time or seasonal basis. This is successful in enabling most people to leave unemployment quickly.

  Part-time and seasonal work are valuable forms of employment and income. For those who, nevertheless, face substantial labour market disadvantage, there is a wider range of programmes and other individualised help designed to overcome the barriers that may prevent people from being in work.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his estimate of the annual cost of providing nursery education for all three-year-olds who are not in early years education; and if he will make a statement. [108864]

  Ms Hodge
  We are making £390 million available over three years to increase by 190,000 the number of free, good quality, early education places for three-year-olds. This new money is being phased in over the financial years 1999–2000 to 2001–02. The priority is to reach those three-year-olds in social need who would most benefit from a free nursery place. The additional funding will enable 66 per cent. of all three-year-olds to have access to a free place by March 2002, as the first stage of the Government's strategy to provide free early education places for all three-year-olds. The estimated annual cost of achieving universal provision is approximately £450 million.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many asylum-seeking children are being provided with education in each of the state primary and secondary schools in London; and what proportion of pupils in each school this represents. [108793]

  Jacqui Smith
  Local education authorities do not routinely keep information on the number of asylum seeker children in their area so it is not possible to provide details on the numbers of children who have been offered school places.

  The Department does not instruct local education authorities to return information about asylum seeker children educated in schools. The figures are volatile which means that they are out-of-date soon after collection. This and the inevitably high costs for LEAs of carrying out frequent counts renders such an exercise as being of limited value.

  Higher Education (UK Component Countries)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many undergraduate students in each of the component countries of the United Kingdom are enrolled on a course in another component country. [110394]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: The most recent information available is shown in the following table.

  315W

  Undergraduate students 1 from the component countries of the United Kingdom enrolled on a course in another component country of the United Kingdom 1998–99

  Country of institution

  Country of domicile

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  Total

  England

  981,106

  26,964

  16,808

  255

  1,025,133

  Wales

  24,552

  42,167

  476

  9

  67,204

  Scotland

  16,501

  284

  97,604

  42

  114,431

  Northern Ireland

  9,032

  422

  5,580

  29,178

  44,212

  Total

  1,031,191

  69,837

  120,468

  29,484

  1,250,980

  1 Full-time and part-time students

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment who will be responsible for leading the INSET training days in schools in connection with the new pay arrangements for teachers; and if he will make a statement. [111583]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Schools are free to arrange INSET days in the way that best suits their needs. They will have a range of written materials available and my Department will be issuing further guidance. Some schools may wish to use the additional INSET day to work through the threshold arrangements with staff. Others may wish to use it to develop a performance management policy for the school with staff and governors. Headteachers and representatives of LEAs have been invited to one of a series of threshold training events taking place between 27 March and 14 April. At these events they will be given training packs and a "tool-kit" to take back to schools to help them explain the threshold process to teachers and governors. We are also arranging for trained performance management consultants to be available later in the summer to offer training and support including a one day training conference for a representative from each school.

  Education Initiatives
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 17 January 2000,Official Report, column 275W, on education initiatives, if he will list the individuals and organisations that have carried out consultancy and advisory work for his Department on a non-commercial basis. [109090]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

HEALTH

  BCG Vaccine
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the existing arrangements with Medeva Pharma for supply of the BCG vaccine. [107989]

  Yvette Cooper
  Medeva Pharma is the sole United Kingdom licensed manufacturer of BCG vaccine. The shortage of this vaccine is clearly unsatisfactory. The previous Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), met senior staff from Medeva twice in 1999 asking them to provide detailed explanations for their manufacturing problems and sought details of the plans for their resolution. The Department continues to be in close contact with 316W
  Medeva monitoring the manufacturing progress. It is of considerable concern that despite numerous interventions supply of BCG vaccine is not forthcoming. Opportunities for alternative supplies from across the world are being investigated.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons there is a shortage in the supply of manufactured BCG vaccine; what action he will like to restart the programme of vaccination in schools; and how he will ensure that supplies of the vaccine remain(a) constant and (b) sufficient. [107997]

  Yvette Cooper
  There is only one licensed manufacturer of BCG vaccine in the United Kingdom—Medeva Pharma. Over the past months, this company has experienced severe manufacturing problems with their BCG production facility in Speke, Liverpool. Medeva has indicated to the Department that the production volumes are not currently sufficient to support the routine schools programmes. Until manufacturing resumes in sufficient quantities, stocks are being used specifically for those at higher risk of tuberculosis. The Department has had no alternative but to request health authorities to suspend their routine schools immunisation programme.

  As soon as the problems with the manufacturing facility have been resolved and this has been demonstrated by stocks becoming available in sufficient quantities, the Department will advise health authorities to recommence their routine schools programmes.

  Since vaccines are biological products whose manufacture can never be guaranteed, continuity of supply can only be assured by having sufficient stock manufactured in advance, preferably from more than one manufacturer. The Department is in contact with Medeva Pharma to offer any assistance in resolving their manufacturing problems. The Department is also investigating the possibility of alternative suppliers who can produce licensed, batch released vaccine for the UK market.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 27 January 2000,Official Report, column 335W, on BCG vaccinations, what is the procedure for a doctor to apply for BCG vaccinations; to whom the application is made; who takes the decision on issuing the vaccination; and who monitors and records the results of the vaccination programme. [108673]

  Yvette Cooper
  BCG vaccine is ordered in the same way as for childhood vaccines. This may be direct from the distributor, Farillon, or via a local hospital pharmacy, dependent on local policy.
  317W
  BCG will continue to be issued as now, as it becomes available, for higher risk groups, in particular to maintain selective neonatal immunisation of infants at higher risk of exposure to tuberculosis.

  Uptake of BCG vaccine is recorded by National Health Service trusts and the information collated by the Department on central return KC50. Figures are published annually in the Department's Statistical Bulletin, "NHS Immunisation Statistics". Surveillance of tuberculosis is the responsibility of the Public Health Laboratory Service, Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre. Vaccine uptake and the incidence of tuberculosis are monitored by both the Department and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, the independent expert committee that advises the United Kingdom Health Departments on immunisation matters.

  NHSnet
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the development of NHSnet; and if he will make a statement. [108212]

  Ms Stuart
  NHSnet is the National Health Service's own secure internal network for voice and data services. It already links most NHS trusts and health authorities, and a proportion of GP practices. Increasingly it will become the main vehicle for communications between the Department and the NHS, and between and within NHS organisations. Development plans include:to connect all computerised general practitioner practices with full e-mail and internet access
  to use NHSnet for appointment booking, referrals, discharge information, radiology and laboratory requests and results in all parts of the country
  to open a national electronic Library for Health with accredited clinical reference material on NHSnet to support clinical decision-making
  in the longer term to support the development of telemedicine services between hospitals and GP surgeries.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that NHS dentistry is available throughout the UK. [109836]

  Mr. Hutton
  We recognise the problems of access to National Health Service dentistry which exist in parts of the country and which it inherited in 1997. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that, by the end of 2001, everyone should be able to find an NHS dentist simply by calling NHS Direct. We have already addressed the problem with the Investing in Dentistry initiative which generated up to 800,000 patient registrations with dentists, and the Personal Dental Service projects which include "phone and go" dental access centres. By the end of the year there will be about forty access centres in the areas which need them most, providing the full range of high quality NHS dentistry to patients who are not registered with a dentist. Further measures will be set out in the forthcoming strategy for NHS dentistry in England.

  Dental Amalgams
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the toxic elements included in mercury-based amalgams in dentistry. [110484]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: The principal elements used in dental amalgam are mercury, silver, copper and tin. All of these can be toxic at high doses but, apart from a few cases of hypersensitivity, there is no evidence of risk of systemic toxicity at the levels released from dental amalgam.

  Shropshire Health Authority
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each year from 1992 the(a) total funding and (b) percentage increase in funding for Shropshire Health Authority; and if he will make a statement. [111917]

  Mr. Denham
  Health authorities have existed in their current form since 1 April 1996. Prior to 1 April 1996 allocations were made to Regional Health Authorities.

  The table gives the information from 1996–97 onwards:

  Year

  Total allocation (£000)

  Percentage increase in allocation

  1996–97

  162,708

  4.05

  1997–98

  169,555

  4.06

  1998–99

  178,325

  4.86

  1999–20001

  247,650

  6.51

  2000–01

  265,676

  6.89

  1 Allocations for 1999–2000 are not comparable with those for 1996–97 to 1998–99, which cover hospital and community health services only. 1999–2000 is the first year of unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and general practice infrastructure.

  "Fit for the Future?"
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the Centre for Policy on Ageing report, "Fit for the Future?", on standards for care homes; and if he will make a statement. [111781]

  Mr. Hutton
  The consultation period ended on 21 January 2000. A further two weeks grace was given for late arrivals and the 1,250 responses received within this period have been analysed. In total, 1,400 responses were received. The responses are being carefully considered before the standards and the timetable for their implementation are finalised. We hope to publish the finalised standards and the timetable for their implementation later this year.

  NHS Trust Boards
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the real terms change in remuneration for NHS Trust Board members over the last three years(a) nationally and (b) for each region. [112449]

  Mr. Denham
  National Health Service trusts and health authorities are placed into one of three bands according to their turnover (for trusts) or their total cash
  319W
  allocation (for health authorities). Remuneration for non-executive members of NHS boards between 1993 and 31 March 1999 was as follows:

  Band

  Remuneration (£)

  Chairs

  1

  19,285

  2

  17,145

  3

  15,125

  Non-executives

  all bands

  5,000

  Remuneration was increased from 1 April 1999 by 2.8 per cent., giving the following current levels:

  Band

  Remuneration (£)

  Chairs

  1

  19,825

  2

  17,625

  3

  15,550

  Non-executives

  all bands

  5,140

  These rates apply to all NHS regions.

  NHS Vacancies
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many NHS vacancies there are for(a) doctors, (b) health visitors and (c) the professions allied to medicine; and how many such posts in each category have been vacant for longer than six months; [112456]

  (2) how many vacancies there are in the NHS for managerial and administrative staff; how many have been vacant for longer than six months; and if he will make a statement. [112459]

  Mr. Denham
  The available information is contained in the table.

  Department of Health Recruitment, Retention and Vacancies Survey: Vacancies in NHS trusts by England; doctors, health visitors PAMs and admin, and estates staff at 31 March 1999

  Whole time equivalents

  Total vacancies1

  Three Month vacancies2

  Consultants3

  930

  440

  Other doctors and dentists4

  270

  60

  Health visitors

  270

  100

  Professions allied to medicine (PAMs)

  2,580

  860

  Admin, and estates staff

  3,250

  640

  1 Posts that Trusts were actively trying to fill at 31 March 1999

  2 Posts that had been vacant for three months or more at 31 March 1999

  3 Excludes dental consultants

  4 Excludes training grades

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the neaerest 10

  Source:

  Department of Health Recruitment, Retention and Vacancies Survy 1999

  NHS Employment
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many managers and administrators were employed by the NHS in each of the last five years; at what cost;320W
  what was the total cost to the NHS of management and administration in each of those years; and if he will make a statement. [112400]

  Mr. Denham
  The available information is contained in the tables.

  National Health Service Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Administration and estates staff working in the senior manager, manager, and clerical and administrative areas of work, in England as at 30 September of each year

  whole-time equivalent

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Senior Managers and Managers

  20,050

  20,590

  21,430

  21,850

  Administrative and Clerical

  133,12

  132,29

  131,86

  132,96

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest ten

  Figures from before 1995 were not collected on a comparable basis

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Paybill for Administrative and Clerical Staff, Managers and Senior Managers, in the NHS in England for 1994–95 to 1998–99

  £ million

  Managers and Senior Managers

  Administrative and Clerical

  1994–95

  716

  1,582

  1995–96

  792

  1,647

  1996–97

  867

  1,731

  1997–98

  912

  1,766

  1998–99

  953

  1,866

  Source:

  Health Authority and NHS Trust financial returns

  Paybill costs of staff in senior management, management and administrative and clerical grades are not a reliable indicator of overall administration costs because they include, for example, large numbers of support staff employed to enable medical staff to concentrate on treating patients. In addition, salary measures do not include the non-staff costs of management, such as Health Authority accommodation.

  Expenditure against the published definition of NHS management costs is the most reliable indicator of the cost of administration in the NHS. The definition of management costs includes the staff costs of managers in Health Authorities, Primary Care Groups and NHS Trusts, as well as non-staff of HAs and PCGs.

  Total NHS Management costs in 1998–99 prices

  £ million

  1995–96

  2,063

  1996–97

  1,949

  1997–98

  1,846

  1997–98

  11,928

  1998–99

  1,870

  1 Rebased

  Note:

  The definition of management costs was revised for 1998–99 to capture some management activity previously excluded, mainly related to NHS Trusts purchasing private sector support services. To provide a consistent time series, the 1997–98 figure was rebased on the new definition.

  Source:

  Health Authority and NHS Trust annual accounts

  Long-term Care
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to respond to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care; and if he will make a statement. [111999]

  Mr. Hutton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 2 December that the Government were broadly accepting one of the Royal Commission's main recommendations by establishing a National Care Standards Commission. We are also implementing several of the Royal Commission's other recommendations—such as extending direct payments to people over 65. We are looking at other changes as part of the Year 2000 Spending Review, which will be completed this summer. We will then publish a White Paper.

  Dental and Optical Examinations
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people, who do not qualify for free examinations, have received(a) dental and (b) eye examinations in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [112398]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data on dental examinations in England is available only for the last two years.

  The estimated number of claims for a standard or extensive examination for charge paying patients under the General Dental Service is shown in the following table. The figures are for claims scheduled for payment by the Dental Practice Board for the year's 1997–98 and 1998–99, for England. The number of people will be smaller because some will have more than one examination in a year. Charge payers include some patients whose charges are partly remitted.

  England

  Million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Standard examination

  13.0

  13.6

  Extensive examination

  1.6

  1.7

  The Department started an annual sample survey of private sight tests in 1993. Estimates of the number of tests undertaken in Great Britain are as follows.

  Year

  Million

  1993–94

  6.589

  1994–95

  6.465

  1995–96

  7.009

  1996–97

  6.689

  1997–98

  7.115

  1998–99

  7.430

  Since 1 April 1999, everyone aged 60 and over has been eligible to receive a free, National Health Service sight test and numbers of NHS sight tests have increased by some 50,000 per week in England alone. We expect to see some reduction in the number of private sight tests in 1999–2000 as a result of the increased NHS activity.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations have been cancelled in breach of the patients charter in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [112460]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is available in the Library.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those(a) NHS community hospitals and (b) other NHS hospitals which have closed since May 1996; and if he will make a statement. [112399]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Integrate Services, Warrington
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the papers relating to Integrate Services in Warrington which are currently held by the North-West Regional Executive; [111822]

  (2) what steps his Department has taken to review the legal status of holiday assets currently owned by Integrate Services in Warrington and purchased from Section 64 grant; and if he will make a statement; [111818]

  (3) if he will set up an inquiry into the destruction of papers relating to Integrate Services by the Warrington Community Healthcare Trust; and if he will make a statement; [111819]

  (4) what discussions his Department has had with the North Cheshire Health Authority on ways of ensuring that residents currently cared for by Integrate Services in Warrington continue to benefit from assets purchased with money given for their care; and if he will make a statement; [111820]

  (5) what discussions he has had with (a) the North-West Regional Executive and (b) North Cheshire Health Authority on the case of Integrate Services since 9 February; and if he will make a statement. [111823]

  Mr. Hutton
  Integrate Services is currently the subject of an inquiry by the Charity Commissioners. I understand that the Commissioners have confirmed that the organisation enjoys full legal ownership of these holiday assets.

  While I am concerned by the apparent lack of robust handover arrangements for documentation when management responsibility for the Section 64 grant changed hands, there are already clear guidelines on record keeping by National Health Service bodies. At the time of the transfer from Warrington Community Healthcare NHS Trust to North Cheshire Health Authority, HC(89)20 was in force. I am, therefore, instructing North Cheshire Health Authority to investigate the continuity of record keeping with regard to this Section 64 grant.

  The NHS Executive North West has had, and continues to have, ongoing discussions with North Cheshire Health Authority and briefs Ministers accordingly. There have been no direct discussions between Ministers and the health authority on this subject.
  323W
  Papers held by the Regional Office include correspondence from the Royal College of Nursing, two members of the management committee of Integrate Services and the new Chair of that Management Committee; the health authority paper; the independent report; and related briefing material.

  Midwives
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of practising midwives are aged under 30 in(a) England, (b) the North-west Region and (c) North Cheshire Health Authority. [111817]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): All registered midwives by ageband, within the north- west region, north Cheshire health authority and in England as at 30 September 1998

  Percentage

  Under 30

  30 and over

  England total

  11

  89

  North-west region

  9

  91

  North Cheshire HA

  7

  93

  Notes:

  1. Percentages are calculated from figures expressed as whole-time equivalents

  2. Figures exclude learners and agency staff

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Dentistry (Pensions)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health If he will make a statement on the effects which staging the fee increases to general dental practitioners for the financial years 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99 will have on general dental practitioners' pensions. [112031]

  Mr. Denham
  National Health Service pensions are based on actual levels of pensionable remuneration and not on deemed or notional earnings. Where staging occurs, only earnings actually received are taken into

  Analysis of General Medical Service Non Cash limited Expenditure for Locum Allowance, England 1994–95 to 1998–99

  £

  For single handed rural GPs attending trainig courses

  Sickness

  Confinement

  Prolonged study leave

  Total

  1994–95

  95,761

  4,112,600

  2,199,685

  624,455

  7,032,501

  1995–96

  122,616

  4,629,919

  2,167,949

  623,081

  7,543,565

  1996–97

  213,320

  4,157,683

  2,197,246

  748,824

  7,317,073

  1997–98

  419,450

  3,898,453

  2,524,973

  1,032,067

  7,874,943

  1998–99

  238,260

  4,545,889

  3,051,148

  1,438,380

  9,273,677

  Sources:

  1. Annual financial returns of family health services authorities, 1994–95 and 1995–96

  2. Annual financial returns of health authorities, 1996–97 to 1998–99
  324W
  account in the calculation of pensions. The effect of staging, therefore, is slightly to reduce the pension from the figure that would be payable had staging not occurred. The degree to which this happens for an individual will depend on when that person retires and their earnings in the years before the staging and during the years when the staging applied. General Dental Practitioners' pensions are calculated on total career earnings uprated in accordance with a formula agreed with the profession.

  Locums
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) numbers of and (b) cost to the NHS of employing locum doctors in (i) general practice and (ii) hospital medicine for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [112395]

  Mr. Denham
  Figures on the number of locum staff working in the hospital medical sector are no longer collected centrally. The figures were last collected in September 1996 when there were 2,500 hospital medical locums. Figures on the number of locum staff working in general practice are not collected centrally.

  The latest available information on costs to the National Health Service for locum medical staff in the Hospital and Community Health Service is shown in the table.

  Breakdown of Locum doctors (Medical/Dental) for HCHS expenditure

  £000

  TFR3

  HFR 25

  Total

  1994–95

  108,851.61

  164,250.81

  273,102.43

  1995–96

  109,321.44

  1,876.80

  111,198.24

  1996–97

  116,581.75

  409.23

  116,990.98

  Notes:

  Data after 1996–97 is not available

  Data provided by FPB-ATA

  Locum costs in general practice are not separately identified from other practice expenses. Information is available only on locum allowances paid to GPs in respect of attendance at training courses, prolonged study leave, sickness and confinement. Expenditure was as follows:

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

Message from the Queen
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
"I have received your address praying that the Greater London Authority Election Rules 2000, laid before the House on 8th February, be annulled.
"I will comply with your request".

Human Rights Defenders: Special Rapporteur
2.36 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will urge the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to appoint a special rapporteur for human rights defenders.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders recognises the invaluable role played by human rights defenders around the world. It requires that states live up to their responsibility to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms.
We want the declaration to make a real difference. The Government will therefore join other delegations at the forthcoming Commission on Human Rights in pressing for a UN special rapporteur to take forward practical steps to implement the declaration.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I thank the Minister—and not merely formally—for that encouragement. While I am on a winning streak, will my noble friend confirm that those who act as the eyes and ears of the international community in defending human rights, often at great risk to themselves, deserve all the protection we can afford? Does she agree with the old adage that what is everyone's business is no one's business? Can the noble Baroness persuade the commission to appoint a special rapporteur with sufficient resources to assure potential victims and perpetrators alike that someone cares?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am happy to agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble and learned Lord, who has worked zealously for so
548
long in this field. Her Majesty's Government will do everything they can not only to promote the role of the special rapporteur but also to seek to ensure that that officer receives appropriate funding to carry out with vigour and efficacy the duties imposed upon him.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Government quote the long list of most distinguished people, from Gandhi through the present Pope to Mr Akin Birdal? They have suffered either death or serious injury in the course of defending human rights.
Will the Government also try to ensure maximum protection for lawyers, solicitors and barristers defending human rights activists, who are frequently being tried?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that we shall do everything in our power to promote human rights and those who so vigorously seek to protect them. I join with the noble Lord in applauding all those who historically have defended, and still today defend, those rights with such energy, often at very great risk to themselves.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most disturbing experiences for those defending human rights is the degree to which they can be subjected to torture—torture which can have lifelong psychological and physical consequences? What are the Government doing in that respect?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are sensible of this terrible burden. I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend. We want to ensure that those who defend human rights should not themselves be victims of abuse. We have taken, therefore, a number of steps, including a successful world-wide lobbying campaign to urge governments to ratify the UN Convention against Torture. The FCO is giving £42,000 in funding for the creation of a database for the world organisation against torture, allowing it to track progress on individual torture cases. We are also working closely with Save the Children Fund to sponsor research into the torture of children. We have contributed over £400,000 to multilateral activities against torture. It is an extremely important area and we are doing all we can to make sure that we put energy and commitment as well as money into this endeavour.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, accepting that the Government do everything they can in this area, is not the problem being able to arrest those suspected of crimes against human rights? Can the Minister help us as to the state of play on that aspect of the international scene?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, noble Lords will know that this subject has exercised our interest over a considerable period of time. The Government are doing all they can not only to support the identification of those responsible but also to bring about a good process to ensure that those who have

549
committed such offences are brought to trial. In that regard our energies will not wane. I endorse the importance of the issue which the noble Lord highlights.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether the Government, together with the United States, intend to co-sponsor a resolution at this year's Commission on Human Rights, censuring China's human rights record? Over the past two years, while they have failed to do so, the Chinese Government have arrested dozens of members of the China Democratic Party, imposed strict controls on the use of the Internet, and clamped down on the religious sect Falun Gong.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am unable to tell the noble Lord our precise position in relation to that issue. We have been very robust indeed in the dialogue we have had with China on this issue. We have engaged with it on a creative process of bringing human rights issues very much to the fore. The noble Lord may be aware that in February the Chinese met with us. The all-party group on Tibet will go to China in the summer.
We have had a number of projects with the Chinese making sure that they fully understand that human rights are issues in which we have an acute interest, and we should like to engage them in bringing about productive change.

Welsh Assembly
2.43 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any proposals to amend the Government of Wales Act in the light of the current situation in the Welsh Assembly.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government have no such plans. The Assembly has very many powers to control and influence matters of great importance to the people of Wales. We believe that this gives the Assembly genuine scope to make a real difference in Wales. The new First Secretary has said that he shares this view.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, first, I wish the noble Baroness and all noble Lords a very joyful St David's Day.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, what are the Government going to do about the fact that the National Assembly is lagging behind this Parliament in its consideration of the contents of Bills as they affect Wales? Will the Minister refer the matter to the joint ministerial committee set up to deal with
550
devolution problems so that we may have the benefit of the Assembly's views before rather than after we in this Parliament have begun proceedings on Bills as they affect Wales?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I join the noble Lord in wishing all noble Lords a happy St David's Day. His suggestion of a JMC meeting will be given great consideration. It may not be the most appropriate way to begin to raise the important issue he has raised. The most appropriate way may be to seek to have a meeting including non-Assembly or non-Government Members to examine the process followed with regard to the legislative procedure relating to Wales. Perhaps that could be best achieved initially by himself and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, with their experience of the legislative process, meeting the Secretary of State.
Secondly, the Assembly did not have the benefit which it will have this year; that is, to begin consideration of next year's legislative programme early. It was not in a position to examine current legislation until the autumn. However, I am sure we all want to ensure that the process is the most effective possible.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that as the Assembly is only a few months old it should be properly helped by all of us to achieve perfection in a reasonable time?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. My experience of those involved in Welsh public life, in particular Welsh politicians, is that they always strive to achieve perfection as quickly as possible.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that experience has taught us that the less interference there is from London in the affairs of Cardiff as regards the Welsh Assembly and its leadership, the better—and that goes for the Government and everyone else? Does she also agree that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, might benefit and have a more joyous St David's Day if he reminded himself of the outstanding contribution of his noble friend Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach in a debate in the Welsh Assembly a fortnight ago? He suggested that the Welsh Assembly was doing extremely well—and coming from the former chairman of the think-tank of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, that ought to be compulsory reading for all Conservative supporters in Wales.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was right in much of what he said. My recollection is that I complimented both the noble Lords, Lord Griffiths and Lord Roberts, on their contributions to the debate to which he referred. Perhaps I may gently suggest that at the beginning of

551
that debate one of his noble friends sought to pass judgment on decisions and matters that are better left to the Assembly.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I am delighted to see that, like so many other noble Lords, she is florally celebrating the day of our patron saint? Does she recall that yesterday the Secretary of State for Wales, at a luncheon in his honour, said that the test for a devolved assembly was whether it brought benefit to the people it was meant to serve? Is there any evidence that that is happening in Wales?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Yes, my Lords, I believe that there is. The Assembly has, for example, issued a draft document for consultation, Better Wales, and the budget agreed by all parties for next year includes additional spending on health and education. Policy is being developed by the Assembly on matters such as the serious issues arising from the Waterhouse report, with consideration of its recommendations, including that relating to a children's commissioner for Wales.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, will the Minister recognise that the turn-out for the elections to the Welsh Assembly was abysmally low and that, now, to assert political control there is the equivalent of walking on eggs? Does she not agree that so many of these difficulties are due to the alien voting system that was introduced? Is it not time that we returned to a first-past-the-post system, which would result in overall political control, because that body could do much and be so beneficial to the future life of Wales?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in achieving devolution in Wales, as in Scotland and, of course, Northern Ireland, which we hope will return as quickly as possible, the Government have sought to ensure that matters are devolved to all three countries in a context which will encourage a consensus approach towards the development of policy. I share my noble friend's concern about the low turn-out. I can assure him that I was there on the doorstep, doing my best to ensure that the turn-out was as high as possible.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, can the Minister explain why the Welsh have only an Assembly while the Scots have a Parliament?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is, I know, fully aware that the histories of Scotland and Wales are different. Their legislative histories are different, with separate Scottish legislation as opposed to the relationship between Welsh legislation and that of Westminster. Perhaps I may hope that the noble
552
Baroness is signalling that the Conservative Party now not only fully supports devolution but wishes to enhance it in Wales.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, I wonder whether on St David's Day the noble Baroness will announce to the people of Wales that on every St David's Day from now on we shall have a national holiday.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I shall have to check whether a national holiday for Wales is a matter that has been devolved to the Assembly. I shall write to the noble Lord. However, I am quite sure that people will feel that it is a holiday on Saturday when, we all hope, Wales will be successful.

Alcohol: Under-age Purchasers
2.52 p.m.
Lord Hoyle Lord Hoyle asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many off-licences and supermarkets have been prosecuted over the last three years for selling alcoholic drinks to minors.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the information available on prosecutions does not distinguish between off-licensed and on-licensed premises. However, the total number of defendants prosecuted in magistrates' courts in England and Wales was 251 in 1996, 214 in 1997 and 310 in 1998. I am placing in the Library of the House a table which summarises the information available for this period about offenders cautioned, defendants prosecuted and offenders convicted for under-age sales.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, can he say when there will be a change to the loophole in the law which makes it extremely difficult to prosecute supermarkets and licensed premises? I remind him that in June 1998, following the death of a teenager who bought intoxicating drinks from an off-licence, the Home Office promised urgent action. Why are we still waiting? And, in relation to the statistics that he mentioned earlier, can he arrange that in future those are separated so that we can see the numbers of convictions, prosecutions and cautions involving supermarkets and off-licences?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. He is quite right: we said that we would look at that loophole. I believe that your Lordships will want to support the Private Member's Bill advanced by Paul Truswell in another place which addresses the loophole issue. It means that all staff in licensed premises could face prosecution if it is found that the person purchasing or attempting to purchase is under age. As for the statistics, I believe that it would be most useful if they were separated between on-licensed and off-licensed premises. We are

553
looking carefully at that matter. I shall certainly put additional pressure on our officials to take a closer interest in the matter.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is very difficult to tell someone's age simply by looking at them? Does he also agree that the problem of under-age sales extends beyond alcohol and applies also to lottery tickets and tobacco? In other countries, which I shall not name as I seem to quote so regularly the antipodean place I come from, it is possible to obtain a card which proves that one is aged 18 or over. Such cards are most valuable and are used routinely in pubs and bars. Here, I understand, the cards are available on a voluntary basis but are expensive for people to obtain. Will the Government consider making these voluntary identity proofs of age available at a more reasonable cost for youngsters over the age of 18?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness for her question. I believe that it must be the case that antipodean Baronesses retain their youthfulness much longer than most others, but that would be idle flattery! I believe that the noble Baroness makes an important point about cards being a useful guide to people's ages. The Department for Education and Employment is considering a proposal in relation to a youth card. I believe that that is important in this respect and in relation to the wider question of age-related sales, which the noble Baroness addresses. We are looking at ways of introducing and extending such a system on a voluntary basis. I believe that to be a most valuable initiative.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the noble Lord has informed your Lordships of the number of prosecutions. What is the number of convictions?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that question. We managed to anticipate that one! Sadly, we do not always get it right in the Home Office. In 1996 there were 119 convictions; in 1997, 125; and in 1998—the first full year of the Labour Government—157.

Exchange Rate: Monetary Policy Committee Discussions
2.57 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had talks with the Governor of the Bank of England or with members of the Monetary Policy Committee about policy on Bank of England intervention in the markets to reduce the current high level of sterling.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Chancellor and the Governor meet regularly and
554
discuss a wide range of issues. The best contribution that the Government can make to exchange rate stability, consistent with their objective of a stable and competitive pound over the medium term, is to maintain sound public finances and low inflation.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, has the Minister told me that the Chancellor has discussed the exchange rate with the Governor or with the Monetary Policy Committee? Perhaps he can tell me the answer to that when he returns to the Dispatch Box. No doubt the noble Lord has read the latest set of minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. Is he aware of how seriously that committee was considering the exchange rate at that time? Can he help me by telling me exactly what the Monetary Policy Committee could do to depress the exchange rate, which yesterday was described by Eddie George, the Governor, as "unsustainably strong"? At the risk of tempting the Minister, perhaps he can tell me whether he agrees with the Governor of the Bank of England about that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is not our practice to reveal the content of private discussions between the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor or, indeed, between any other Ministers and those outside. As to the issue of the Monetary Policy Committee discussions, yes, of course, the noble Lord is right. He has read the minutes, as I have, and clearly it is a serious issue. However, as he said, the Governor concluded that intervention would be no use. He went on to say that the sheer size of the currency markets, where more than 1 trillion dollars' worth of trading takes place each day, makes it difficult for one central bank to change any one exchange rate for very long. As to the Government's view of exchange rates, we do not publish a running commentary on them.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Chancellor is still responsible for economic policy, even though operational responsibility has passed to the Monetary Policy Committee, does my noble friend agree that whether or not the Governor publishes a minute of his meeting with the Chancellor, it would be a most absurd state of affairs if my right honourable friend the Chancellor did not discuss the exchange rate inter alia? It is one of the fictions of British government that you have to pretend that all Ministers are idiots by saying, "There is no way I will tell you what we have been talking about or what was said". That does not matter because we are not idiots in your Lordships' House and are perfectly well aware of what they must have been talking about. The pity of it is that we do not have a new tradition which enables Ministers to say, "Yes, we did talk about those sorts of things because that is what we do".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the proper reply is that I can neither confirm nor deny that the Chancellor discussed exchange rates with the Governor. Clearly Ministers are not idiots, any more

555
than your Lordships are idiots. They would expect those matters to be discussed and would not expect me to reveal the detail of which matters are discussed.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, given that nowadays neither economists nor central bankers have much of a clue what determines exchange rates and, indeed, are reaching the conclusion that the inflation rate is far more influenced by the new technology than by jiggling around in the short term with interest rates, which may aggravate the situation and have a counter-effect, is it not time that the Monetary Policy Committee experiment was thoroughly reviewed and the committee given a new and much narrower mandate before it wanders off into areas over which it has no control and no idea of what the result of its actions will be?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if we read the minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee of 9th and 10th February, we see that the discussion on the exchange rate was carried out before the committee turned to its immediate policy decision. In other words, it was an opening run round the course, just as we have in your Lordships' House from time to time on these matters.
What is conspicuous about the minutes of that discussion is the degree of disagreement which is evident from different committee members. They differed in their preferred assumptions. Views differed as regards the possibilities. It is right for the committee to discuss those matters but it is evident that there is no consensus among members of the Monetary Policy Committee or anybody else.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can my noble friend recall the time, particularly in 1968, when we used to think that the weak pound was a very bad thing and we longed for a strong pound? Is it not a fact that many factors determine the strength of the currency? First, are people not attracted to this country because we have a strong and stable economy? Is it not also the case that we have had a stable pound against the dollar over a very long period of time? Instead of moaning about the strength of the pound, would it not be better for business and commerce to get on with the job of becoming more productive and exporting a lot more?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am relieved to find that I can agree with my noble friend. He expresses government policy very closely indeed. Of course, we do not underestimate the difficulties, particularly for manufacturing industry, of a strong pound. But it is true that a strong and stable economy is likely to encourage a strong pound. The Monetary Policy Committee discussed that in its consideration of a risk premium. I do not believe that we should reach the conclusion that a strong pound is a painless result of the success of our economic policies.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I assume that the official Opposition agree with the Shadow Chancellor that there should be an independent Bank of England and Monetary Policy Committee. Indeed, I see the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is nodding in agreement. In those circumstances, they will no doubt agree that the Government should not interfere with a so-called independent Bank. We know that the Chancellor and the Governor have discussions and no doubt they discuss the exchange rate. It would be rather surprising if they did not. But there are those—perhaps on the Opposition Benches—who want to see the pound weaker in line with the euro. They perhaps think that is a good thing. Or do they? I do not know. But this question is directed at my noble friend and not the Opposition. Would it not be helpful if we knew whether the Chancellor agreed on the question of the exchange rate and, in so far as interest rate changes affect it, whether they agree with what the Governor said yesterday; namely, that the present interest rates should not be changed for a while in order to ensure that the exchange rate is helped?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought that I had already said in an earlier Answer that we do not provide a running commentary on short-term changes in exchange rates. If my noble friend is thinking in the longer term, we have acknowledged the difficulties which a strong pound imposes on, in particular, our manufacturing industries. But we believe that we should stick to our long-term policies of price stability and high levels of growth and employment.

Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to the powers of the courts to deal with offenders and defaulters, and to the treatment of such persons, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Government Resources and Accounts Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Elton set down for today shall be limited to three and a half hours and that in the name of the Lord Walker of Worcester to one and a half hours.—(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Electronic Communications Bill
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the order of commitment of 22nd February be discharged and that the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Asylum Seekers
3.8 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton rose to call attention to the case for policies towards asylum seekers that are both effective and humane; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion before us draws attention to the case for policies towards asylum seekers that are both effective and humane. The subject is far too large to cover in a single opening speech. Therefore, I warn the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, whose maiden speech I warmly look forward to, not to model anything he says on my performance today. I look forward with almost equal interest to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, from whom I used to receive 15 letters per week when I was at the Home Office. No doubt his position has changed a little since then.
Efficiency means swift decisions and humanity means right decisions and good treatment. We can demonstrate easily enough that our policies are neither efficient nor humane. Last year, the number of people in this country who had applied for asylum and were waiting to know whether or not they would be allowed to stay was 102,000. According to the Office for National Statistics, that is more than the population of Gloucester. Many had been waiting for over three years. To wait for six years is not unusual. I know of at least one case that has been running for 10 years. The backlog is made up of all applicants for asylum, at whatever stage of the screening process. The telescoping of that process under the new Act should bring final decisions forward earlier. But on its own it will not reduce the number of asylum seekers still in this country.
Thus far the problem is quantifiable, but as so often in life, things become less simple as we study them. Home Office Report CM 4431 shows that from 1990 to 1998 inclusive there were 302,970 applications and that 222,975 decisions were made on them. Of those,
558
153,970 were refusals. So far so good, provided your mental arithmetic is agile. But when one's eye travels further across the table one sees that the total number of those who are either removed or known to have departed came only to 27,365 leaving 126,000—more than the population of Gloucester—unaccounted for and, as they had made their anxiety to live here very plain, probably—though not certainly—still resident in this country.
The picture would be pretty foggy if that were all, but it is not. The table clearly states that it excludes all dependants. At Tinsley House, Gatwick, last week, among the passengers on a recent flight from Afghanistan via Moscow, I saw how numerous such dependants can be. I hope that the Minister, in his reply, will tell us the real position regarding numbers, or at least the average ratio of dependants to applicants.
If we carry our inquiry forward to the published figures for the first two quarters of last year, the picture becomes foggier still. While still excluding dependants, they show that, under the normal process, 4,210 refusals were made. Ninety were made under a scheme to clear the backlog. However, this table gives no hint of how many of those 4,300 were removed or had gone of their own free will. Can the Minister arrange for these figures to be published in the annual report from his department? Can he confirm the worrying statement I have seen that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate no longer has the resources to remove more than the 1 per cent of refusals already in custody and a mere 4 per cent of the whole of the remainder?
The IND's ability to implement refusals will be thoroughly tested when the backlog clearance programme bites in earnest. That will coincide with the increased output of decisions, and therefore refusals, under the streamlined procedures brought in under the Act on 1st April. Unless that programme amounts to no more than a blanket permission to remain (in which case we should be told) there can surely be only one of two consequences: either there must be an equal increase in removals or refusal will become even more of a technicality that even larger numbers will ignore, so that we have an even greater illegal population in this country. If so, I think that we should be told.
The question of removals is critical. Asylum seekers naturally seek the comfort and support of their fellow nationals wherever they can find it. Which of us would not do the same if the roles were reversed? The Government, recognising their need for support and society's need for them to develop quickly into stable communities, believes that they should settle in "clusters" of similar origin. They require, rather than encourage, them to do so; to spread them, they disperse them round the country.
If great trouble is to be avoided, the clusters must be developed quickly into stable communities integrated with the surrounding population. Home Office Bulletin No 3 on the subject reports that over 860 individuals had been dispersed by 23rd January, but they were mostly unaccompanied children. In the

559
4,000 places pledged by local authorities so far, very few are for families. A cluster of bored, single, unemployed foreigners, who cannot speak English, is not the sort of neighbour most of us would want, nor would it offer a suitable home for those who are allowed to stay.
We want to see stable, law-abiding communities. The police are charged with establishing good relationships with the groups. This urgent work is exceedingly difficult because many come from countries and circumstances where the police are hated and feared, and with good cause. Community policing is, therefore, at its most important, most difficult and, because of the need for translators, its most expensive.
Yet it is from the midst of such groups that those who are eventually refused leave to remain must be removed. The more the cluster policy succeeds, the fiercer will be the community reaction against forced removals. As the number of overstayers and refusals increases, the number of removals will have to increase.
At present, the police are expected to support the IND in the work of removal, but that is entirely inappropriate. It means immediate destruction of all their work on community relations, which may have gone on for years rather than months, and makes future policing not only more difficult but quite possibly dangerous. Do the Government recognise the need not just for an effective implementation of refusals but for a non-police agency, presumably the IND—unless they can find a means of adequate supervision of a contractor—to provide it, and for the resources to do so? Will they use the experience now being gained in the operation of youth offending teams to build multidisciplinary teams of a different sort to help the clusters to mature and integrate?
The policy of dispersal into clusters could be a good one, but will only work if properly funded. The Home Office grant to local authorities for this purpose is £210 million for the current year. The policy is still entirely voluntary and therefore working only on a small scale. However, the Local Government Association tells me that, even so, this is already £165 million less than it has cost its members. Can the Minister explain the difference and tell us whether their calculations allow properly, for instance, for the educational needs of young asylum seekers? Surely they must. We know from our own young that children with nothing to do quickly become criminals. If the Minister's answer is that costs will be met automatically through the standard spending assessments, will he go further and recognise that teaching children who do not speak a word of English is more expensive than ordinary education and goes beyond the standard cost? The same applies to the large number of people who need adult education: first in English as a second language and then in skills, if we are to have viable communities left behind us.
Could the Minister also tell us whether in setting the levels of support to asylum seekers direct, the Government recognise that their needs may go beyond what can be bought with a voucher and can cost more
560
than £10 a week, so that there will be a healthy market in vouchers sold at a discount by those in need of cash? A tiny improvement would be made if the Government accepted the plea of the Refugee Council that when a refugee pays for goods with a voucher worth more than their value, the shop should give change rather than pocketing the difference.
I return to the local authority shortfall. I draw your attention to the case of Kent, which is already facing an extra £3 on the community charge to pay for unaccompanied minors. That charge should fall to the Department of Health, the noble Lord will be pleased to hear, and not to the Home Office. But will it be met? (The Minister must answer for the whole Government.)If not, why not? Can he tell us what provision is now being made for them in preparation for next year? It must surely be an aim of policy to distribute the burden of this influx evenly between all authorities. At present it bears heavily on a few.
Kent is a good example. Service stations there are a popular decanting point for lorry loads of illegal immigrants. If a lorry decants, for instance, 30 illegal immigrants outside the port area in south-east Kent, it will take 15 uniformed police officers at least two hours to apprehend them and complete the legally-required processes. That is the entire strength at present available to provide uniformed patrols in the whole of the south Kent area. It is only when they claim asylum that the seekers cease to be a police responsibility and can be taken out of cells which, incidentally, are entirely unsuitable for holding family groups.
On that subject, can the Minister give favour to the widely canvassed idea that every immigrant should be given a clear statement of his rights in his native language, so that at the first interview, which is crucial to later hearings, he shall be properly interviewed and give the relevant information? That would make it easier to get rid of those who should not be here, and much better for those who should.
The task the department faces is changing and unquantifiable. The definition of a "genuine refugee" changes from day to day. The ruling in Shah and Islam last year extended the definition of a,
"social group for 1951 convention purposes",
to include the wives of Muslim husbands threatened with violence under the sharia law. I suspect that is a very large population in the world. And in the department's open plan office at Gatwick I saw a large notice saying, "not Germany or France". That is a reminder that recent judgments in European courts have led our own to rule that it is unsafe to return certain classes of asylum seekers, under the Dublin convention, to either of those countries as they would eject some that we think should not be returned.
The current media focus on undeserving cases receiving significant benefit from public funds results in it being all too easy to do as a number of newspaper editors would like us to do and assume that all asylum seekers are cunning, undeserving scroungers, well able to get a secure and comfortable living back home. But the child given a ticket at Entebbe airport, and

561
accepted by an adult stranger as a means of checking in overweight luggage without charge, has no home to go back to. That abuse was curtailed by making carriers responsible for passengers arriving without proper permission to enter Britain. But many such are already here. Young men from many distant lands with no known family, taken into care and then left alone with no adult friend, are described by a senior worker with the City Parochial Foundation as the lost souls of society. They may not qualify as refugees, but there is nowhere else for them to go.
That brings me to the emotive words "soft touch", which I shall not use because they carry more sense than they should. The fact is that we are a worryingly popular destination. This is in large part due to the lengthy processes that must be gone through before a final refusal, during which time asylum seekers build up ever more compassionate grounds for indefinite leave to remain, and partly due to our complete failure to implement all but a fraction of refusals. It is widely known that once people get here they have a good chance of staying, whatever the system decides. The Government are tackling the first issue; they should tackle the second. The rapid return of fraudulent asylum seekers is the best way of discouraging others. Therefore the backlog exercise must, sadly, be given a lower priority than new arrivals.
Why are we turning applicants away? Because they do not fit a definition drawn up half a century ago to deal with the aftermath of the world war; because they are what we call "economic" refugees. We should be irresponsible if we did not ask ourselves to what we are returning them. The world is becoming polarised, not just between free countries and dictatorships but between rich and poor. We consider ourselves free and, unquestionably, are among the rich. Four hundred and seventy countries have a purchasing power per head less than one-tenth of ours. As a free country we accept the victims of dictators; as a rich country we turn away the victims of poverty.
We cannot welcome them all to share our wealth, nor do I suggest any such thing. But modern communications mean that we can no longer be unaware of them and mere compassion means that we cannot ignore them. No one can enjoy growing fat when people almost next door are starving. If we cannot help them here we must help them at home, and at some cost to ourselves. The latest report of Voluntary Service Overseas shows that this is no longer an unfashionable view. The climate of opinion is changing. That must be another debate, but it is an important one.
We have a duty. If anyone wants to join this society, it should be just and honourable. If we ignore the plight of the millions that are starving elsewhere in the world, it is neither. I look forward to hearing the Government's reply and the intervening debate. I beg to move for Papers.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, reminded me of the agreeable correspondence we used to have when he was a Minister. I share his happy recollections of the letters we used to exchange and I listened with interest and a high degree of agreement to everything he said this afternoon.
I suppose that none of your Lordships will argue that our policies towards asylum seekers should be less than effective and humane. The Government will say that although what they are doing at the moment is neither, they have set in motion legislative and other changes which are needed to put that right. When the Immigration and Asylum Act comes into effect and we have the IND's casework computer properly in operation, they will say that they will deliver the firmer, faster, fairer decision-making that was promised in the White Paper. In the mean while, are the Government acting as effectively and humanely as they can in the circumstances we face of the sharp rise in the number of asylum seekers, or are they making policy on the hoof to deal with each new problem, as happened in the case of the gypsies from eastern Europe and, most recently, with regard to the Afghans who arrived here by chance on the hijacked plane? The noble Lord, Lord Elton, mentioned them and I shall spend a little while discussing their case as an example of what is wrong with the system at the moment.
I take it that it is common ground also that Afghanistan is one of the most unpleasant dictatorships in the world. The ruling Taliban have committed a large number of extrajudicial killings, including the massacre of 5,000 people who were mostly ethnic Hazara civilians, after the takeover of Mazar-i-Sharif. The human rights situation for women remains extremely poor. Violence against women is a problem throughout the country. Women and girls are subjected to rape, kidnapping and forced marriage, and Taliban restrictions against women and girls are widespread, institutionally sanctioned and systematic.
There are 2.6 million registered refugees from Afghanistan living outside the country, according to UNHCR, and in 1998—the last year for which we have figures available—1,600 decisions were made on asylum applications submitted by Afghans here and all but 65 of them were given either refugee status or exceptional leave to remain.
Bearing that in mind, what should we have done when the hijacked Afghan plane arrived at Stansted? The plane landed on 7th February; the crisis ended peacefully on 10th February, and the following day the Home Secretary said that he would determine personally any applications made for asylum by those on board. He then went on to say that, subject to all legal requirements, he would wish to see removed from this country all those on the plane as soon as reasonably practicable. It would seem inconceivable, he said, that persons on the flight could have intended to claim political asylum unless, of course, they had been complicit in the hijacking.

563
Mr Straw is wrong to have decided what he would like to do to those people en masse when he was in the position of having to decide, in his judicial capacity as Secretary of State, whether each of the individual applicants had a good case under the UN Convention on Refugees. He was wrong to say that he would decide all the cases personally when he could not possibly have the time to read all the papers of 74 applicants and apply his mind properly to the question of whether or not they fitted the criteria of the convention. He was wrong to imply that if the passengers had no intention of seeking asylum when they took of from Kabul, their applications were flawed in some way. The circumstances of their arrival in the United Kingdom have no bearing, legally, on the determination of their cases.
At the same time, Mr Straw made arrangements which were designed to ensure that as many as possible of the passengers were induced to return by fair means or foul. What the IND normally does when it has an influx of people it considers should be detained is to grant temporary admission to an equivalent number of people detained in some other place. Presumably that is what happened in the end when the Afghans were transferred to Tinsley House from the Fire Service College at Moreton-in-the-Marsh. Presumably the purpose of having them in the Fire Service College was to prevent them having access to proper advice while the Immigration Service brought psychological pressure to bear on them to make sure that they wanted to go back to Afghanistan.
On the Sunday morning, 13th February, it was reported that only 17 of the 142 hostages wanted to return. By the time the plane left Brize Norton at 1 a.m. the following day, that number had increased to 72. On the Sunday, those traumatised people were held incommunicado in Gloucestershire. I made attempts to try to contact them via the Chief Immigration Officer at Stansted; but that only resulted in a call to me over my Sunday lunch from Ms Barbara Roche who assured me that the International Organization for Migration (IOM) would be there to look after the arrangements for those who requested voluntary repatriation. However, it was not the duty of the IOM to satisfy itself that the decisions had been well informed and made without coercion.
From the inquiries that I have been able to make of those who deal with Afghan refugees, it is not customary to detain them on arrival, except in very rare cases where nationality is at issue; for example, if an immigration officer has reason to suspect that the claimant is really Pakistani, he may refuse to grant temporary asylum (TA) while the person's origin is checked. But there was no objective reason in this case for the detention and those who wished to apply for asylum should have been given TA immediately.
What actually happened was described in a statement by Mr David Fazel, the only Afghan speaker who was called on to interpret at the Fire Service College. He arrived there on Saturday evening in time for a briefing that was given by Mr Bill Fleming of the IND, who explained that instructions had been given by the Home Secretary to make sure that the
564
Afghans understood that they were not welcome here in Britain. They were to be told that whoever returned on the plane would be sure of a warm reception from the Taliban. However, if they did want to apply for asylum, they would not be staying in the comfort of the Hilton Hotel or even in the Fire Service College; they would be held under lock and key as prisoners in a detention centre for periods that might be upwards of a year; and at the end of that time they would almost certainly be sent back whether or not they liked it.
Mr Fleming said that the Home Secretary had told him that he would be a happy man if 50 of these people returned; if 75 went back, he would be very happy; and if 100 could be persuaded to do so, he would be over the moon. Perhaps he, Mr Fleming, might even be knighted, and all the staff involved in the exercise would receive generous bonuses, he said.
When the hijack victims arrived—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will very kindly give way. In this House, we are used to hearing from the noble Lord with authenticated remarks. He is never reckless in his censure of others. In view of the very serious allegations that he has just made, would the noble Lord care to inform the House of the name of his informant?
Lord Avebury: Yes, my Lords; it is Mr David Fazel, the interpreter. He has appeared on Channel 4 and his remarks have been reported, not in the mainstream press but in some of the Muslim magazines.
When the hijack victims arrived at about 10 o'clock that night, there was a very heavy police presence with Group 4 security. No one smiled or showed any friendliness towards the people. They were given the statement to which I referred, as required by Mr Fleming, as they were transferred from the coaches to the dining area. As soon as anyone said that they wanted to go home, they were transferred to another part of the building and were allowed to go to bed early. The remainder were made to listen to the same lecture repeatedly until 2 a.m. The groups included women and children as young as a few months old. No one was told that he had a right to any legal assistance or advice, or that he had basic humanitarian rights in Britain. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that, when someone arrives in this way, it is imperative that he should be given a full statement in his own language of the rights that he possesses.
The next morning the IOM officials arrived and the passengers who said that they wanted to return were interviewed, one at a time. The IOM was not concerned with the manner in which the decisions had been reached, but merely whether passengers would simply declare that they were going home voluntarily. Of the 20 people for whom he interpreted with the IOM, Mr Fazel says that five said they had been pressured into going by the threat of indefinite detention, followed by compulsory return. The IOM officials said that they had no right to interfere with the

565
tactics used by the IND, although they did explain to the passengers that they had the right to change their minds at any point up to the plane's departure.
It was reported on February 16th that the Home Office had said that the applications on these cases would be made within 14 days. That deadline has passed, and the decisions have not yet been made. In the mean while, the Home Secretary has been trying frantically to get some other country—the United States, Russia and Pakistan have been mentioned—to accept the Afghans, regardless of whether or not they want to go there. He does not want to eat his own words about sending them packing, but he recognises that they cannot legally be sent back to Afghanistan. If he does refuse them, it will be glaringly inconsistent with the practice of the IND in recent years, as well as with our international obligations.
The Home Secretary does not have to adjust our asylum policy to the demands of the gutter tabloids and the would-be Jörg Haiders on the extreme Right of the Tory Party. The Prime Minister said at the birthday party of the Labour Party on Sunday that the Labour Party had been a civilising force in the 20th century; and so it was. It always stood for the fair treatment of people arriving here and asking for asylum. It did not say, as Jack Straw seems to believe, that a person's application could somehow be contaminated by the manner of his arrival, still less that women and children—32 of them—should be locked up for something that was totally outside their control.
I hope that this episode will teach us something about the nature of the asylum process in Britain and that we shall never again have to endure the spectacle of people who have arrived from a foreign dictatorship being locked up and treated in this manner.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, I should like to begin by expressing my thanks for the friendly guidance and assistance so willingly provided to me by officials and Members of your Lordships' House as I have struggled to understand its procedures—and, I might add, its geography. It has made what I feared would be a daunting process into an enjoyable one. I am most appreciative.
It is with some diffidence that I presume to engage in a debate as early as the week following my Introduction. However, it did seem to me to be justified because I have some experience of the issues involved, if only because I came to this country in 1965 as a stateless political refugee having been deprived of my passport and citizenship by the then South African government.
While not exactly welcomed, I, unlike most refugees seeking political asylum, had the advantage of language, education, friends and of being white. As a lawyer, I was able to get a job in the life assurance industry and ultimately combined this career with work in the National Health Service and in the voluntary sector, where for many years I have been a trustee of Oxfam, which I now chair.
566
Based on my initial experience of waiting in immigration department queues, it is perhaps easier for me than for those who have the privilege of British citizenship by birthright to understand the bewilderment of asylum seekers who, often having survived torture, atrocity and persecution in their own country, are then faced with the unavoidable processes of establishing their right to political asylum in this country.
Naturally, I do not suggest that these processes are unnecessary. But to most asylum-seeking refugees unfamiliar with the language, confused by the process and faced with the uncertainty of exile and what is going to happen next, the process is a frightening ordeal during which they need advice, patience and understanding from the immigration officials. Unfortunately, however, these immigration officials are desperately seeking to make inroads into a massive backlog, and are being criticised for their failure to do so. The one thing they do not have is time to be patient and, indeed, often even the time to look as carefully and in depth as they would wish at every case for asylum. Almost inevitably under such pressures they often make incorrect decisions leading to appeals, which in turn inflate the backlog.
So it is hardly surprising that there is a great deal of anger and frustration on all sides. All sides—the Government, the refugees, their representatives and the immigration officials—share a common interest that decisions on refugee status are made speedily and fairly. Yet until the backlog is eliminated, this will not happen. Recognising this, the Government have introduced two-way streaming whereby resources are allocated to processing all new applications speedily while, at the same time, other resources are applied to backlog cases.
While this approach is clearly to be commended, it requires significant additional resources in the short term to succeed. Although some additional resources have been provided, they seem far from sufficient as the statistics do not show that the pipeline is decreasing. By itself, throwing resources at problems does not necessarily solve them. There must be the right level and quality of resources, careful planning and intensive training, all of which take time. But as I found in tackling waiting lists in the NHS, and in the financial services industry, backlogs are impossible to eliminate unless sufficient funding is provided.
There is, of course, one other solution to the backlog problem. In raising it, I recognise that it will not be popular with certain sectors in the media and elsewhere. That solution would be, on a one-off basis, to lower the criteria for backlog applicants only in a way similar to the approach already adopted by government in relation to asylum seekers who had applied before July 1993.
While this would inevitably lead to a number of so-called "economic migrants" being allowed to remain, government might decide it is a price worth paying. In this regard it must be questioned whether allowing a number of economic migrants to remain in the UK would necessarily be a bad thing, for it must be

567
remembered that economic migrants as well as political refugees normally have the potential and will to contribute to our society. Once they are able to take up employment they will no longer be a drain on the Government, while eliminating the backlog will enable a fair and speedy system of decision-making to be built up which would help to defuse the racist agitation which elements in the media and elsewhere arc fanning.
There has been support for this approach from an unexpected source. No less an authority than Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, was quoted in the Financial Times last week as saying that if economic growth is to be sustained at its present pace in the USA, immigration policies would have to be relaxed, and that to restrain inflation would require either more imports or more immigration. He added that he was satisfied that immigrants wanted to work, thereby rejecting the myth that their aim was to sponge on welfare benefits, a myth so often peddled in the USA and in this country.
I move from solutions to implementation of the Immigration and Asylum Act. I wish to add to the points about the plight of unaccompanied children which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Because government wished to treat these children in exactly the same way as other deprived children, they were excluded from the new Home Office support scheme and they are governed by the provisions of the Children Act.
Many of these children have not been given full assessment of their needs under the Act and some have even been placed in adult single accommodation, in some cases hundreds of miles from the authority which has responsibility for them. A recent example is that of a child placed by a London authority in Leeds, without even reference to the Leeds social services, leaving the child very vulnerable. New guidelines issued this month to local authorities are to be welcomed but appropriate action needs to be taken to ensure that the guidelines are followed.
It also appears that the Home Office does not have procedural guidelines for its staff to follow when handling the asylum applications of unaccompanied children. There is a consensus that children should be treated first and foremost as children and I would suggest this requires special guidelines for their special needs to be prepared by the Home Office, probably in co-operation with the Department of Health, refugee community groups and voluntary organisations.
I end on a personal note. When I arrived in this country in 1965 as yet another anonymous refugee, the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, came to Heathrow airport and persuaded the immigration authorities to allow me entry. I have not met or talked with the noble Lord since then. I am sure that he has quite forgotten the incident as he must have helped many other similarly anonymous refugees. Acts of kindness such as this to refugees seeking asylum have the potential to transform the lives of refugees in the same way as it has transformed my life. After 35 years in this country, now a British citizen and very proud of that, I welcome the opportunity to thank the noble Lord again.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, like others, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for the opportunity to debate this important subject today. I know that the whole House will want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, on his moving, challenging, honest and yet characteristically modest maiden speech. I have known the noble Lord for many years as he was my long-suffering chair during my time as director of Oxfam. His arrival in this House is overdue. He brings to our proceedings deep experience from his time as a courageous human rights lawyer in South Africa in the grimmest years, his important role in the legal team defending Nelson Mandela and others in the Rivonia trial, through his outstanding business career in the United Kingdom, and his committed and effective chairing of Oxfam, not to mention his wider work with an impressive range of voluntary organisations with a cutting edge. Throughout his life the noble Lord has been a man determined to see justice and human rights turned into practical realities. It is therefore altogether appropriate that he has chosen to make his maiden speech in this debate. He will without doubt play a significant part in the work of our second Chamber.
In January, the Council of Europe, where I serve as a member of the British parliamentary delegation, adopted a well researched and argued report on asylum. It made a number of specific recommendations to member governments. The report noted that at its 50th anniversary the Council and its member governments had last year reaffirmed their commitment to the generous vision and values that inspired its creation, not least the right to freedom from persecution. It nevertheless expressed deep concern that those principles are in danger of being undermined by a climate of hostility towards refugees and asylum seekers in Europe. It noted that member governments themselves had been introducing restrictions with a view to reducing the number of refugees and asylum seekers in their countries. It underlined that the increasing determination of the European Union to harmonise the asylum and immigration policies of its members inevitably has significant consequences in terms of additional burdens for European countries which are not members of the European Union. It therefore called for a European-wide convention on the protection of refugees and asylum seekers to be drawn up by member and non-member countries of the European Union alike. I hope that the Government will treat this proposal seriously. If any issue demands maximum international co-operation, not only in Europe but across the world, it is the issue of migration and refugees.
The report also called for the right of asylum to be incorporated into the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It is really not convincing to argue against this that there is no need as it is already enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So are other rights covered by the European convention. The continued omission of this particular right unavoidably lends credence to the anxieties about

569
ambivalence in commitment to its fulfilment. Surely if the European convention exists to underline the validity of universal rights in our own continent, the right to asylum should be there for all to see. I know that some noble Lords have argued that this might lead to delay in appeals procedures. But this is the kernel of the matter; are we or are we not concerned with justice and with the rights of the persecuted who seek asylum? If we are, appeals are a necessary part of the administration of justice.
Humane asylum policy will not be built on aspirations alone. It is in the detail of its administration and implementation that the humanity will be found. I should perhaps here declare an interest as national president of the YMCA which works increasingly in this sphere. With all its practical experience, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux advocates—the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has drawn attention to this—the introduction of a series of statements of rights with the appropriate statement to be handed out at port of entry or sent whenever immigration status is being varied. Rights to stay or to work would be explicitly covered. Would this not only help applicants but also greatly improve efficiency and administration thereby saving a lot of time and money? How do the Government see this proposal?
Does my noble friend not agree that great care must always be taken about fast-track procedures? Is it not the case that much of the backlog has been caused by appeals against inadequate handling in the fast track? Does he not also agree that it is difficult to reconcile the obligation to consider all applications fully and fairly on their individual merits with so-called "white lists" of countries and the presumption that applications from such countries will be without substance? Can my noble friend enlighten the House on the real role of the so-called "reception" centre at Oakington in this respect? I hope that it is not related to presumptions of the white list variety.
The issue of dispersal—already far advanced in the case of certain London boroughs—raises many issues. Let me mention just three. Are we certain that the religious, dietary and cultural needs of the dispersed can always be met at their destination? Are adequate specialist legal services always available? If not, why should funds not be provided to enable people to travel to where they can gain access to such services? Is it not extraordinary that people who want to support themselves can be prevented from expediting this by being unable to afford to travel to Croydon to chase their work permits, especially when, to have any chance in the daily Croydon queue, they may have to find accommodation overnight?
The charities and voluntary organisations trying to meet the human needs in this complicated story are frequently appalled that applicants and their families can be expected to survive on less than the absolute basic minimum income regarded as essential for our own citizens. They raise with me the issue of our responsibilities under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in this respect. Frankly, they
570
see vouchers as the introduction of a tiresome, bureaucratic nonsense which has no place in a humane system. Repeatedly, I am told that vouchers are costly to administer; that they are inflexible, with no provisions for change; and that they provide no opportunity to shop where it is economic as distinct from where the vouchers are acceptable. Above all, vouchers are seen as humiliating and stigmatising for those compelled to use them. Charities will have to pick up the pieces and, for example, help with clothing when only food can be purchased. I, for one, hope that the Government will be brave enough to think again. In the mean time, we must surely recognise that the costs of meeting the humanitarian needs are a national responsibility and that local authorities and charities should be fully reimbursed.
No one denies that there is abuse or, worse, that there is cruel, cynical trafficking in people. Such trafficking should never be tolerated and must be dealt with severely. But the issue is whether or not we are sincere about the rights of the persecuted to asylum. If we are, deterrence and preoccupation with abuse must never be allowed to obscure our commitment to be a beacon of hope for those at dreadful risk. If we mean what we like to say about Britain being an example of freedom and justice, these are not principles divisible by national frontiers. There will be costs—but by convincingly shouldering those costs we shall strengthen the foundations of our own society.
3.53 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, on his fine maiden speech, in which he described his own experience of asylum seeking. I understand from a recent interview with Mr F.W.de Klerk that there are approximately 300,000 people from South Africa now living in London. I am sure that they are making a significant contribution to life here. I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for initiating this debate on a subject of great importance, sensitivity and complexity. His speech reflected those qualities.
The noble Lord seeks to argue the case for policies which are both effective and humane. This, of course, precisely illustrates the challenge. As we know, statistics can support almost any argument. The people of Britain, perhaps wrongly, suspect that Britain has become, in the words of the noble Lord, "a worryingly attractive destination" for those simply wishing to better themselves, and parts of the media feed that anxiety.
On the other hand, with conflict in places such as Kosovo, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and the Horn of Africa, sadly there are a great number of genuine asylum seekers shuffling around the world. Statistics would also indicate that they are not reaching Britain in disproportionate numbers. Nevertheless, with the backlog of asylum applications and with the fracas at Dover still fresh in public minds, it is necessary to continue to seek effective policies and practices in order that this country can live up to its long tradition of welcoming those fleeing oppression. It would be dreadful if asylum seekers became a political football

571
in the forthcoming local elections, or if they became a scapegoat for an increase in local council taxes, for there are good stories to tell.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd—I agreed with practically every word of his speech—referred to the work of the YMCA. Last week, I visited several YMCA hostels in south London. In each case, a good proportion of the guests comprised young men seeking asylum from places such as Kosovo. They know themselves to be lucky to be alive after fleeing from the war zone shortly before the ethnic cleansing of young men began. Most of them have not been idle while they have been here. Brushing up their language skills has been a first priority, and then getting access to educational courses. Indeed, I met one young man who was already involved in medical studies. He seemed also to be the unofficial leader of a network of do-it-yourself support for other young Kosovans throughout south London. I see the same support networks operating out of ethnic cafes in Streatham, where I live, where refugees from Somalia congregate and share streetwise information. Such information and support can be life-giving to those newly arrived in a strange country. It can, for them, indicate whether or not asylum policies are humane.
I can understand why the Government wish to spread the load of care of asylum seekers around the country, but it is impossible to create precisely this network of self-help support without a critical mass of people from a similar background. I am afraid that there is evidence that what some of us feared about the dispersal policy for asylum seekers is already happening. Rather than being isolated in the Midlands or in the north, people are quietly moving to where their fellow countrymen and countrywomen can be found, even if it means a loss of housing and voucher support. The consortium of London local authorities currently handling arrangements for dispersal to other parts of the country has found that up to 15 per cent of people simply disappear rather than be dispersed.
But on this day, when the Government have issued a new challenge to so-called "failing" schools, I should like to focus on the asylum-seeking children who are now appearing in significant numbers in London schools, a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, briefly referred in his speech. Not surprisingly, those children are being admitted to schools having vacancies. More often than not, that means that such schools are set in areas of social deprivation and are already over-challenged to meet the needs of their existing pupils.
Let me tell the stories of some children at a single London school. One child had walked north with his family from religious persecution in Iran. They walked for eight months, arrived in Siberia, and then somehow found their way to Britain. He is in that school. There is an 11 year-old boy from Somalia who is so traumatised that he has no memory at all of what happened to him before the age of 10. He is in that school.
There are also several children whose parents simply put them on any vehicle to get them out of the war zone. A barrister and surgeon in Somalia were so
572
worried that their young daughter would be raped by the warring armies that they put her on a ship in the harbour, wherever it was going. It was going to Britain; and she is at that school. There is also a 13 year-old Afghan boy who carried his sick father across the mountains into Turkey. He is at that school. There is a 15 year-old boy still having nightmares because of the tortures he underwent in Somalia. He is at that same school. There are two children whose father was dragged out of their shop in Mogadishu and shot in front of their eyes. Then, fleeing with their mother, the mother was crushed to death under the wheels of a lorry. Somehow, they are at that school. This is an ordinary secondary school in London—and yet it has a multitude of such children.
Children like these, coming from war zones, are often traumatised by what they have witnessed. It is not unusual for a child simply to sit in a corner and sob for days on end. When life has been cheap and death near, the rules and regulations of a British school can seem trivial by comparison. When they do overcome their trauma, because they have never known what it is to play, teenagers can revert to behaviour more appropriate to a six year-old. This means that behavioural problems can be a challenge to an already over-stretched school.
The main factor determining whether or not such children are going to survive and prosper in the British education system is language skill. Without a grasp of English, immigrant children are marginalised and fall ever further behind in their studies. The provision of specialised teachers of English as a second language is absolutely vital. Yet, at that very school, where the children to whom I have referred are being cared for, the very same teachers who keep them sane and give them day in, day out support were given their notice last month—all of them. Why? I am no expert on the machinations of educational reform or government joined-up thinking, but it seems that until April 1999 Section 11 money came from the Home Office to fund teachers of English as a second language at schools where immigrant children are to be found. Last April, EMAG (Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant) replaced the Section 11 money and fell within a DfEE grant called the "Standards Fund". The EMAG money is to be used not only for teaching English as a second language (ESL), but to raise the standards of achievement for children from ethnic minority groups who are under-achieving. So far, so good, for our asylum-seeking children certainly fall within the group.
However, there is a snag. For the full EMAG funding to be available, the local authority must match the central government grant. It will not surprise your Lordships to learn that the very boroughs needing the grants find it difficult to find the matching money. There is another change. The ESL teachers previously employed by the local educational authority are now to be employed by the schools in which they were set.
Let us put all this joined-up thinking together. The borough in which our school is set is giving notice to 18 EMAG teachers; the school is giving notice to three.

573
Of course, it might be that all of them will be re-employed by their school, but as the funding available has been reduced because of the lack of that matching funding, this would seem to be unlikely.
I do not know the economic or educational reasons for making all of these changes. They must have made sense to someone. I do know that it is difficult to talk here about humane policies for asylum seekers when battered, bewildered, traumatised children risk having the most basic of support—the provision of EMAG teachers—gravely weakened.
Whatever else comes out of this debate, I hope that someone in some government department will revisit this issue. Rightly, as we have heard, asylum-seeking children are rarely turned away from British ports of entry. Having admitted them, surely we have a duty to house and educate them in the most humane way possible. A largish hole is developing in that net of support. It needs mending.
4.4 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I add my gratitude to my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to debate what must be one of the most difficult dilemmas facing this country today. I believe that we are one of the most generous and compassionate of peoples and that we can be very proud of our past history in receiving those who have fled their homes fearing for their lives.
At the time of the persecution of many Asians by Idi Amin, thousands of people arrived here just before Christmas. They were sent to centres around the country. I marvelled at the many offers that flooded in as people felt unable to enjoy their own celebrations without sharing it with those whose lives were in turmoil as a result of the evil tactics of a dreadful regime. I also remember hearing at first hand the heartrending stories of mothers who, at a moment's notice, had to gather together all they could and flee. They deserved our love and compassion. I believe that we gave it.
Let me say also that I believe we gained considerably from the people who came here at that time. Indeed, it was with great joy that we were able to welcome into your Lordships' House the third noble Lord to have become a British citizen as a result of idi Amin's rule. We can hold our heads high in the world in our response to those who are in real trouble with repressive regimes.
However, there is an equally important issue concerning our own people who also have great need. I remember having this demonstrated to me while canvassing in Newham during an election. I climbed an outside staircase to a flat that was obviously run down and seriously in need of repair. An elderly lady came to the door. I could see that she was having difficulty in moving. She told me a haunting story. As a result of her physical disability, she had been on the list for transfer to more accessible accommodation for some considerable time. She pointed to some purpose built flats on the opposite side of the road, one of
574
which it had been suggested she could occupy. She had been looking forward to this, as it was extremely awkward for her to negotiate the stairs up to her flat. I am sure your Lordships can imagine her horror when she saw people moving into her promised accommodation. She inquired and was told that asylum seekers had been moved into the building as it seemed the only way to cope with the situation. She felt utterly let down. It appeared that those who had just arrived were regarded as more important than people like her who had paid their taxes but were now of no use.
The situation has changed over the years and action is now essential. Otherwise it will spiral out of control. The number of applications has increased dramatically from 32,500 in 1997 to 71,160 in 1999. The number of decisions has fallen under this Government from 36,000 to 32,000 with a consequential more than doubling of the number of people—51,795 to 103,000—waiting for a decision. This is unacceptable. May I be so bold as to suggest that it would be helpful if the Minister got to grips with the figures rather than casting them on one side as fanciful and fictional? It does seem that today we are seen as a soft touch—and I do use that word—around the world so that, in addition to real refugees, we are experiencing a massive influx of economic migrants who try to get around the regulations by devious means such as entering the country in the backs of lorries. This is quite unacceptable. A strong message must continue to go out to the effect that this is unacceptable. Illegal immigrants are causing those who are in genuine need to wait longer for their applications to be heard, if they are ever reached.
I wish I could suggest one, but of course there is no easy solution. One major problem is the time factor. I was horrified to read that the average time for reaching a decision is 13 months. During that time applicants have settled into the community and naturally will go through every known process to stay. It seems to me that the greatest attention should be given to the arrival of applicants and if they have arrived via a third country, they should be returned immediately.
I was most interested to hear my right honourable friend in another place, Michael Howard, say over the weekend that the refugees from Kosovo should be encouraged to return to their homeland. We have troops there to keep law and order, so their fears of persecution should diminish. I warm to the idea and feel that such initiatives must be fed into the urgent debate that is necessary to avoid chaos. If applicants are living here for years, getting married and having children, it is almost impossible to come to a logical, clearly thought out decision. I feel also that, at the end of the process, to ask a judge to assess whether a person would be under threat if returned is asking almost the impossible. After all, how can anyone in this country, with scant knowledge of the applicant's country, know what the outcome would be for that particular person?
We have an escalating problem with huge numbers of people making legal applications and, in addition, many going to ground once here. Also, as I have said, some come in undetected. So it is impossible to assess

575
the complete picture. The question of identity cards should be examined again. That would be helpful and is imperative if we are to make inroads into overcoming a very grave problem.
4.11 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who is the very model of a modern moderator and, like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has been a respected authority on home affairs for many years. It is a pity that there are not more Conservatives like them in another place who can debate and criticise constructively instead of playing to the tabloid gallery, as so many do.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the noble Earl realise what damage he is doing me within my party?
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord can look after himself.
The growing number of asylum seekers is a legitimate cause for concern, but if we are looking for humane solutions, we should also look overseas at its root causes rather than find scapegoats among the bona fide refugees. It is time we looked again at the refugee problem in the wider context of international development and not just in relation to our own judicial process. I hope that we may find time for that later.
We also have to be patient while the IND catches up with the backlog of cases, which I am confident it will. We have got to have better decision-making and higher quality legal advice so as to identify the genuine victims of oppression who have a right to asylum here. In this House we have to continue to exercise proper scrutiny of asylum legislation and ensure that the treatment of those being examined and detained follows the standards that we would apply to our own citizens. My concern today is that we are not keeping up those standards.
Parts of the Immigration and Asylum Act affecting detained asylum seekers, in spite of our detailed discussion, are still unresolved and some may never see the light of day. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, and others will remember that at various stages of the Bill I expressed a concern about the need for full written reasons for detention in the case of detainees awaiting bail hearings. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General and others appeared to sympathise with this in their replies, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, later confirmed in a letter dated 18th December that written reasons in the case of more vulnerable detainees,
"should show what exceptional circumstances justified detention".
To my mind, the least one can do for someone detained against his will, after food and water, is to give him reasons for his detention—in writing. It is a basic human right no one should be denied. Yet we still have no confirmation that the Government have published their stated intention to replace the so-called
576
"checklist", which is all the detainee currently receives, with a new form which provides for individualised written reasons. We saw the form in draft, and I know that the Government have since consulted with interested parties, which is always welcome. But perhaps the Minister can now say when the final form is going to be available. Can he confirm that any history of torture will be featured prominently on the form? As we argued in Committee, if full written reasons are eventually going to be available for a routine bail hearing within seven days, why not combine these and the bail summary in one document? That would save everyone time.
On the question of routine bail hearings, the Minister recently responded somewhat apologetically to my Question for Written Answer, confirming that they have been delayed and that detainees will just have to wait another year. The reasons he gave are administrative and technical, such as the need for prior regulation of advisers. But what are the Government really waiting for? There is no shortage of legal advisers, thanks to the presence of several expert organisations. If they plead that they have a lot on their mind at the moment, so have the detainees. Does it take 18 months to implement a decision about something as fundamental as personal liberty? Surely it would be reasonable to apply the presumption of liberty, and the right to bail set out in Section 46, to existing bail hearings before the routine ones are introduced. I am advised that under Section 53 the Secretary of State is already empowered to do this.
Similar concerns have been expressed to the chief adjudicator in a letter dated 11th February from Bail for Immigration Detainees and the Bail Circle. Bail for Immigration Detainees was started in June 1998 specifically to help immigration detainees to make bail applications. In its first year, it made applications for 128 of them. The Bail Circle was set up a year earlier by the Churches Commission for Racial Justice and is the only organisation dedicated to providing sureties for detained asylum seekers. I should like to pay tribute to the individuals behind these two organisations for the commitment, free time and financial support which they provide to detainees who are very often completely destitute and without any friends or contacts in the UK.
One of their particular concerns, which many of us share, is that the bail summary, which is a fuller statement than the checklist and is presented to the court, is not usually disclosed until the day of the hearing. The director of the Immigration Service Enforcement Directorate has admitted that the present arrangements are "far from perfect". Apparently, ports and enforcement offices fax last-minute messages or give oral briefings to presenting officers to save the staff spending time preparing summaries. Legal representatives therefore arrive in court with imprecise knowledge of the reasons for detention and sometimes new matters are even raised in court which were previously undisclosed by the Immigration Service. To tilt the scales even further against the detainee, if bail is refused the adjudicator may decline to give reasons for refusing it.

577
Another concern of Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) is that there is no proper complaints procedure if something goes wrong before the hearing and immigration staff fail to follow the Government's guidelines. There is also concern about the size of bail and the sureties requested by adjudicators. According to BID, some 85 per cent of its clients have been detained since arrival in the UK and they often have no one to call on as sureties, let alone people who can lay their hands on substantial sums of money for bail—four-figure sums. The Bail Circle has only 142 active people on its register, while anything up to 1,000 people are detained at any one time and up to 10,000 may be turned round in one year. I know that my noble friend Lord Hylton has put down a Question for Written Answer on that subject.
The amount of bail set in some cases would seem to contravene the UNHCR guidelines, updated in 1999, which state:
"The amount set must not be so high as to be prohibitive".
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that yesterday I wanted to stand as surety for an Afghan family? When I sent in my building society passbook, which has £5,500 in it, the adjudicator said that he was not willing to accept a piece of paper; he wanted the cash; and he wanted £11,000 for one family.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, that is precisely the kind of example that is causing concern. The UNHCR guidelines also emphasise that detention itself cannot become a form of deterrent. The guidelines state:
"The increasing use of detention as a restriction on freedom of movement of asylum seekers on the grounds of illegal entry is a matter of major concern … It requires the exercise of great caution in its use to ensure that it does not serve to undermine the fundamental principles upon which the regime of international protection is based".
I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance that the UNHCR guidelines on detention are being carefully followed, especially as we are about to witness the expanded use of that system of detention. We are now in the month when the new detention centre opens at Oakington, which will increase the detention capacity by a further 400 places.
The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, gave a maiden speech which was worthy of the great Bishop Bell, the Bishop of Chichester. The noble Lord mentioned children. In the light of previous statements that children are detained only in exceptional circumstances, will the Minister kindly repeat, specifically with regard to Oakington, the assurance (which was made many times by government during the passage of the Act) that no children will be detained except for very brief periods? Those were enumerated by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General as being, for example, overnight, and only in exceptional circumstances where no alternative exists, such as the care of the local authority or of parents or relations.
Finally, the Minister may remember that in Committee on 28th July last year I moved an amendment requesting regular inspection of detention
578
centres where children are detained. The noble and learned Lord replied that he would draw the attention of the Chief Inspector of Prisons to this matter,
"and suggest the involvement of social services inspectors, if necessary".—[Official Report, 28/7/99; col. 1649.]
I should be grateful to hear from the Minister in due course what arrangements are now being made for inspection.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I admire his sincerity and his experience but, alas, I frequently disagree with him. I must do so on this occasion.
I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Elton. He has raised a very important matter, one, I fear, of conflict between our desire and the Government's duty to do all we can to raise the standard of living of our own people and the traditional desire, dating back to the 18th century, to grant asylum to foreigners from all over the world who have suffered, or might suffer, cruelty in their own countries.
There is a conflict, and it is only right to point out the human background. In 1950, the population of the United Kingdom was just 50 million. Admittedly, within it England was the most fully populated and in many ways had the more serious social problems in education, housing, and so on. Over the past 50 years, the population has risen to over 60 million. It is right to point out that the increase of 10 million has been caused to the extent of 3 million by people granted asylum or who have been granted the right to come here as immigrants. That is a very large increase.
Naturally, we are all human beings and we all feel sorry for people who are being oppressed abroad—and, goodness knows, that oppression is increasing all the time. But a government's first duty is to our own people. If they find that the numbers coming in, for various reasons, are so considerable and of such a kind that the social progress of our own people is held up, the government have a duty to reconsider the policy, or at any rate to apply it as strictly as possible.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, on his maiden speech—although I did not always agree with it. One admires the noble Lord as an example of what can be done for people who come here from abroad in their youth and who are trained here. Not all, alas, manage to cope as successfully as the noble Lord has done. He mentioned that once a person coming into the country is able to obtain employment, there is no longer a drain on the government. But I ask him to bear in mind that unemployment in this country is still pretty high and does not appear to be getting any lower. So we really do have to consider the number coming in and the effect that that has.
I have before me the figure for those granted asylum in the five years from 1994 and 1998. It was 33,840. That was a reasonable figure of 6,600 a year. But, in addition, large numbers were granted leave to come to this country as immigrants. Over those five years they totalled 300,830, including asylum seekers. I doubt

579
whether we can go on in the way that we have done, so justifiably and in fulfilment of a liability. This was a legal tradition of this country until 1951. It then became an international obligation under the Geneva Convention. It is for consideration whether we should now consult other countries, especially Germany, which has absorbed even more immigrants, as to whether the Geneva Convention should be modified.
Perhaps I may say in passing that the Government are to be warmly congratulated on the attitude they took in dealing with the invasion of an aircraft full of people from Afghanistan. The Government were fully justified in their approach. Alas, we know from the cases decided that many asylum seekers are economic migrants. One feels sorry for them, but we have our unemployed. Many who come in to this country do not speak our language, have no money and will merely add to the unemployment and other social problems.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, in a most interesting speech and one that must be admired, stood up for the London education authorities and the efforts made to train children from abroad who do not speak English and to help them to learn the language. We know that our schools have education problems. Although it was a commendable effort to teach those foreign children, one wonders what effect it had on the education of our native children in those schools. We really must consider that aspect.
One could go on at considerable length in discussing this matter in some detail. I hope that I have said enough to justify any effort that the Government make—they have adduced some evidence that that is their desire to limit the numbers, ensure that there is less evasion and protect the standard of living, social progress and financial position of our own people.
4.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for initiating this debate on a subject which receives more and more attention by the day and for his trenchant speech in introducing it. This debate takes place only a week after a Question was asked in this House on a related matter by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. It gives me pleasure to point out that before his arrival here the noble Lord represented a Portsmouth constituency in another place. I am grateful for his contribution this afternoon and for that of my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, whose expertise in this area is considerably more than mine. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, whom I had the pleasure to meet last night, for his maiden speech with its strong personal note and application which was both edifying and moving.
I want to concentrate on the question of the detention of a small minority of the total number of asylum seekers, however that figure is calculated. That is a matter in dispute and is of significance for the reasons which follow. My principal point of contact is the detention centre at Haslar which is run by the Prison Service. Haslar is an area at the southern tip of
580
the Gosport peninsula which takes its name from two Anglo-Saxon words: haesel, meaning hazel, and ora, meaning bank. It was a bank of hazel strewn on the marshy grounds around the Haslar creek to make it passable and habitable in olden times.
Two buildings were erected at Haslar in the mid-18th century: the Royal Naval Hospital, whose sad history figured in the debate in this House on Defence Medical Services three weeks ago, which was initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the hospital's barracks nearby. The Haslar barracks eventually became a centre for young offenders, and since 1989 it has been used as a detention centre. It has 160 inmates from around 30 countries who fled religious and political persecution, sometimes after beatings and torture. To all intents and purposes they live in prison conditions. The men have more freedom than prisoners; they sleep in dormitories and a number of recreational facilities are made available to them. But they live very confined lives and are cut off from any real contact with their families. Some arrive with or develop psychiatric problems which are difficult to deal with and cannot be explained on the basis of cultural differences.
I saw some of this only last Thursday on a visit in order to baptise and confirm a French-speaking Berber from Algeria. In that connection, I was able to call upon the services of the Anglican Diocese of Quebec for a bilingual order of service. It was the first confirmation that I had ever conducted where the candidate prompted the Bishop rather than vice versa. I visited Haslar only a few days after a visit to Kingston prison in Portsmouth. The two institutions seem similar. However, Kingston is for lifers, not asylum seekers. The way that the men live at Haslar is hardly humane. They need more freedom and that is being pressed for generally by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. Nor is such a strategy particularly effective. The view is sometimes expressed that it acts as a deterrent, which is not exactly borne out by the statistics. In any case, I regard that as a misconceived line of argument. In economic terms, the picture is even clearer. It costs very much more to accommodate inmates in a place like Haslar than the assistance given by the Home Office to each asylum seeker who is accommodated by local councils.
In making these observations in no way do I criticise the staff at Haslar who carry out their responsibilities effectively and sensitively. I question the fundamental nature and context of those responsibilities which I believe society has slipped into asking them to fulfil without adequate forethought. I pay tribute to the chaplains to these institutions, of which there are several, including Haslar's local vicar who works with inmates and staff alike, regardless of their religious convictions. I refer back to some of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. The chaplain to Haslar has pressed for adequate chaplaincy in faiths other than Christianity. I also pay tribute to the visitors' networks, usually organised by local churches, which are often the only ones to provide a lasting link between these centres and local communities.

581
I believe that overall there are too many groups involved in the business of organising detention. That is a dynamic which is usually a recipe for diffusing responsibility rather than facing up to it and sharing it. Some detention centres are run by the Prison Service, others are not. Different disciplines operate in different places. I am aware that the 1999 Act seeks to make sense of such variations and the much-needed organisation and speeding up of bail applications which has figured in a number of speeches this afternoon. But I believe that a different model from that of the Prison Service needs to prevail, tempting though that may appear to some if only for its familiarity. I look forward to a response on this matter from the Minister either this afternoon or later in written form because it causes a great deal of concern.
In conclusion, I should like to make a general point about the relationship between ethnicity, nationhood, culture and religion. We cannot change our ethnicity. We can change our nationhood only by moving or changing boundaries either by duress or a collective decision. We may opt in and out of some aspects of our inherited culture according to circumstances. We see more obvious signs of that in Britain today. Our long tradition and history which have shaped our collective lives include the Viking invasion with its particular cultural enterprise in the early middle ages. As far as concerns religion, that is, or should be, a matter of choice.
Those factors undergo different kinds of shifts and movements all the time. The seemingly intractable nature of the issue of asylum seekers is evidence of precisely that and brings home to us all that we live a much more fragile and insecure existence than appears to be the case. There are those in our own world who seek to dictate to others on all four of those factors. We are told that about one in every 100 people on the planet has been forced to flee his country because of violence and persecution. Asylum seeking is not an easy or straightforward matter and, like anything else, is open to abuse by either party, as it were. Above all, it needs analysis which puts under the spotlight the economic and foreign policies of countries such as our own. Perhaps more fundamentally, it needs to be pressed vigorously at the international level in the context of human rights.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, in international law, asylum is the protection granted by a state to a foreign citizen against his or her state. That person has no legal right to demand it and the host state has no legal obligation to grant it. On the other hand, a refugee is a person who is forced to flee from his or her country of origin to escape persecution because of religion, nationality, social grouping or political belief. He or she has no national protection or status and in many instances has been uprooted and is homeless. Hence, most of the large-scale population movements of this century have been of refugees, starting with the 1.25 million who fled Russia during the revolution to the 12 million in Europe at the end
582
of the Second World War, and proceeding in tides of desperate humanity fleeing Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and, more recently, over 2 million from Rwanda and 4.5 million from Yugoslavia.
It is possible that when the situation causing the refugee problem has been put right large numbers of those uprooted will go back to their country of origin. The receiving countries work very hard to ensure such an outcome. The direction of this endeavour is reflected in the ways in which refugees are treated. Often those fleeing are the most able citizens. It is important to their country that those able citizens return to help to rebuild their country.
It also seems that increasingly the distinction between asylum seeker and refugee is being blurred. That may be a reflection of the volume of applications for asylum which, in the past year, rose to a peak of over 7,300 in September. Last year, the September to November numbers for asylum seekers were 42 per cent higher than in previous years. The ever-increasing, gargantuan number of asylum seekers passed over 71,000 last year, as other noble Lords have already said.
The Government's inability to manage the processing has resulted in the numbers awaiting decisions passing over 104,000 in January this year. How will the Government solve that chaos? Will they give amnesty to huge, unprocessed numbers to solve the backlog problem as they have done in the past to potentially 30,000 asylum seekers?
In November last year, the 6,400 who applied for asylum came from over 40 different countries. Those asylum seekers obviously are not daunted by the Labour Party's manifesto which states,
"Every country must have control over immigration and Britain is no exception";
or perhaps they are misunderstanding the Government's rhetoric on being tough on bogus asylum seekers. In short, whichever way one reads the statistics on asylum seekers, this Government's management of the situation needs rethinking.
In all walks of life and in many varying circumstances, one hears well-intentioned, hard-working, caring and compassionate people being adjured to, "Take care of yourself or you will be no help to anybody if you collapse from exhaustion". Perhaps it is time that the Government took steps to ensure that bona fide asylum seekers are not let down by this country because our system is simply not working.
According to the Daily Mail, it costs £400 to process each application—that amounts to more than £25 million for the past year's intake, and more than £40 million to tackle the whole of the waiting list. On top of that, it costs £1,300 a week for each resident in a detention centre.
Perhaps most applicants should be contained in government centres until they are processed as the vast majority are not recognised as refugees and granted asylum. It would deter bogus applicants and enable fairer, faster and firmer processing. The Immigration Service union has estimated that the cost of the asylum

583
process is close to £2 billion a year at present. That is a huge burden on this country, especially when more funding is required for the NHS, schools, and law and order.
The Government are not even expected fully to fund the cost of asylum seekers this year. It is estimated that around £90 million may have to be funded by local authorities. However, there are other hidden costs paid out by various bodies throughout the country. I believe that it costs somewhere in the region of £3 million for the NHS to supply translators in London. That situation must surely be repeated now in all the NHS trusts throughout the country with the dispersing of asylum seekers nationwide. There is the burden on our schools which we have already heard about from other noble Lords, on housing resources and on the forces of law and order.
Perhaps the most appalling problem that has been brought to my attention is the lack of traceability in the system. The system for asylum seekers assigns them to locations, sets up payment through the social security system direct to the landlord for their rent, and allows them a small cash sum every week. The local LEA takes responsibility for teaching any children involved and the local medical service puts them on its books. If they do a midnight flit, no one seems to miss them and grateful landlords continue to receive regular payments. It is amazing that this system of traceability also obtains if asylum seekers are refused leave to enter and are deported or if they return home of their own free will.
It seems clear to me that the system is wrong and that the backlog is merely an added complication. Everybody involved, with the exception of the few landlords guffawing all the way to the bank, pays a heavy cost; none more so than those poor applicants who turn up here by fair means and have to wait and wait, fret and exist on a pittance for years.
Surely the Government can be bold here. How much more effective would our money be were it to be used in the areas from which asylum seekers come to help the adjoining states to receive them. They would be in the same geographical area. They would be among members of their own race, religion, ethnic group and culture already there. If their presence attracted as little as the cost of processing their applications in this country, they would be much better off in most cases.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is he aware that the system that we currently operate was introduced by his own government when in office? Has the noble Lord estimated how much it would cost the Government if we were to detain all asylum seekers and applicants, given that, according to the figures the noble Lord used, currently there are 100,000 cases outstanding?
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I accept the point that the noble Lord makes and that the initial cost would probably be a lot higher, but eventually it would reduce dramatically because we would not have
584
104,000 unprocessed asylum seekers being paid for by the taxpayers. It would surely reduce the very large number of asylum seekers coming into this country.
Can the Minister say what records are being kept to monitor the movement of asylum seekers and those who fail to be granted asylum? Can he say whether the Government are actively removing from this country all bogus asylum seekers?
4.47 p.m.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, like other speakers, I welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in opening up this important and topical subject for debate today. Current attention in the media tends to concentrate on two aspects of asylum policy: first, that Britain is regarded world-wide as a "soft touch", if the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will forgive me for using those words, and that our problems with asylum seekers are worse than those of other countries; secondly, that our main aim must therefore be to keep people out since letting them in adds to pressures on our social services with no compensating benefits.
I hope that this debate will have helped to put both these impressions into perspective. It is probably true that our long-established minority communities, our reputation as a haven for refugees, our generous benefits system, our appeals procedures, and the virtual absence of any after-entry controls, make Britain an attractive destination, although I am bound to say that some of the points made by noble Lords this afternoon, including those made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, make me wonder quite what is Britain's attractiveness for asylum seekers.
But let us put this into perspective. We need to compare our figures with the very much higher figures for Germany, even though I understand that we exceeded German numbers in December for the first time, and also the higher per capita numbers for the Netherlands and France. We also need to remember that 80 per cent of all refugees remain in the developing world. Other noble Lords may be as surprised as I was to learn that Iran has the largest refugee population in the world with more refugees than all 15 European Union countries put together.
Of course we should continue to take steps to keep out those whose claims for asylum are unfounded, and to prosecute those criminals who are duping and fleecing hundreds of illegal immigrants through clandestine networks. According to the International Organisation for Migration, those networks are probably responsible for attempts to smuggle up to 1 million people in a multinational business worth 8 billion dollars. Visa regimes, and the screening of passengers before embarkation, must no doubt continue to play a part in immigration control. But it is important that our national reputation for generosity to refugees and genuine asylum seekers, without which many of our forebears in this House—like, indeed, the maiden speaker, the noble Lord, Lord

585
Joffe—would never have ended up as British citizens, is not eroded by necessary attempts to keep out the bogus and illegal.
Britain has a long and honourable tradition of providing asylum to people seeking refuge from persecution. As a leading member of the international community and upholder of its values, with a growing reputation for a multiracial, diverse and entrepreneurial society, it is vital that we maintain that tradition.
We should also bear in mind the fact that ageing populations in the European Union (and especially in Germany and Italy) mean that, despite the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, increasing numbers of workers from outside the European Union will be needed in the future. The United Nations Population Division has estimated that the European Union may need as many as 159 million immigrants by the year 2025 to balance our ageing populations. It is quite probable that many of those who are currently seeking asylum in this country could contribute their skills to economic growth and social stability. Should we not be looking for mechanisms to enable them to enter this country by legitimate means rather than via the asylum route?
Most importantly, we need to put this problem into the context of our wider European and foreign policies: our human rights obligations, including those under the 1951 Geneva Convention; and our international developmental policies towards those countries, of which Mozambique is a terrifying current example, which are staggering under the burdens of man-made and natural disasters. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that the Department for International Development takes into account the source of our main refugee flows—Somalia, the former Republic of Yugoslavia and Sri Lanka—in prioritising our aid policies. Reducing migration pressures must, after all, play a major part in eradicating poverty.
Finally, I hope that the Minister can assure the House that we are making the best use of European political co-operation and our diplomatic representation abroad, both bilaterally and multilaterally, in addressing these problems. It is clearly important that visa regimes should be efficiently and promptly administered. But visas do not only stop those not entitled to come here; they can also discourage the flow of genuine visitors and legitimate businessmen, with the consequent negative impact on trade and investment prospects.
Having myself had experience of some diplomatic posts in which the visa section comprised well over half our home-based staff, I know how important it is not to let migration control dominate our bilateral relations. That is perhaps especially true of our relations with European Union accession countries, which are probably the greatest current source of abusive asylum claims among non-visa nationals but which will be our full partners in the European Union within two or three years .Are we doing enough to explain to and co-ordinate our immigration policies
586
with those governments from where the main flood of asylum seekers comes? I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something about the prospects for greater European co-operation and harmonisation in this field, following the decisions of the Tampere European Council last October, and for developing a global approach with our European partners for effective and humane immigration and asylum policies.
4.55 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, Latin is not often quoted in this House. However, two Latin words come to my mind: sum timida (I am as timid as a timid woman). Following learned speeches and the memorable maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, I may wonder why I speak. However, I am a kind of religious acolyte of the noble Lord, Lord Elton: where he leads I am bound to follow.
The subject of the debate is one of the most difficult of the issues discussed in this House. The moral, legal and administrative issues are hopelessly intertwined. On the moral side, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is well qualified to give a lead. I attend every week the prayer group inspired by him; and, naturally, I therefore join the queue of people supporting the noble Lord's Motion.
I shall not deal with the problem about who should be let in. Other learned people have spoken on that. Starting from the standpoint of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I ask: is there a Christian approach to the question? In the Gospels we are told that Christ told us, "I was a stranger and you took me in". It would be hard to follow that literally in our home or in the state. Nevertheless, I am sure we are all happier in our conscience if we believe that in this ever more prosperous country—I am glad to think that it is now more prosperous than it has ever been—we have a large share of the attempt to help those who are persecuted abroad.
What is persecution? When I was at Eton—100 years ago, or thereabouts—I was told by a friend near the end of my time there that I was the most unpopular boy in the school. It may or may not have been true. I thought that he was. But I was not persecuted. I was captain of the house football team which won the school cup; and I was near the top of the sixth form. I doubt whether I would have gained admission to Winchester or Harrow as an asylum seeker.
A contemporary of mine was teased unmercifully, partly because he was very bad at cricket. We were a cricket-mad house. My housemaster was a famous cricketer. The late Gubby Allen was cricket captain, after whom the stand is now named at Lords. Plum Warner, another cricket captain, like Gubby Allen, and captain of England later, used to visit us the whole time because his son was in the house. My poor friend was very short-sighted and no good at cricket, so he was teased unmercifully. So he might well have said that he was persecuted. He went on to become Lord Chancellor and more distinguished than any of us. Undoubtedly, the limited persecution we afforded him

587
may or may not have benefited him, but he was the object of persecution at school and made good in a big way later. As regards persecution, someone has to decide. I do not question the machinery, but the process takes a long time. I know the keenness of the Minister, the Government and everyone else to speed up the process.
I am not concerned to decide who is persecuted—I leave that to other better informed people—but I should like to know what happens to the people while they are waiting for a decision to be made. As one would expect, we are given advice from the Bishops, from the Minister and from many other people, but the Minister will tell us how the process can be speeded up.
In the meantime, people are waiting one or two years and what is done about them? My Church, the Roman Catholic Church, has expressed its anxiety under various headings and I have given the Minister notice of them. The first is poverty. What about the poverty of the people waiting throughout the interminable period while they are being examined? I am informed that their standard of living is only 70 per cent of what is regarded to be the minimum in this country. Is that Christian?
The second is the voucher system. It is not clear who invented it and we claim that the Conservatives did. Whoever invented the system, it has few friends among those who care for the unfortunate asylum seekers. A number of experts will speak on the voucher system and all that goes with it.
The third heading is dispersal. Will the people scattered throughout the country be well looked after? The Minister may tell us that they will be, but it seems doubtful. Will they receive legal advice if they are scattered all over the place? Those and many other problems are associated with asylum seekers. Will resources be made available to the areas which take many of the people?
I have given the Minister notice of those questions and I felt it right to raise them. They are in the minds of so many people. I know that the Minister is a serious and compassionate man and that he will give careful answers. He may run out of time and be unable to deal with my questions in detail, but I know he will deal with the debate in a thorough fashion.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I, too, express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Elton for bringing forward the Motion. I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, on an outstandingly and deeply experienced maiden speech. It is more than the usual form of words to say that we hope to hear from him often in the future.
I particularly welcome the wording of my noble friend's Motion; the inclusion of the words "effective and humane". They are essential to a consideration of the subject. We have a long and proud tradition of accepting people from other countries who are in trouble and distress. Not only can we be proud of that on humanitarian grounds, but it has benefited us economically and socially. When I was Home Secretary many years ago, I had the privilege—I will
588
say "privilege"—of having to cope with the Ugandan Asians. They have certainly proved the economic benefit which people from abroad can bring to this country. Even now,20-odd years later, I receive letters and Christmas cards from Ugandan Asians in various parts of the country telling me of the economic success they are enjoying and the economic benefit they are bringing to those among whom they live.
However, modern conditions have made the acceptance of this duty and privilege much more difficult to bear. I am glad that among our contributors today is the noble Lord, Lord Wright, who, with his Foreign Office experience and knowledge, greatly stressed the need for action within the foreign policy field. We must get out there and try to deal with some of the problems which give rise to the flood of people coming to this country. No magic will take it away, but it ought to be an important part of our policy to bring to bear all the pressure, help and persuasion we can to those in other countries whose actions—or lack of them—affect the pressure of the onward flow to this country.
Today, I want to stress the fundamental importance of the quick decision. We must get rid of the huge backlog. It is not a subject we can bandy about with party political credits or debits. Governments of both parties have tried and failed. When I was Home Secretary 25 years ago, I did not believe that all the mistakes had been made by my predecessors or now by my successors. It is a hideously difficult problem. However, we must get rid of the backlog because a long waiting list encourages a longer one. People can see that once they arrive here they have a chance of refuge for a few years before being sent away. That must be an incentive if you are in a hopeless condition in an unfriendly country.
We must think about the problem anew. Perhaps I am about to say something which can be criticised on moral as well as practical grounds, but I believe that we need to draw a line under the existing queue and start again with a new queue when the new operation begins on 1st April. We should say that from that date a quick decision will be made on everyone—within two or three months at the most—because, if we continue to add to the existing queue, we shall increase the belief that people can come and stay. That is not only depressing to those who come and provides bad opportunities to the least conscientious of them, it is also a depressing factor for our own population.
I do not mean that having drawn a line under the queue they should be forgotten about. I am saying in broad and un-thought-out terms that one team of people should work on the old queue and another should work on the new one. Then at least from April onwards everyone coming here will be decided about quickly and not added to the bottom of an over-long queue. I realise that one can find moral and practical difficulties in the suggestion, but they need to be overcome. I have thought about the problem a good deal over the years and I see no hope in adding people to the queue and then trying to reduce it.

589
Furthermore, I am convinced that more resources are needed. We shall not get quick decisions until we have allocated more resources. More resources in the short run are the only way of saving money in the longer run. Before and after my ministerial career I have been a businessman and that suggestion comes easier to me than to Ministers and politicians and even easier than it comes to the Treasury. I have believed for a long time that the amount of money we waste by taking short-term rather than long-term financial views is beyond calculation.
I believe that all of us, on all sides of the House, should be prepared to bring pressure to bear on the Government and to support them in providing a large temporary influx of resources in terms of people, and therefore money, to tackle the problem of those waiting. I am sure that until quick decision-making is in place we shall not get rid of the worst problems of the present situation.
That brings me to the present policy of the Government, which I approve in principle, of dispersing those who are waiting for a decision. Yes, I agree with that policy, but I believe that dispersal should take place only after a decision has been made. I do not believe that dispersing asylum seekers prior to a decision will be helpful. I believe that it will spread discontent and exacerbate the difficulties of dealing with the queue. People will have to travel to an interview when it is time for them to be seen. I believe that dispersal before a decision is made is very dangerous. Once a decision has been made, then dispersal should of course take place. If people are allowed to stay, their dispersal should be guided as far as possible to areas where others from their own country have already settled. That means—again, I return to resources—that the local authorities of the areas to which the asylum seekers are going must be given adequate financial help.
I know that local authorities have always complained to governments that they do not receive adequate financial help. I believe that that is probably true. One should consider the feelings of the local population. They will not tolerate resources allocated to local authorities for their benefit—that is, for their homes and for schools for their children—being diverted to newcomers. Therefore, when dispersal takes place, the local authorities must be given adequate resources to meet the extra expenditure which the Government imposes upon them.
This debate could continue for a long time in a number of areas. I want to make one small point which has been brought to my attention by the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. I came into contact with that organisation many years ago. It does the most magnificent work for the people whom it helps. It is somewhat concerned about the possible effect of strengthening the number of local representatives who try to stop people from coming to this country. While it understands the need for that, it also sees a great danger: if in the areas from which they are trying to escape it is known that people are being interviewed, that draws the attention of the authorities
590
in those countries to the very people who are most at risk of persecution. The organisation is not saying that that has occurred but, in strengthening the local questioning of people, it asks the Government to take particular care to do so in a way that does not draw those people to the attention of the authorities from whom they are trying to escape.
I hope that we shall find that this is a matter on which all parties can unite, above all in providing adequate resources to tackle the problem. I end as I began: only when we carry out a big attack through adequate resources in the short run shall we have any hope of solving the problem in the long run.
5.13 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for calling this timely debate and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Joffe on his eloquent speech. Following on from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Carr, it will be extremely useful to have an expert on queues to keep pushing on this issue.
Listening to the debate this afternoon, I was struck by the thought that much of the problem is one of perception. I once lived by a housing estate in south London off the Old Kent Road. It was one of the largest housing estates in Europe. When I consider this matter, I try to understand how someone living in that area would perceive the problem: someone who is insecure about housing and employment and who may never have been beyond these shores. Of course, to someone such as that, strangers who speak a tongue which they do not understand, who have a culture which they do not know and who have a different religion, could be seen as threatening.
However, again, as my noble friend Lord Joffe said, we could see those incomers as a wonderful resource for the future, perhaps meeting our future employment needs. Therefore, the issue is quite largely one of perception. I believe that it is very much a job for the Government to do all that they can to persuade people and to give reassurance. For example, I believe that people should be more aware of the appalling experiences that genuine asylum seekers have undergone in their own countries. I am sure that many more people would be prepared to do without a little of what they have—for example, to pay an extra few pounds on their council tax—if they felt more sympathy for those entering the country.
In many different ways, I believe that it is necessary to tackle this problem by engaging the resident population. Earlier, we spoke of the need for English tuition in schools and the desperate shortage particularly of one-on-one tuition for young people who cannot speak any English. Surely there is a way to harness the local population in that type of work. It would save money and would provide a way of integrating local people and newcomers. I know that the Government recently published an integration document. I am sure that they have taken this matter seriously. However, I believe that the matter needs to be very strongly pushed.

591
Why is it particularly important to adopt humane policies towards unaccompanied children and young people who seek asylum? Last year I talked to an 18 year-old woman from West Africa. She was living in the Centrepoint hostel in Soho for young homeless people. We had talked for some while. I asked her what her home country was like. That led to her describing to me what had become of her sister. Walking in the street, her sister had been stopped by a gang of soldiers. A game of chance followed. Either she would lose her hand (a "handy"), her arm (an "army") or she would lose her life. The sister was murdered. As she told me this story, the young woman wept.
A young Somali man of about 18 years of age—an upright young man who had been sleeping on the streets of King's Cross for two months—told me that his parents had been killed. He should not have been on the streets; he should have been met at the port of entry. I did not manage to find out from him why he fell through the system, but it was quite clear from his state of exhaustion that he had been on the streets for two months. His parents had been killed. As for his brothers, he had no idea where they were but he feared the worst for them. He had been so long without sleep and was under such stress that he found it hard to concentrate. Intelligent as he clearly was, his mind would begin to wander after a minute or so.
Normally, the hostel's maximum length of stay is three weeks. There is a curfew and residents are obliged to leave the hostel between 9 a.m. and 3.30 p.m. during the day. Residents are not allowed to spend more than half an hour in their rooms before lights out. The two public areas are noisy and cramped. Yet, asylum seekers are staying there for three months or more. There is a severe lack of available accommodation into which young homeless people may be moved, and that most especially affects young asylum seekers.
I believe that we should treat humanely all young people who seek asylum from persecution. We need to treat all unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and young people with care because they are a long way from home and are very vulnerable.
For the protection of the young seeking refuge, it is most important to have effective asylum policies. It is extremely difficult for a child or young person to cope away from his family and in an alien country. I have seen young men from Africa and the Balkans degenerate as they attempt to grow up without parents. Parents sometimes send their children to the United Kingdom because they know of the economic opportunities here. I know that it is a difficult matter but I believe that they should be discouraged from doing so.
The first priority must be to give those children and young people the support that they need when they are here. But the second priority must be to go to their home countries, as my noble friend Lord Wright and the noble Lord, Lord Carr, have said. We must be proactive and inform parents of the difficulties that their children will face, growing up without parents in England. They may end up in children's homes. Sadly, we know how inadequate those homes can be. Oxfam
592
and Save the Children are already making efforts in that direction but I am sure that they need more support than they are receiving at present.
The Refugee Council urges that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and young people should have fast-track assessments. Given what has been said already this afternoon, that may seem rather too much to ask. But, if it is safe for a child to return home, it is best that that is done at an early stage. That is less disruptive for the child. After some time—and again, this has already been mentioned—it becomes extremely difficult to tear the child away from the new environment into which he has settled. Will the Minister tell the House whether there will be a fast- track assessment for unaccompanied children and young people? Does he agree that family reunion here and in the home country are both extremely important goals?
So policies towards asylum seekers need to be effective for the sake of asylum seekers. They also need to be effective to protect the under-privileged of our own society and to prevent ethnic hatred. At lunch today, I was speaking to my secretary, who has a house in Kent. She is concerned about whether her local authority must meet the costs in connection with asylum seekers. She wanted to know whether she, in Kent, would have to take responsibility for asylum seekers arriving in this country rather than the burden being shared with the rest of the taxpayers in Britain. Already, I sensed a feeling of resentment and memories of a friend whose jewellery was stolen by some immigrants. That spiral of resentment, fear and hatred may be extremely quick to establish itself.
I hope that the Government will take every possible measure to reassure those living in the inner cities that they are not threatened by the incomers . They should do everything they can to unite and knit together our society. I should hate to see us in a situation similar to that which exists in the United States. That country may have a more open-door policy which may work economically but very often the social fabric of society there seems to have collapsed.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for introducing this debate today. He and I share many common interests and, therefore, I am delighted to contribute on the subject which he has chosen on this particular occasion.
I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, on his maiden speech. He brings great credit to this House in citing his own personal example on this very important subject. We are grateful to him. I hope that we shall hear from him on many other occasions.
The core of the argument today,as identified by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and advanced by many noble Lords, is that policy towards asylum seekers should be effective and humane. That is the test of our civilised values, and nothing should detract us from those basic principles.

593
Immigration and asylum matters are fairly emotive. Despite the nature and effects of the immigration and asylum legislation, the circumstances surrounding it remain contentious. The purpose of the Immigration Act is not in dispute: it is to admit those who are eligible and to exclude or, subject to the appropriate humanitarian principles, to remove those who are not.
I have said before—but I repeat—that in any administrative system, questions arise about priorities. The administration of asylum procedures is no exception. In this instance, the need to exclude the ineligible—in this case, mainly the economic migrants—means that checks must be made to determine who is and who is not eligible.
The Government should have realised that the greater the emphasis on excluding the ineligible, the more intensive those checks must be. We seem to forget that the more intensive the checks, the more complicated they are to administer and thus there is more delay for those who are eligible. But if the objective of excluding those who are ineligible is taken to extremes in matters which are not susceptible to documentary proof, the risk of excluding those who are genuine becomes very serious indeed.
The matter is not helped by hostile press coverage in the past few weeks. It reminded me of similar coverage when the Conservative government, led by Ted Heath, Robert Carr, David Lane, Iain Macleod and others, agreed to admit 28,000 Ugandan Asians to this country. I pay tribute to, and am delighted to see, the noble Lord, Lord Carr. He mentioned that particular incident. That was a brave political decision by a party which enshrined humanitarian principles in its core values. That was leadership at its best. As the noble Lord, Lord Carr, quite rightly pointed out, the East African Asians have repaid that trust by contributing economically to the prosperity of their new homeland. Therein may lie the answer to many of the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick.
Asylum matters require sensitive handling and the debate should be focused on our moral and legal obligations towards the innocent victims of human rights violations. That does not mean an open-door policy. Nobody advocates that; but as Amnesty International says, we should be less preoccupied as to which government have been most effective in adopting robust policies to deter people seeking refuge here. The Government have a duty to lead. We are waiting for that particular leadership.
We can all start brandishing figures about the number of asylum seekers entering this country. We heard some of those figures today. I shall resist that temptation, but we cannot escape the fact that in recent days we have seen large-scale abuses of human rights in Europe. It is still a fact that in terms of asylum applications per 1,000 inhabitants, the United Kingdom ranks ninth in Europe. Even more important is the fact that in 1999, over half—54 per cent—of asylum decisions resulted in positive outcomes.
594
I am concerned that in recent days articles have been published specifically whipping up antagonism against unaccompanied asylum-seeker children. Representatives of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, which the noble Lord, Lord Carr, mentioned, tells me that none of the children with whom they are working came here of their own volition. All were brought or sent. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark quite rightly described how they came to be in this country.
Children and adolescents faced with traumatic events and situations cannot work through the stages of development in the normal manner. They become overwhelmed by their experiences of torture and atrocity in their own country and by their experiences here. Children who are overwhelmed cannot develop until the consequences have been worked through. The situation is exacerbated by the discontinuity of exile, depriving children of the community, carer and cultural backdrop against which they can develop and make the transition from childhood to adulthood. The uncertainty over whether they will be allowed to stay here may in itself result in arrested development.
The Medical Foundation has long sought to encourage the use of powers under the Children Act to provide extra support to asylum-seeking children up to the age of 21. Yet, in the Daily Mail on 23rd February, members of the Immigration Service union suggested that because of cases involving age dispute, a new category of asylum-seeking children over 15 should be created. That is symptomatic of an approach which loses all sight of those whom the system exists to protect and which penalises the person in need of protection for the perceived sins of others.
Recent debates in the House of Commons, notably on 2nd February, have done little or nothing to counter such hostility and in many cases have sought to fan it. That increases social tension, social exclusion, and the isolation and marginalisation of asylum seekers. It also increases harassment, including violent attacks. The House of Lords resolutely refused to go down this route in the debates on the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, and trusts that the Minister would condemn any hostility which results in violence to those who came here to escape the same.
We need fair and effective procedures. Following the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, a number of voluntary organisations got together to produce the report entitled Providing Protection. That report emphasised the need to focus attention and resources on making sustainable initial decisions the cornerstone of an asylum policy that would be both effective and humane. It made clear the need to "front load" the system.
The principle of "front loading" has yet to be taken on board. One example cited by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is the new detention centre in Oakington in Cambridge, due to open in late March. Cases are to be selected for Oakington on the basis that they are manifestly unfounded, but there will be no substantive asylum interview until the person is already detained in that centre.

595
How can a case be identified as manifestly ill founded before it has been investigated? The question arises in the context of Oakington as to what will be known about the applicants save their nationality and method of entry. Among clients referred to the Medical Foundation this month are nationals from Turkey, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Russia, Northern Cyprus, Bulgaria, Togo, Ethiopia, Iran, Afghanistan, Cameroon, Burundi, Eritrea and Algeria. Torture crosses many national boundaries. A cursory look at the country from which a person came cannot tell us what torture or atrocity he or she has suffered.
In the White Paper entitled Fairer, Faster, Firmer, the Government stated that evidence of a history of torture should weigh strongly in favour of temporary admission or temporary release while a claim is being considered, yet there is no evidence of that being applied in the case of detention. That has never been checked. We need to find out whether such factors are taken into account before detention is authorised.
Similarly, the Government stated that the detention of families and children is particularly regrettable but that it is sometimes necessary to effect the removal of those who have no authority to remain in the UK. Nobody disputes that. However, is it not right that such detention should be effected as close to removal as possible?
I ask that we do not get excited about the numbers game; that is not the issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Carr, rightly pointed out, the issue is for us to deal as efficiently and humanely as possible with the numbers of people on the waiting list. I believe that a time will come when those in genuine fear of persecution and those who have been tortured will rightly be allowed to stay in this country. They will make a positive contribution here, as have many other people in the history of this country. I hope that will be the case in this instance.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for securing the debate and for the measured way in which he launched it. Asylum and, indeed, all immigration, is a subject which can be full of emotion in both directions. My noble friend got us off to an excellent start. I am sure, too, that all noble Lords appreciated the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. He joins us with a fine reputation. Having heard his moving maiden speech, we shall all look forward to his future contributions.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked that we do not get stuck in the numbers game. As an accountant, I am afraid I often get stuck in the numbers game, as many noble Lords will appreciate. It is necessary to look at the numbers in order to understand the position. The starting point for the debate, and many of the contributions, has been the number of asylum seekers and the number of decisions made.
This has not been a political debate and I do not wish to make it so. However, in the past the Minister suggested that in 1997 the Government inherited a
596
deteriorating situation. That was not the case. In the last year of the Conservative government, there were 28,000 applications, 39,000 decisions and a declining backlog of under 50,000. That compares with double the backlog, fewer decisions and many more applications in 1999.
Applications increased in the United Kingdom by more than in comparable countries over the period since 1997. In some respects, that reflects the terrible situation in certain other countries which cause people to be driven out. However, it also reflects the impression given by the new Government, who opposed all the tough measures of their predecessors. Leaving that on one side, as a result of the Act passed last year after long debates in which many noble Lords took part, we are in the middle of a complicated transitional period.
Several points have arisen with regard to the short- term position. In 1999 the Government started a backlog clearing exercise, somewhat along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, and referred to by my noble friend Lord Carr. In that year I understand that 12,500 cases were decided under that exercise. At that rate of decision-making, the backlog of 100,000 would have taken eight years to clear, but matters have speeded up since then. Of those 12,500 "backlog exercise decisions" 90 per cent were admitted, a far higher percentage than for "normal decisions". I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us the latest figures under the backlog clearing exercise.
There is also the wider question of how many applications are now being processed in total. The latest figures suggest approximately 4,000 per month. However, we are promised that that figure will soon reach 8,000 per month. That is a large increase, although the backlog is still likely to increase this year.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships a measure of the scale of the issue. Next year, if decisions run at the promised rate of 8,000 per month, which is twice the present rate, and applications remain at the December level of 7,000, we shall clear the backlog at the rate of around 1,000 per month. That would also take eight years. It is a matter of fact that 8,000 decisions is an optimistic figure; on the other hand, 7,000 applications a month may prove to be a pessimistic figure and I hope we may do better than that. The figures indicate that it is essential that, whatever else happens, the rate of dealing with applications—including the one-stop appeal introduced under the 1999 Act—should be seriously speeded up.
I should like the Minister to tell us also what the target now is for getting rid of the backlog. The Permanent Secretary to the Home Office told the Public Accounts Committee in October that the whole backlog would be cleared by October 2000. In a Written Answer in another place yesterday it was said that it was hoped to reduce the backlog of asylum decisions to "frictional levels" by April 2001.1 am not sure what "frictional levels" are. It may be a misprint for "fractional" though that does not make sense

597
either. I hope it means levels below which there is no friction, though that is not what it says. The Minister seemed to be saying that they hoped to reach their target by April 2001. That is not what the Permanent Secretary said and I shall be grateful for the Minister's views on the matter.
There is then the vexed question of what happens to those whose asylum applications are refused. My noble friend Lord Elton drew attention to this at the beginning of our debate and the problems of removal, so I do not need to spell it out. But I hope the Minister will give us a clear idea of how many people disappear from view, either by taking themselves overseas or into the population. All the other figures are known so the difference should be those who disappear from view.I accept, as a result of exchanges we had the other day, that it is not the full 13,000, which is the difference between those refused and those applying (because of appeals and so forth); but how many is it?
We made provision in one of the clauses of the 1999 Act to permit removal action to be started before an appeal had finally failed. Can we assume that removal action will now be automatically started on the day refusal is decided or an appeal fails?
There have been many references this afternoon to the new support system. We were originally told that it would start on 1st April. It will, but only for relatively few people within the system. I am not surprised at that. It is difficult to get it off the ground and it was always an extremely ambitious target, as we pointed out at the time. However, we need to be clear what the position is, as do the local authorities who have to manage much of it, and there are only 30 days left before it begins.
Five categories are involved in the new system. Those who claimed asylum at a port before 1st April will receive social security benefits until a decision is taken to refuse them. If they appeal they go into the second category and join those who claimed asylum in country before 1st April. They will continue on the present local authority interim arrangements, being given either cash or vouchers, depending on what the local authority thinks best, paid for in theory by the Home Office. I say "in theory" because local authorities complain that the Home Office is not sufficiently reimbursing them. Those who apply after 1st April who are families will be on the new Home Office voucher and accommodation scheme. The right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary said in earlier debates that it would be worth the same as social security. But for a couple with two children it will apparently be worth £ 110 a week and not the £ 150 which a normal family of the same size would receive through social security.
Those without children who apply after 1st April will also be on the new Home Office voucher and accommodation system, but it will be worth less. Finally, there are the unaccompanied young people aged under 18.They were mentioned by several noble Lords and they have been left out of the new dispersal arrangements. I am told that there are 850 in Kent alone at the moment and that the numbers are rising.
598
As has been said, their position needs urgent consideration. Families are now being fast-tracked. We all appreciate the humanitarian reasons for that, but the unaccompanied minors are a more deserving case for fast decision-making.
Another concern that has arisen is health. There is serious concern that there is a shortage of TB vaccine and TB screening facilities. The rates of TB in Hillingdon and London are rising. Health workers are at risk and the schools programme in this respect has had to be suspended. That is extremely worrying.
All those matters are in the course of change as the new Act comes into force. It makes it difficult to see where we are. We are looking at moving pictures picked out of a film rather than at stationary pictures.
I recognise the problems the Government face in dealing with the situation. Underlying it all are the problems which give rise to refugees. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees lists 21 million refugees worldwide who are of concern to them. Some of them, and their ancestors, have been on their books for 50 years, notably the Palestinian refugees. Of course we need to put both thought and resources into trying to reduce the causes of migration movement. But in all parts of the House we want our country's behaviour towards asylum seekers to be both "effective and humane". Sadly, the debate tended to demonstrate that we do not live up to either aspiration at the moment.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this has been a very good and in large measure well-informed debate. It does great credit to your Lordships' House.
There have been many contributions—some 20 speakers in all. I particularly enjoyed the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, in his maiden speech. It was persuasive, perceptive, understanding, born of considerable personal experience and made with great dignity. I also greatly enjoyed the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond. Again it was persuasive and contained some important insights, not least those which focused on the work which needs to be done in many of the countries. The work that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office does in that regard will greatly help us in tackling some of the problems that visit our shores.
I also greatly enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carr. It was well tempered and well measured, again born of valuable inside experience. He made telling points, particularly in relation to waiting lists, queues and the way in which we need to put together our resources and focus them where they are best used. His experience of dealing with the Ugandan crisis stands us in good stead today. It shows a very humane approach, in my view.
There is a tendency for debate on asylum policies to focus on immediate problems or pressures; that is inevitable. Today's debate has provided us with the valuable opportunity to stand back and consider the broader principles on which effective and humane asylum policies should be based. We owe a great debt

599
to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for providing us with the opportunity of focusing on "effective and humane" policies. He has the twin pillars of the argument in place in the subject in front of us.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia,was right to say that, in this policy field above all others, we need to demonstrate and show leadership. That is exactly what the Government intend to do; have intended to do; and have been trying to achieve since we took office. Many speakers made most important points. I have a stack of questions here that I shall try to address, either during the course of my commentary or towards the end of my remarks. However, if I do not cover all the points raised, I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate why. Without overburdening the correspondence section of my office, I shall try to respond more precisely to those questions that need a very precise response.
As many noble Lords observed, the policies that we operate as a government and the decisions that we take in individual cases may, quite literally, be the difference between life and death. Equally, there can be no doubt that a substantial number of asylum applicants do not qualify for asylum. In some cases, they cynically exploit the asylum process to evade normal immigration control. Our policies must recognise and deal effectively with those twin tensions. We must ensure that we are able to protect genuine refugees while deterring and dealing firmly with those who do not qualify for asylum. Those who seek to abuse the system do great damage to the interests of the genuine refugee.That point was tellingly made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. We must face that problem and deal with it.
It was for those reasons that, shortly after coming into office, we undertook a fundamental review of immigration and asylum policies—a plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, in some of his comments. The results of that review were set out carefully in a White Paper, Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum, which was published in July 1998. We thought that comprehensive and radical reform was needed to tackle the deep-rooted problems that we inherited.Piecemeal change over the years produced a complex and, in our view, slow system. As a result of some ill- considered legislation, the arrangements for supporting destitute asylum seekers were—I have used this word before—a shambles. It was clear to us that fundamental reform was needed to deliver a system that is both effective and humane.
Fundamental to the strategy set out in the White Paper was the Government's determination to fulfil our obligations under the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees. As has been said many times this afternoon, we have a proud tradition of giving shelter to those fleeing persecution. We are determined to uphold that tradition. Having accepted refugees, we must do more to help them integrate effectively into our community. For that reason, we are developing clearer strategies to assist such integration—a lesson that I believe we learned from governments in the past, not least the Conservative administration of the early 1970s. We
600
issued a consultation paper on refugee integration last year to which responses were received in mid-December. We are now studying them to see how best to proceed.
We should not overlook or forget a pointmade—and, indeed, emphasised by his mere presence here—by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, regarding the enormous contribution that refugees have made to the economic, political and cultural life of our country over many years. They enrich our society and we in turn have a duty to help those accepted as refugees to adapt quickly to a new way of life.
One of the most effective ways of helping the genuine refugee and dealing effectively with those who do not qualify is, in our view, by speeding up the process. The Government do not underestimate the enormous challenge that this presents. Last year a record number ofpeople—71,000—claimed asylum in the United Kingdom. We were not alone in facing increased pressures.The war in Kosovo and upheavals in other countries like Afghanistan, Somalia and Sri Lanka have increased the asylum pressures on many of our European partners. The latest figures for 1999 show that Finland saw an increase of 123 per cent, Ireland an increase of 67 per cent, Belgium an increase of 63 per cent, Austria an increase of 46 per cent and France an increase of 38 per cent.Last year, our figures increased by 55 per cent. Only in Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden was the trend in the opposite direction. Over recent years, Germany has recruited additional asylum decision-makers and streamlined its legislation. Those are key elements of our own strategy.
In the White Paper we set targets of two months for initial decisions and four months to deal with appeals by April 2001. Sadly, plans were made under the previous gover0nment to reduce staff numbers in IND by 1,200 posts overall, in anticipation of efficiencies from a computerised casework system. As a result of those plans, staff numbers fell and valuable caseworking expertise was lost. The noble Lord, Lord Carr, made the point that we need to invest to save. That is exactly what our strategy is designed to do. We began a substantial recruitment programme last year to increase staff numbers. We are also investing an additional £120 million over the next three years to speed up the system; indeed, I believe that such a plea was made by many speakers, most notably the noble Lord, Lord Joffe.
I can tell noble Lords that 250 additional asylum decision-makers have already been recruited and more are planned. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, asylum decision output has already increased as a consequence. In January of this year about 4,000 asylum decisions were made. We are aiming to make 8,000 a month by late spring. At current intake levels, decision-making output will then exceed the number of applications and the backlog will begin to fall.
There is of course a great deal of work needed to deliver our targets for speeding up the system. But we are determined to deliver them. In the case of families with children, we have already introduced faster

601
procedures for new applications from November of last year. As a result, most of those decisions were taken within two months.
Our reform of the casework process is complemented by a reform of the legal framework. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 represents the most radical reform of the system for decades. As the House will recall, it completed its passage through Parliament last November. Some of the Act's provisions have already been implemented, but the major changes are still to come.
I believe there is common agreement that the current asylum support arrangements are, at best, chaotic. They were the product of some ill-considered legislation and administrative arrangements. They have imposed an unplanned and intolerable burden on local authorities, especially those in London and the South East. Indeed, one could fairly say that Kent has perhaps borne the worst of the burden. Such arrangements have left many asylum seekers in hardship, having to seek assistance for which the statutory basis was unclear. Port applicants were entitled to normal social security benefits until a first decision was taken. All in-country applicants, and all port applicants after a first decision, were left with no support until the courts intervened.
The new scheme will create a coherent, national system of support. It will mean that all destitute asylum seekers will be able to obtain support if they are in genuine need. But the availability of cash payments is, in our view, an incentive to those who seek to abuse the system: they are, effectively, economic migrants. That is why, under the new scheme, support will be provided mainly in kind, with the minimal use of cash payments. Accommodation will be provided on a "no-choice" basis in cluster areas across the country. It will be to a reasonable standard and regard will be paid to the cultural and other needs of the asylum seeker and the availability of support from existing communities and voluntary groups.
The new arrangements are not harsh or unfair. Those in genuine need will be provided with a decent level of support. There will be a cash element but accommodation and other essential living needs will be provided directly. That is not unreasonable; nor is it unreasonable to ease the burden on London and the South East by dispersing asylum seekers to other parts of the country. A number of noble Lords drew attention to the problems faced by local authorities. We are very mindful of such problems and of keeping them very carefully under review. We believe that it should not matter to the genuine refugee precisely where or how support is provided. It is more important that it is provided and that it should be to a good standard.
The Act will deliver other important changes to make the asylum system fairer, faster and firmer. It provides for a single comprehensive right of appeal to enable all the circumstances of a case to be considered at one go and so reduce the scope for exploiting the multiple avenues of appeal that currently exist. We are aiming to introduce those provisions in October of this
602
year, when the Human Rights Act will also come into force and provide additional protection. I thought that my noble friend Lord Judd made a good case for a sound appeal system. That is what we believe we are putting in place. It will regulate immigration advisers to eradicate the unscrupulous who exploit and cheat vulnerable applicants.
An Immigration Services commissioner will be appointed and will have responsibility for administering the regulatory scheme. Only those who are registered with that commissioner, who are authorised to practise by a designated professional body or who are otherwise exempt, will be permitted to provide immigration advice or services. It will be a criminal offence to provide such advice or services in breach of the scheme. Our aim is to have the regulatory body established and ready to receive applications by 2nd October of this year, with a view to the full scheme being operational from April 2001.
The Act will also strengthen our powers to deal firmly with those who abuse the asylum system to evade immigration control. There are stronger powers for the Immigration Service to target the growing number of traffickers and facilitators who profit from the traffic in clandestine and illegal immigration. The number of clandestine entrants detected is now running at something like 2,000 a month. We cannot allow that to continue. The new civil penalty—I know that this is opposed by some Members of your Lordships' House—for bringing clandestines to this country will encourage drivers and operators to improve security and conduct proper checks of their vehicles to prevent illegal entry.
A number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Joffe, Lord Judd and Lord Avebury, have raised concerns about the detention of asylum seekers. Clearly it would be wrong routinely to detain those who seek asylum, and we do not wish to do so. However, in cases where a person has claimed asylum, it would be wrong to bar the use of detention where this was otherwise appropriate. In any one year we detain somewhere in the region of 900. That suggests that we are trying to strike a balance.
We have given commitments to increase the number of failed asylum seekers who are removed. That issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and other noble Lords, including in particular the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord must have made a slip of the tongue when he said that in any one year we detain about 900 asylum seekers. Will he confirm that at the moment there are over 950 asylum seekers in detention and, as they are not there for the whole of the year, the actual figure for the 12 months must be many times that amount?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's question. I shall seek further guidance on the figures and advise him in due course.
We wish to reduce our reliance on Prison Service accommodation. A number of pleas have been made for us to do that. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop

603
of Portsmouth expressed that well. I know that other noble Lords are concerned about the use of the prison estate for those who seek asylum. These commitments mean, however, that there is a need to increase the size of the detention estate generally. A new reception centre is to be opened at Oakington. Others are likely to follow. We are committed to speeding up the consideration of asylum applications. The purpose of setting up reception centres such as Oakington is entirely benign and is designed to increase our ability to deal quickly with straightforward asylum claims, many of which will prove to be unfounded. Applicants will remain at Oakington for about seven days while their claim is decided. If the claim is rejected and there is an appeal, we shall have to decide whether to grant temporary admission with reporting restrictions or whether the applicant should be moved to a traditional detention centre.
I mentioned earlier that other European countries had experienced substantial increases in asylum seekers. The traffic in clandestine entrants is almost entirely via other European countries. We must therefore see our asylum policies within a European context. We were wisely encouraged by the noble Lord, Lord Wright, to do exactly that. Our aim is primarily to harmonise asylum procedures within the EU and within the remit of the Amsterdam Treaty. The Amsterdam Treaty commits the EU to adopting minimum standards in the following areas: criteria and mechanisms for determining which member state is responsible for considering an application for asylum; the reception of asylum seekers; the qualification of nationals of third countries as refugees; procedures for granting or withdrawing refugee status; and the granting of both temporary and subsidiary protection.
There is a need to address all our international obligations, not just those arising from the 1951 convention. Subsidiary protection covers those individuals not meeting the requirements of the 1951 convention who remain in need of international protection. Temporary protection refers specifically to the protection granted to individuals at times of a mass influx of humanitarian evacuation—for example, from Kosovo or Bosnia. This is what member states have signed up to for the next few years. It is likely to lead to greater, beneficial harmonisation but much depends on what standards can be agreed.
The Dublin Convention is a treaty to which all the EU member states are parties. It governs arrangements for determining which member state should be responsible for examining asylum claims made within the EU by non-EU nationals. The basic principle behind Dublin is that the member state responsible for the presence of an asylum seeker in the EU should be responsible for examining the claim, wherever it is made. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 will strengthen our ability to return asylum seekers to other member states under the Dublin Convention.
A number of noble Lords have mentioned the recent hijacking at Stansted and the subsequent asylum claims. As a signatory to the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the status of refugees,
604
the United Kingdom has an obligation to consider all applications for asylum made at the ports or within the UK, regardless of matters such as the method of entry into the UK or the nationality or ethnic background of the asylum applicant.
Nevertheless the hijacking of an aircraft is a criminal offence and no one should consider that any benefit is to be obtained by hijacking. Those responsible are being held in police custody and will be subject to due legal process. Four members of the cockpit crew have been assisting the police with their inquiries and remain in the UK. They have not claimed asylum and are expected to leave shortly with the aircraft when flight clearance is received.
The remaining flight crew and 58 passengers have returned to Afghanistan. Seventy-nine passengers have either claimed asylum in Britain or are dependants of applicants. These claims will be judged in strict accordance with the law. The applicants are being held at Tinsley House, Gatwick, a purpose built immigration detention centre. They have access to support and free legal advice. I advise the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that that support and free legal advice have been available to them from the outset. We are satisfied that everyone who wants representation is receiving it. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is shortly to make an announcement about the future of all the other applicants for asylum status.
I am mindful of the time. Many questions have been raised which I have not been able to cover. I shall gladly write to noble Lords on those points. I hope that I have been able to reassure the House that government asylum policies are effective and humane. We have a comprehensive strategy in place for which the foundations have already been carefully laid, but there is still much to do. We need to speed up the asylum process. We need to implement major legislative reforms. But it is essential that we do so in order to create a system which is genuinely fairer, faster and firmer and one which I think is both effective and humane, in all of our interests not least those of the genuine asylum seekers.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it remains for me to thank, first of all, the large number of organisations outside this Chamber which have made my contribution and those of others possible. They are far too many to mention or indeed to weave a lot of what they have said into words. Their work is deeply valuable and deeply appreciated.
Secondly, I thank your Lordships for a most remarkable series of contributions which leave me with the clear impression that the intention of the Government is that we should have policies towards asylum seekers that are both effective and humane, but that that intention will not be achieved until the enormous queue has been reduced and a swift turnaround of fraudulent applicants discourages further fraudulent applicants from abroad. This will enable us to be more humane with greater resources for those who remain here.

605
I must not make a speech at this stage. However, in withdrawing the Motion that stands in my name, I wish to say how daunted and yet how encouraged I have been to see the Bishops' Bench full until the very last minute. I wish that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, had chosen some other evening to draw attention to my precative activities upstairs! The presence of the Bishops reminds me also that no country is an island any more. We may look like an island but in this world we are very much part of a world community. I return to my closing remarks and say that, if we ignore the conditions which produce the refugee pressures upon our shores, we are not only making a rod for our own backs but we are also in breach of our Christian duty. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Hospice Movement
6.9 p.m.
Lord Walker of Worcester: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity that the Motion on the Order Paper gives us to discuss and to look at the remarkable achievements of the hospice movement over the years since it was founded.
I was provoked to seek this debate by two occurrences in my own life in recent times—one, alas, when a few weeks ago my brother died in a hospice in Berkhampstead. He, like others, had gone to hospital and had been diagnosed as having cancer of the lung. It was in its later stages, incapable of operation and unlikely to respond to any known treatment. In that situation, the hospital could do very little more for him and he wanted, in any case, to spend the remaining weeks of his life with his wife and his children.
But when someone with such an illness is at home, being nursed with loving care by his family, there is the terrible problem of a rapid deterioration in the health of that person. He finds difficulty in eating and in drinking; he has pain; he cannot sleep at night; and he becomes more and more immobile. That creates a need for professional nursing and professional care. It is normally at that stage that the local doctor or the district nurse recommends not that the patient should go back to a hospital—there are no beds at the hospital to go back to—but that he should, if possible, go to the local hospice.
In my brother's case, he went to the local hospice, where he received the medical assistance and enormous compassion and loving care for which the hospice movement is noted. It was given not only to him, as the patient, but also to his wife and to his children, who received a great deal of comfort from the manner in which the hospice helped and guided them. Since my brother died, that same hospice has continued to be in close contact with my brother's widow and has given her and her family every possible help and assistance.
My second reason for wishing to have this debate is that when I had the privilege for 31 years of being the Member for Worcester in the House of Commons, I
606
witnessed the foundation of a new hospice. In 1984, a group of my constituents, who had noted the effects of the hospice movement elsewhere, decided that the city of Worcester would greatly benefit from a hospice. With a group of volunteers, they raised a very substantial sum of money to buy the building and to start a hospice in Worcester.
It is only a few weeks ago that I, having been its patron over many years, visited that hospice and spoke to the chairman and the chief executive to discover how they were progressing and what was happening. Perhaps I may give your Lordships a little information about that hospice because I think it is an illustration of what is happening throughout the country.
As I said, the hospice was started in 1984. Progress was such that by 1993 it was tending to 280 patients. Last year it tended to 700 patients. In fact, it is dealing with approximately 60 per cent of all those in the area who are suffering from cancer—a remarkable contribution to the health service.
During that period it has recruited a full-time and part-time staff of 38 people, all of them professional and well trained. But it also has 450 volunteers, who provide more than 1,500 hours of work per week for no payment. Those, too, are people who have gone through training in order to provide proper assistance to those in need.
In 1993, with 280 patients, the hospice had an expenditure of £418,000. This coming year it will have an expenditure of £1 million and will deal probably with 800 patients and more than 500 referrals from the National Health Service. There has been an increase in expenditure this year of £264,000, but during that same period the increase in its funding from the National Health Service has been a meagre £13,000. In 1993, the National Health Service provided 30 per cent of its expenditure; by 1996, that had been reduced to 25 per cent; and last year to 20 per cent.
This creates a problem for the future of that hospice. In the county of Worcestershire there are only four beds available for patients who, like my brother, have passed beyond the possibility of treatment and are in the dying phases of their lives. I repeat: only four beds in the whole of Worcestershire. Aware of this problem, Sir Richard's Hospice discussed with the hospital authority the need for more beds and came up with a scheme to create 12 to 15 more beds in the county. The capital cost of doing that is £4 million. The local health authority said that it had no capital expenditure of that kind to put into it.
So those at Sir Richard's Hospice said, "Right. We will go out and raise the £4 million of capital expenditure to create the beds that the people of Worcestershire require". But they obtained no funding at all from the local health authority—not only in terms of capital expenditure but also for the running costs, having completed the project. The running costs will be £500,000 a year, and they cannot get a penny in funding from the local health authority towards that expenditure; nor can they obtain any kind of long-term guarantee about funding.

607
So what are the trustees of the hospice to do? If they decide to proceed with the capital expenditure—where they will raise all the money—they will be unable to service the capital expenditure and the facilities provided. They cannot recruit new staff and they cannot enter into contracts when the degree of funding available is perhaps nil and when no guarantee can be given. One might consider that that is a local case and that it is not repeated all over the country; but if one looks at the national scene, one finds that it is repeated all over the country.
I want to say a few words about the national development of the hospice movement over the years. It is a very remarkable achievement. We now have 185 hospices for adults, which spend £250 million a year. Of that, less than one-third is contributed from the National Health Service. Hospices deal with the majority of cancer patients in need of care.
The Government—quite understandably and to everyone's applause—have said that they have a great campaign as far as concerns cancer. They also have a campaign to seek better facilities for the elderly. If there was ever any part of the National Health Service which has contributed to both of those areas, it is the hospice movement—and yet year after year the proportion of its expenditure funded from the National Health Service has steadily declined. In the past two years, it has gone down from 35 per cent to just over 32 per cent, and that decline is continuing.
The Government have said that it is the duty of the health authorities to give hospices long-term contracts. Of 13 hospices in the Midlands, only two have obtained any kind of long-term contract—and those two long-term contracts exclude any contribution to costs. So they are not particularly valuable long-term contracts.
In announcing their policy that this should be dealt with by the local authorities, the Government have a valid argument: local authorities know the local needs. I have nothing against that. But if in relying on the local authorities to do this the Government find that they are not doing so, they have a duty to take speedy action to ensure that the proper funding is provided.
The hospice movement has contributed not only to the elderly and the dying; it has also dealt with the problems of other incurable diseases. It has offered considerable help to people with the problem of AIDS. It discovered very quickly that, although there was a great need to give counselling and help to the elderly in their final days, there was an even more horrific problem of children with incurable diseases. There are now 17 children's hospices in this country, which spent £20 million last year. The total contribution from the National Health Service to these children's hospices is a meagre 4 per cent of all of their expenditure.
As somebody who spent most of the time between 1970 and 1990 in Cabinet, I am well aware of the problems faced by governments in regard to expenditure on the health service. I have sat through Cabinet meetings and Cabinet committees with a desperate desire to achieve—in fact, we always
608
achieved—extra expenditure on the health service, but there was never enough expenditure to meet the growing needs. Here is a classic area of the health service where the expansion of need is gigantic. Cancer has been and is increasing, and the number of elderly people is increasing at a rapid rate. There will be a 20 per cent increase in the number of elderly people between now and 2020. Anyone looking at the health service would want to see the hospice movement rapidly expanding and being even more active than it has been in the past. This movement, founded only in 1967 by a very remarkable lady creating one hospice in Sydenham, is now making this enormous contribution to the health service of our country.
I was always in favour of extra expenditure, being described as the leading "wet" in previous governments and in John Major's autobiography as the "Dick Turpin of the Cabinet". I recognise the problems. In the totality of expenditure on the health service, here is one area where for every £1 given, one receives more than £1 by voluntary effort and voluntary contribution. One has injected into this service a compassion, an understanding and a sympathy that is quite unique. Anyone who visits hospices and meets the volunteers—the people running them and guiding them—will recognise their unique spiritual and compassionate contribution to the health service.
I urge the Government to examine the drift in contributions from the National Health Service to see whether, by perhaps administrative methods if not direct financial methods, this can be changed and the movement encouraged to expand in the future. If one does not do that, one will quickly face a crisis.
In 1998 Professor David Clark examined the hospice movement and said that one in five hospices was worried about its financial viability. The position has deteriorated since then. Instead of an expanding movement in the coming decades, we shall have a contracted movement, to the immense detriment of the National Health Service. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Walker, for the very moving and practical way in which he introduced this informative, challenging and timely debate. It enables me to mention some of the constructive, caring and civilised community work that the hospice movement provides in Northern Ireland, work and services which bind strongly all classes and creeds in caring and the relief of suffering which, sadly, in due course, will affect some one in three people in Northern Ireland.
For me the debate is something more. It is a much more worthy change than trying to analyse, explain and cope with the evils, distrust, the terrible human suffering and deaths that cruelly and sadly arise from rampant sectarianism generated political evils.
For the past 25 years I have been actively involved in voluntary aspects of the hospice care services in Northern Ireland. I warmly applaud the dedication of

609
all involved in the provision of the caring, compassionate and qualitative services provided by the Northern Ireland Hospice, the Marie Curie Centre, the Foyle Hospice and the Newry Hospice.
I wish to mention especially the provision of a new Northern Ireland Hospice Children's Service. This was launched two years ago with a £5 million appeal to provide an essential children's service for some 700 life-limited ill children, a number recorded annually in Northern Ireland. The appeal fund was launched two years ago in February 1998. It provides for a purpose-built hospital with suitable bed accommodation for 12 children up to 18 years of age. It will also have suitable living accommodation for family members of the very ill children in the hospice.
The estimated cost of building and suitably equipping the children's hospice is £5 million. Some £4 million has already been donated voluntarily by hospice friends and supporters. It is scheduled to open officially on 1st April 2001. It will require some £1 million per year to provide the essential nursing, bereavement counselling and support personnel.
I know from debates and reports in this House over some 22 years that there is earnest, studied support for 50 per cent funding by government of approved hospice annual revenue expenditure. For some years the Northern Ireland Hospice annual revenue costs have had a "grant in aid" from Northern Ireland health boards in the region of 13 per cent for approved revenue account expenditure only. There is almost entire dependence on the generosity of local citizens and special fund-raising events for both capital and approved revenue expenditure.
A number of noble Lords have held ministerial office in Northern Ireland. I know that they are well acquainted with the priority needs in the Province for special cancer-related illnesses and hospital treatment. There have also been a number of special debates in this House expressing concern about the hospice movement's unique nursing services and related financial needs.
Noble Lords will be well acquainted with the financial needs of the hospice movement about which the noble Lord, Lord Walker, spoke ably today. The Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, are on record as having drawn attention to the important role of the hospice movement within the National Health Service. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, stated in 1998:
"However, I can assure the noble Lord that I am concerned that those great instincts and methods which have been pioneered by the hospice movement in palliative care are extended and included in the health service … I shall certainly make it my business to ensure that that good work is extended".—[Official Report, 16/7/98; col.415.]
I firmly believe that there should be urgent and due consideration by the Government of approval for hospices receiving 50 per cent of all duly approved revenue expenditure. I look forward to receiving a positive reply from the Minister.
6.27 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, I, too, would like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Walker, for his contribution and authoritative start to this debate. It is, I believe, a timely debate on the hospice movement.
Perhaps at the start I ought to declare my interest or the perspective from which I approach the subject. As a student nurse I spent many months on night duty going from ward to ward acting as a special nurse to dying patients. That had a lasting impact on my professional outlook. From that time I have always regarded the care of the dying as one of the most skilled and worthwhile areas of nursing care. Later in my career I became a council member of St Anne's Hospice, Manchester, with a particular brief to look at the educational needs of the hospice nurses. I am still a vice-president of St Anne's but with far less active involvement. Later I became a trustee of the Malcolm Sargent Cancer Fund for Children and the council of Macmillan Cancer Relief. I am aware that there are many other voluntary agencies, all contributing to this field and representing a tremendous public commitment to care.
I have been privileged to visit many hospices in this country and in other countries. Without exception, it seems to me that the hospices that I have visited in other countries pay tribute to the model set in this country. The hospice movement has inspired the imagination of the public since its beginnings with the work of Dame Cicely Saunders, who has already been mentioned. She started at St Joseph's Hospice before she founded her own hospice. When speaking she often reminded audiences that a hospice was originally a place of rest for travellers kept by a religious order. It was the devoted care given by the nuns at St Joseph's which was a powerful inspiration to Dame Cicely in her own experience of bereavement and became a model for her future work.
That model included expert physical care, bedded in the kind of hospitality which was the hallmark of the ancient hospice, and the recognition that the process of dying is as much a spiritual journey as a physical process. There has been a close association between the hospices and the various Churches and representatives of different faiths in acknowledgement of that. To this Dame Cicely added her expert knowledge of pharmacology with which she was able to pioneer new approaches to pain management. Those have transformed the experience of dying for many.
The hospice movement has profoundly influenced the way in which we care for the dying. In what can be a traumatic experience for patients, relatives and friends, the kind of care which allows people to die in peace and with dignity is highly prized and the public have always been willing to give generously to providing that quality of care.
I have talked to different people who are now intimately involved in the hospice movement and they have raised several issues with me. I have talked to nurses who belong to the RCN forum for palliative

611
care. One of them is the matron of the Berkhamsted hospice. I have talked to the chief executive of St Anne's Hospice, Manchester, and the chief medical officer of Macmillan Cancer Relief. I have read with interest the information exchange published by the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services.
In the early days, which I can still remember, of hospice provision, funding was almost entirely from the voluntary sector. Gradually, hospices pressed the fact that they were supplying healthcare that would normally fall to the National Health Service and they were able to negotiate funding for a proportion of beds based on the estimated local need. It was quite a fight to establish that principle. But the contribution of health authorities has always come under pressure, reflecting the pressure on resources in the National Health Service itself. The previous government at one time made a commitment to work towards a 50/50 funding. However, as Peter Tebbit pointed out, NHS contributions measured as a percentage of annual running costs have declined on average by about 3 per cent over the past three years despite the cash contribution rising year on year.
The contribution to individual hospices varies from 9 per cent of the total cost to 61 per cent of the total cost. There is a tremendous variation. At St Anne's Hospice, Manchester, the contribution from the National Health Service has fallen from 51.2 per cent to 33.4 per cent over five years. Even in National Health Service-managed units, there is an increasing call on non-NHS funding. There is thus an increased reliance on non-NHS funding and there is a competition for fund raising between hospice and hospice and other charities, particularly the cancer charities.
Dr Maher of Macmillan Cancer Relief pointed out to me that a high percentage of posts in palliative care—lecturers, researchers, doctors and nurses—are funded by the voluntary sector. She said that they at Macmillan are able to pump prime appointments, but then no one seems willing to take on a more permanent funding of the post. In addition, effective palliative care needs to be organised across a number of organisational boundaries in a range of units. A worker may have to work in palliative care, general practice, a hospice, in a DGH or in a cancer centre. There is a reluctance to share in funding for such posts across boundaries.
In summary, there needs to be a more equitable and dependable process for palliative care funding, a longer term and more stable health authority contract base and a clear funding policy based on tangible criteria for cash distribution. A great debate is going on between the voluntary and statutory sectors about what criteria should be adopted for funding. Peter Tebbit suggests that the Government's own healthcare policies should be used as a basis for determining funding criteria.
I wanted to make many other points which people have fed in to me but perhaps I may conclude by saying that, much as I applaud the advances in technical care
612
in the health service, we have to bear in mind that we need not always strive officiously to keep alive. We need to remember the human aspects of dying, to be able to consolidate our approaches to pain management and to allow people to die at peace and with dignity, sustained by their own faith and spirituality.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Varley: My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Blease and the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Worcester, for initiating this important debate. The noble Lord, Lord Walker, referred to his time in the House of Commons. When he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I was his shadow, we often crossed swords over the Dispatch Box. Similarly, when I became Secretary of State for Industry, the same thing happened again. However, I am very pleased today to be able to walk side by side with him and to thank him very much for initiating this important debate.
I start by declaring an interest. I was a founder trustee of the Ashgate Hospice in Chesterfield, which serves the whole of north Derbyshire. I am now one of its vice presidents. The Ashgate Hospice was opened in 1988 after a very successful fundraising campaign which was massively and generously supported by the local people. By some standards within the UK the hospice is quite small. It has 14 beds, a day centre, a home care team, specialist palliative care nurses and a bereavement support service. Its administration and nursing arrangements are organised by a dedicated hospice manager and a medical director. They lead brilliantly teams of nurses and carers as well as dozens of local volunteers. I honestly do not know how the people of north Derbyshire could cope without the hospice and the contribution it makes to the National Health Service. It is a very special place.
The Ashgate Hospice has established a very good working relationship with the National Health Service locally and with charitable organisations. I expect that the excellent relationship that I find in north Derbyshire is repeated throughout Britain where hospices and National Health Service trusts work closely together. The partnership between the statutory services and the voluntary services is the only way to maximise or optimise the care that is so essential for people with terminal illnesses.
All the indications show that the need for palliative care is set to rise. As people live longer, and as the older age groups are at greater risk of contracting the disease, cancer incidence will increase. As the treatment for cancer improves, people will be surviving for longer; in other words, living longer with their cancer. The need for more and more palliative drugs and care will increase. That trend will put even greater pressure on the resources of hospices and on the voluntary services.
The new optimism that existed as regards the benefit of good palliative care is now becoming more widely understood. But it is tempered by uncertainties about the funding of hospices. That was the essential point

613
made by the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Worcester. There are great uncertainties now as to how the funding will take place.
I understand that the aim of 50/50 funding for hospices advocated by the Conservative government in the early 1990s has now been abandoned. Will my noble friend the Minister say whether it was in fact advocated by the previous government, why it has been abandoned, and whether the matter can be re- examined? Also, is it the case that the palliative care moneys given by the Government in the early 1990s, which were ring-fenced, have also been scrapped? If it is the case, why was that decision taken?
In the early 1990s, the Government made available special additional money for the provision of drugs to hospice patients. As palliative medicine has developed as a speciality, money for drugs has not been increased, except, I understand, to cover the cost of inflation; therefore hospices are now expected to meet from voluntary sources the additional cost of drugs. If that is the case, I cannot see that it is right. I should like my noble friend the Minister to comment. He will know that hospices are expected to find some costs for drags as palliative medicine develops. However, to place a great burden on the voluntary sector is not the best way to go about it.
There is another matter on which I should welcome my noble friend's comments. The higher pay awards for trained nurses are greatly to be welcomed, and nurses deserve every penny. But is it true that the cost of those pay awards will have a disproportionate effect on hospices because they employ larger percentages of trained nurses than average? Coupled with the pay awards is the 1 per cent increase in employers' contributions to the National Health Service pension—because hospices try to match, and in most cases do match, National Health Service pay and conditions.
Will my noble friend say something about the £23 million New Opportunities Fund for hospices, which I understand was launched in October 1998? Is it correct that the fund will not be fully distributed until the end of this year? Why will it have taken two years to administer it?
I am told that the question of whether hospices are to receive adequate finance is a burning issue at present. The split between the statutory and voluntary funding of the hospice movement, and the question whether the proportions are correct, is casting a cloud over those who do so much to make them a success. I had intended to talk about St Christopher's Hospice, but the noble Baroness has already done so and I shall not repeat her comments.
I have no doubt that my noble friend the Minister will readily accept that the hospice movement has made, and will continue to make, a massive and valuable contribution to the National Health Service. But I hope he will acknowledge that there are worries and concerns about the rising costs of running hospices.
614
In north Derbyshire, the population is not well off. Great swathes of industry have gone over the past two decades. All the coal mines have been closed and most of the heavy industry has been shut down. The male unemployment rate is above the national average. So the task of raising money year on year to fund the hospice is a matter of immense concern. It is necessary to raise some £600,000 a year to maintain it—and that takes some doing. I hope that, in replying, my noble friend will be able to reassure all those who have helped—I have done very little, but I refer to the thousands of volunteers who have pioneered the hospice movement—that not only is their work valued and worth while, but that the Government stand ready not only to encourage but to help financially as well.
6.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I join with noble Lords who have spoken in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Worcester, for introducing this issue. It is nearly 30 years since I had the privilege of meeting Dame Cicely Saunders and ensuring that clergy in training received the opportunity to experience ministry to the dying at St Christopher's Hospice. I was caught, and since then I have been involved in the hospice movement, as Bishop of Wolverhampton in raising sufficient funds to build Compton Hall, and, when I came to Bristol, undertaking a role with St Peter's Hospice.
Local hospices are registered charities—and perhaps we need to remember that, and that they are delighted that they are; otherwise, funding would be even more difficult. But they are also significant community organisations, as I hope to demonstrate, as well as healthcare institutions. Perhaps I may use the example of St Peter's Hospice in Bristol, as it illustrates some of the issues which have been alluded to but which need to be underlined.
There are some 1,400 volunteers in the local hospice movement. That is a significant number of people. They are financially supported with great generosity by men and women across the Greater Bristol area, which St Peter's Hospice now serves. That is what the community contributes to the hospice movement. In return, it receives an immense amount. There are presently 350 patients, who are seen in their own homes by specialist community nurses. That has been one of the great developments over the past 20 years since the hospice movement started at St Christopher's. Keeping patients at home supports the family and allows people to die with dignity among those whom they know and love. We should be very proud that, as a nation, we have been able to pioneer that approach.
In addition to home care, there are 100 places in day hospices—another creative development. It must be seen alongside the original concept of providing beds in a particular hospice. St Peter's now has two hospice buildings, one in the south and one in the north of the city. Thirty beds in all have been provided, but funds are presently available for the use of only 20. That is a significant factor. We cannot quantify the

615
contribution made to the health service by the hospice movement. However, we do know something about the quality of life that it aspires to provide.
As we have heard, hospices have spawned a speciality called specialist palliative care, involving consultants and highly qualified nurses who deal with some of the most complex cases. St Peter's Hospice was the first palliative care provider in Avon. Since then, St Peter's has encouraged the development of hospital teams and presently pays towards consultants' salaries at two local hospitals. It is not just about receiving, but about giving to Frenchay and Southmead Hospitals in the Bristol area, so extending palliative care and pain control to patients in those hospitals. Many of the staff of the trust care teams were trained by St Peter's Hospice and at the hospice itself.
There are also continuing new initiatives, not merely a movement from the provision of beds to domiciliary care and day centres. There is now a lymphodema service. I did not know what that meant, so I rang up to ask. I am told that it seeks to ameliorate the distressing, painful and often debilitating swelling of the limbs and body arising from certain cancerous conditions. That initiative, which is provided by St Peter's Hospice and has a very high reputation among the medical and nursing professions, improves the quality of life of patients, which is important. It also brings about a reduction in hospital admissions, which allows beds to be used for other people.
I was told that, with grateful thanks to the National Lottery Charity Board and the New Opportunities Fund, it would fund such an initiative—it was not required—but that no one would continue to contribute to the annual cost of £86,000 to keep the service going. That is one of the problems that we face. By and large, capital costs can be met by the generosity and understanding of English people, but to maintain the ongoing revenue costs is much more difficult. We are in danger of losing some of the greatest initiatives because that has not been taken care of.
Clearly, the hospice movement has engaged the hearts and minds of Englishmen and women, and that has been exported abroad. Two years ago I spent some time in Norway. From the middle of the previous century that country has had a very great tradition of caring for people through institutions. Norway did not provide a great deal of care for those with terminal conditions but it learnt from us and is grateful for it.
The hospice movement provides to those with terminal conditions dignity and a quality of life. Perhaps it courts something which is an important part of human nature: the need to care. The hospice movement provides us with an opportunity to exercise the care and generosity which all of us need. The movement is about dying with dignity and, if we are honest, it is to talk about ourselves, because we too may need to be ministered to there.
I should like to raise two issues both of which have been alluded to. First, I refer to continuing costs. The lymphodema service will continue in its present way only if we can begin to address the issue of revenue
616
costs. At the present time, Avon Health provides only 13 per cent of the running costs of St Peter's Hospice. I am delighted to hear that we get a little more than has been suggested by the noble Baroness, but 61 per cent is out of all proportion to what we could hope for. If we received 20 per cent—an increase of only 7 per cent—an extra 10 beds could be created. Just think- how they would contribute to the healthcare of the community.
We are really talking about a partnership between the hospice movement and the National Health Service. One of the problems in the NHS is understanding how it might organise itself into partnership with voluntary organisations. I believe that it requires a change of mind and ethos, but I also suspect that it needs confidence that it has the necessary funding over a significant period of time. Therefore, I echo the questions that have been asked of the Minister and look forward to hearing his answers.
Dame Cicely taught us that the hospice movement is about hands on the bedclothes which need to be taken by somebody else so that the patient does not die totally alone. Hands are also about partnership and being moved out from the hospice movement to be held by the National Health Service so that it underpins the healthcare of a whole community, not just part of it.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, like all who have spoken, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Walker of Worcester for initiating the debate. I add my congratulations to him on his distinguished speech. I too must declare an interest as a former president of Help the Hospices. How fortunate we are to have such a thriving and flourishing hospice movement in this country. One must never forget that as soon as the hospice movement is mentioned the mind automatically switches to Dame Cicely Saunders who initiated the movement and who has animated so much of it over the years.
The whole concept of palliative care has moved up the medical agenda in recent years. In 1987 it was formally recognised as a sub-specialty in the medical world. Major teaching hospitals have professors of palliative care who did not exist 20 years ago. More and more doctors now concentrate on this branch of medicine. I should like to hear the latest total from the Minister. I understand that in the middle of last year the figure was about 100. Those developments have knock-on effects on hospices. Changes in the hospice movement must take account of developments in palliative care. In this country we used to take pride in the fact, rightly, that in the NHS we had the best medical service in the world. Alas, those days have long since gone. However, we can and do claim to have one of the best hospice movements—if not the best—in the world, and long may it remain so. The acknowledged dedication of all concerned, both professionals and volunteers—Macmillan Cancer Relief, Marie Curie Cancer Care, the Sue Ryder Foundation and many other local groups and interests—contribute to the success of the hospice

617
movement. All of them must be sustained and supported with adequate and steadily increasing financial provision from both public and private sources.
People often think of the hospice movement only in terms of the buildings themselves and those who occupy them without appreciating that the majority of patients are now looked after in their own homes. Outreach and respite care are vital elements which are highly regarded by patients and their families and friends. All aspects of hospice care must be cherished, but one cannot avoid the financial implications. However, the hospice movement is probably, in aggregate, the most successful charity fundraiser in the country with its diverse and locally focused enthusiasm. One of its secrets is that people are more likely to give to their local hospice than to a national charity because they have ownership of that local hospice.
It is the combination of enthusiasm and ownership which contributes so much to the success of fundraising. But the Government, through the NHS, should not take advantage of that by reducing the element of state funding which would otherwise be required to do the work of hospices. We need a greater contribution from the state—the NHS—to core funding which is essential to maintain the hospice movement. An answer by a health Minister in another place last December revealed that approximately one third of hospice running costs is met through the NHS. If that is in a reply to a parliamentary Question, one can rest assured that it will not be over one-third. That contribution has gone down to 32 per cent, and it would be helpful to hear the Minister's comment. Although that figure applies generally, one of my greatest worries is that children's hospices account for less than one-twentieth. If that fact were widely known in the country—I hope that the Minister will tell us that the figure is indeed 4 per cent—people would rise up and say that more should be done.
It seems to me from comments already made about the 50–50 split that that is about the right proportion. I should own up to the noble Lord, Lord Varley. Although it was a Conservative government who made the 50–50 split objective in the early 1990s, it was another Conservative government in the mid-1990s who abandoned the target. Today's debate has shown that there is no party point to be made on the issue. I hope that all of us are united in urging greater support from the Government. It would be better if we had a Treasury Minister sitting on the Government Front Bench because it is not the health Ministers who are being difficult or reducing funding, as I know from my experience as Minister for Health many years ago.
As I understand the position, government support for the running costs in England has declined from about 35 per cent in 1996–97 to under 32 per cent in 1998–99. Therefore, I welcome very much the establishment of the Independent Hospices Representative Committee (IHRC). This new body will be working with Help the Hospices as a powerful,
618
authoritative and persuasive voice in urging the Government to meet their responsibilities by increasing NHS funding for hospices.
Putting on a political hat, and not a party political one, if one thinks of a co-ordinated approach by all the local hospices in the country to their local Members of Parliament, and pressure from all party sources locally on those Members of Parliament, urging that more should be done, a pretty powerful lobby would be built up of which I hope the Government would take proper account. I have mentioned the wonderful organisation Help the Hospices. I again pay tribute to the Duchess of Norfolk for her fabulous fundraising and long term leadership of that organisation. Her contribution to the hospice movement has been, and is, superb.
I conclude by saying that I hope that the representations that come from the Independent Hospices Representative Committee later this year will give the Government an opportunity to review the whole area. I hope that the effect will be an increase in the support given to hospices and a more rewarding partnership, as the right reverend Prelate said, between the voluntary and statutory sectors for the benefit of the hospice movement in all its varied and fulfilling aspects as it grows and develops to meet future needs and public expectations.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, perhaps I, too, may congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Worcester, not only on initiating the debate but also on the very passionate and persuasive way in which he introduced the subject today. I also thank other noble Lords for their particularly knowledgeable contributions to the debate, all speaking from their own personal experience.
Hospices are a cause very close to my own heart. My late wife, Vicky, died of ovarian cancer in 1987. She did not actually die in a hospice because she had an unexpected remission for a short period due to steroid treatment. In 1986 we went through the process of identifying where she wanted to die and, above all, reconciling ourselves to her imminent death. The place we chose was located in Clapham. We were very lucky indeed to have it so close at hand. The Trinity Hospice is our nearest. It has huge local and London-wide loyalty from all who know about it.
It felt strange to her at the time to be doing all these things because as part of her early research in setting up Cancer BACUP she visited St Joseph's in Hackney and St Christopher's in Sydenham, where she met Dame Cicely Saunders. It seemed to be odd to be looking at hospices from a different angle. Fifteen years ago she was also fortunate in some ways in that she was able to take advantage of pioneering home- based palliative care techniques, many of which we now take for granted. Bart's itself was a pioneer at the time, but it had learned almost all of those techniques from the hospice movement.
One of Vicky's last acts before she died was to appear in a programme called "After Midnight". She argued strenuously against the case for voluntary

619
euthanasia. Her case was that the right pain control would be the antidote to the legalised euthanasia argument. I totally agree with a brilliant article which appeared last June in The Times by Valerie Grove. She said,
"If there were hospices for everyone, or hospice backed home care, euthanasia might never be discussed".
As the result of the work by pioneers like Dame Cicely, we now have a total of 236 hospices caring for 60,000 patients a year, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Walker, and other noble Lords. They involve a huge number of volunteers, as mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol.
I welcome the resources, such as they are, that are made available by the Government. As we have heard, just under one-third of hospice resources are derived from the NHS. There is about £20 million for palliative care coming from the New Opportunities Fund, with 88 lottery awards made to 75 hospices. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Varley, asked some extremely cogent questions about the funding and when it will be made available.
I also welcome the much stronger role that palliative care now plays within our hospitals as well as in our hospices, which led the way in the first place. I particularly welcome the way in which the department is spreading best practice. But as we have heard from every single noble Lord in this debate, there is a great deal more that should be done.
As we have heard, Government funding has been declining over the past three years and hospices are having to rely more and more on, and compete for, private donations. If that has been the case under the existing commissioning system, what effect will the commissioning by the new primary care groups have? What guidance is being given to the primary care groups? Will the agreements be sufficiently long-term, as noble Lords have asked, or is the picture painted by the noble Lord, Lord Walker, and others correct as regards individual hospices? Is there a major problem, with hospices that can raise the capital being unable to guarantee that revenue funding will be available in future years?
There are also parts of the country where there is less hospice or palliative care than in others. How will that imbalance be assessed and dealt with? Is there any evidence that the health improvement plan system is up to the task? Will the relevant national service frameworks, such as that coming down the track for older people, make sure of that? Also, is it NHS policy to have palliative care and pain control clinics attached to each district general hospital? What is the pattern of care anticipated by the Government? Clearly, there are also insufficient doctors who have the necessary skills to deliver palliative care. What plans do the Government have to improve that situation?
A number of your Lordships have mentioned the very wide role that hospices play, quite apart from the care for those in residential care. They are not solely concerned with palliative care for the terminally ill. They are also a valuable community resource. They are as much concerned with maintaining a good
620
quality of life or providing respite care as helping people to die with grace. As we have heard, family support is key. I mention the St Christopher's At Home service, to name just one.
As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Walker, hospices also work with families in post-bereavement circumstances. We should certainly value and encourage all these activities.
The vast majority of patients in hospices are there as a result of cancer. Ultimately, however, we need to ask why we have this number of terminally ill cancer patients. Recent reports from the hospices themselves show that carers and managers say that an increasingly large number of their patients are reporting a history of medical errors or delays in treatment. Some hospices claim that one in three of their patients have been victims of delays or misdiagnosis. There is little sign that delays are improving. If anything, they are getting worse.
There are deep concerns, despite the priority attributed to cancer by this Government—I welcome the appointment of Professor Mike Richards as National Cancer Care Director and his making supportive care one of his highest priorities—and a huge amount of additional resource is needed. An additional 500 cancer specialists are needed. We need to spend £ 1.2 billion on equipment and £170 million on drugs, as Professor Karol Sikora recently stated, if we are to catch up with the rest of Europe.
All these aspects have a severe knock-on effect on the numbers who will be treated and cared for in our hospices in the future.
I wish to raise another matter with the Minister which is relevant to hospices and those who are terminally ill. It concerns the joint statement from the BMA, the Resuscitation Council, and the Royal College of Nursing on decisions relating to cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The matter was raised not only by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, in a recent Question for Written Answer, but also by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, at Starred Questions. The statement requires doctors effectively to obtain consent from a patient who is dying of terminal cancer if he has not indicated his wishes, even when resuscitation might be futile and unethical. Under the statement doctors are required "to sensitively explore" the wishes of patients regarding resuscitation in those who are dying of cancer. A very experienced and senior consultant medical oncologist at St Bartholomew's and the Royal London Hospital has written to me in the following terms:
"Many patients who are dying of cancer and who arc aware of the situation nevertheless wish to spend their remaining time without having to confront the issue directly. In this situation when a patient's heart stops, they have died as a result of terminal cancer and any attempt at resuscitation would be futile. Nor would anyone wish to resuscitate someone who had just died of terminal cancer, when nothing could be done about the illness which had caused their death".
These are not statutory guidelines but there is enormous pressure on doctors to follow the recommendations of the statement because of the fear that it would be used as an example of best practice if

621
a doctor was challenged in court on the issue. I hope that the Minister and his department will look into the issue. It is a matter of considerable concern to oncologists.
This important debate has highlighted the work and value of hospices. I have an enormous admiration for them and believe that we should aim for all those who are terminally ill either to have residential or at home support from a hospice. The ethos of hospices as an institution is one of the most impressive I have ever come across. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol said that they had engaged the hearts and minds of men and women. I do not think that that statement can be improved upon. Dame Cicely was quoted in The Times last June. As so often she had it right when she said:
"You're trying to give people the space for them to discover that they arc who they are and that it's all right and not too late. If you have cancer you have a great chance: there is much to do and share and learn from".
7.13 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, every so often the House has the good fortune to debate a subject that carries with it a deep resonance for all of us; and this is one such example. I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Walker for giving us that opportunity and for the superb and moving way in which he introduced his Motion. After a debate of this quality, there is little left for me to say other than to draw together some of the more important themes, and this I shall try to do.
Perhaps the best description of what the hospice movement seeks to achieve was one given to me recently by the charity that my noble friend Lord Hayhoe has supported so closely, Help the Hospices. A hospice is a place that seeks to add life to days, even when days cannot be added to lives; and to offer the best quality of care to every patient according to his or her needs or wishes. Hospice care is based on the simple idea that a dying patient is a living person; someone who deserves peace, respect and calm until the very end of his life.
I do not think that there can be any better guiding principle than this for the care of the terminally ill; but it is a principle that surely casts its net even more widely because it gives rise to a mode and style of palliative care that should, and does, inform every branch of clinical practice and every type of nursing discipline. Indeed, the idea that it rests on is the same one that makes the National Health Service itself speak as powerfully to us as it does: and that is the idea of human dignity. If there is any guiding belief that marks a civilised society—I refrain from saying too much about a Christian society, although I could—it is surely the belief that individual human lives and human dignity are worthy of the highest recognition in all that society does.
I am struck, as many noble Lords have been, by the predominance of the voluntary sector in the provision of hospice care. The hospice movement has its origins in the work of religious orders during the last century,
622
but it was developed in earnest after the Second World War, principally by Dame Cicely Saunders and two national charities, Marie Curie Cancer Care and the Sue Ryder Foundation. The science of palliative care was developed largely by those pioneers—a care that nowadays is also provided within NHS hospitals and in the community by GPs and district nurses. Hospice care is available to all, regardless of race, religious belief or ability to pay. My noble friend Lord Hayhoe made the point that palliative medicine is nowadays a distinct medical specialty, focusing not simply on the control of pain and the enhancement of life, but uniting as far as possible the psychological and spiritual aspects of care to bring dignity to a patient's final days.
I mentioned ability to pay. Patients do not, of course, pay for care provided by voluntary hospices. The greater part of the running costs of such hospices is funded from charitable sources. But, as my noble friend Lord Walker was right to emphasise, the NHS is also a contributor to, just as it is an important user of, hospice services. It is perhaps worth recounting some recent history. In the early 1990s specific funding for voluntary hospices was ring-fenced by the Department of Health, so that a certain budget was assured. Then from 1995–96, the funding was absorbed into the ordinary departmental allocations which had the benefit of enabling health authorities and hospices to agree contracts over a longer term and thus provided a firmer basis for planning ahead.
Before that, in 1993 Ministers had set a target. The target was that, overall and over time, public funding for hospices should match voluntary giving, pound for pound. There was a recognition then that the voluntary sector and the NHS needed to work together and develop hospice services in a structured and co- ordinated way and to plan services flexibly over the long term. But that equal division of financial responsibility, as my noble friend has revealed, has not materialised. Indeed, it is apparent that the proportion of hospice funding provided by the NHS is falling, not rising. That is a matter for concern. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Varley, and the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, in asking for the Minister's comments.
We have heard the point made by my noble friend and many noble Lords that across England the average percentage contribution from the NHS towards running costs for voluntary hospices fell from over 35 per cent in 1996–97 to 32 per cent in 1998–99. That fall coincided with an increase in the use of hospice services by the NHS. In other words, the NHS is leaning more and more heavily on the voluntary hospices and providing proportionately less and less means of sustaining that burden. Currently the voluntary hospices are raising well over £150 million a year from non-NHS sources, with hospice running costs rising at a rate of 8 per cent a year. There are real fears that with increasing competition from other charities, the National Lottery and even fund-raising by NHS trusts, the hill for hospice fundraisers will become too steep a hill to climb.

623
Let me follow my noble friend's example of St Richard's Hospice and the right reverend Prelate's example of St Peter's Hospice with the example of the Hospice in the Weald, situated in Tunbridge Wells. At any one time, this hospice is looking after 200 patients, whether in the community, in nursing homes or in the hospice itself. Last year, a total of 545 patients were referred to the hospice by GPs and hospital doctors. The team provides counselling and family support as well as training in palliative care to health professionals. There are service agreements with two health authorities and an active partnership with the local NHS at every level. Yet, of the annual running costs of £1.5 million, only £262,000, or 16 per cent, is covered by statutory income. The remainder of the running costs have to be met from charitable fundraising.
That is a tall order for any voluntary organisation, but it means also that any ideas for expansion of the hospice's services—additional beds, treatment for lymphoedema, or physiotherapy—simply cannot be countenanced without the support of partner health authorities. Discussions are, I understand, under way, but even now the Hospice in the Weald is receiving only half the rate of funding from the West Kent Health Authority (on a per capita basis) compared to that given to hospices nearby. Such a gap seems anomalous.
The picture is even less satisfactory when we look at support for children's hospices. The Association of Children's Hospices has stated that while some children's hospices receive anything between 8 and 15 per cent of their funding from health authorities, many others receive nothing at all. The average amount is less than 5 per cent. Compared to adult hospices, this is almost derisory. Although no doubt the reasons for the discrepancy are partly historic in that children's hospices are a comparatively new phenomena, there is more than a feeling here that health authorities are placing undue reliance on the ability of such hospices to attract charitable income. To echo my noble friends Lord Walker and Lord Hayhoe, I ask whether this is right and whether it is not something that Ministers should review carefully. There could be no better recognition of the valuable community service provided by children's hospices than a firm commitment by government to increase the level of statutory funding.
As other noble Lords have pointed out, it is impressive and extraordinary to look at the growth of the hospice movement over the past 20 years. Since 1980, the number of hospice units in the UK has grown from 38 to 223; the number of beds from 1,000 to more than 3,000. Of those units and beds, the independent sector accounts for about two-thirds; and this of course excludes the development of community support teams, hospices at home, day centres and bereavement counselling, all of which are an integral part of modern-day palliative care.
What is equally striking is the regional disparity of service provision. In the north-west, there are 66 hospice beds per million of population; in Trent, only 36. Why should that be? I should be glad to hear
624
from the Minister what research the Government have done into ways of making hospice coverage more generally accessible. Indeed, we shall have an especial cause to thank my noble friend for his Motion if we hear from the Minister tonight not simply a political commitment to the hospice movement and all that it embodies, but a concrete statement of aims and a sense from him of how those aims are to be achieved. For of one thing we can be quite sure: demographic trends, the increasing number of elderly in the population, and the increasing incidence of chronic fatal illness will make the need for hospices ever greater over the next quarter-century. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that these trends are recognised and that that recognition will be translated into support from government that all right-thinking people will welcome.
7.24 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My
Lords, I join the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Worcester, on being successful in securing a debate on the hospice movement. I found his remarks most moving. His patronage of St Richard's Hospice in Worcester has given him tremendous insight into the achievements and challenges of hospices in this country.
Like other noble Lords, I want to pay tribute to three important figures in the hospice and palliative care world. I refer, first, to Dame Cicely Saunders, who has rightly been mentioned by many noble Lords tonight; and, secondly, to Professor Eric Wilkes who in 1980 chaired a working group which considered the organisation of primary, continuing and terminal care services for cancer. He set the scene for the changes that we have seen in palliative care during the past 20 years. It is also appropriate to join the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, in admiring the enormous fundraising gifts of the Duchess of Norfolk.
Like other noble Lords, I am a great admirer of the modern hospice movement. Every noble Lord has mentioned at least one hospice he knows well and I cannot resist the temptation to pay tribute to my local hospice in Birmingham, St Mary's Hospice, which does extraordinary work for the city of Birmingham and its people.
From the foundation of caring for the whole person, the hospice movement has established the development of effective symptom control, openness, respect for the patient's own wishes and needs, and care for the patient's family as the cornerstones and founding principles of palliative care. It is this approach which sets this country among the world leaders in palliative care, as the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, pointed out.
My noble friend Lord Blease spoke vividly of the achievements of the hospice movement in Northern Ireland and it is the same throughout the United Kingdom. The care provided by hospices, the great majority of which are voluntary organisations, is

625
clearly unsurpassed. However, it is worth reflecting that in this country 60 per cent of people die in hospital. One would have to admit that too often their care and the support for their families is not all it ought to be. With staff under pressure, it can sometimes happen that bad news is broken insensitively, that families may be given inadequate information and support, or that dying patients may not receive the consistently high quality of care we would all wish.
However, I believe that excellent examples are to be found where the NHS is doing well. In the Bloomsbury area of London, a rapid response palliative care crisis support team, spanning hospital and community settings, is run and managed by nurses. The primary care team and the specialist palliative care team work well together. Both the health and social care needs of patients are met, including personal care. There are many other examples.
The principles and practice of palliative care, which are all about partnership and quality of care, must be available to all healthcare professionals, to people facing life-threatening illness and to their carers. The field of hospice and palliative care is setting gold standards in partnership working, as the right reverend Prelate said. That is why in June 1998 we distributed to the NHS three excellent guidance documents, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out. These covered cancer pain, the last years of life, and the provision of palliative care in hospitals. The documents, produced by the National Council for Hospices and Specialist Palliative Care Services, and written by hospice experts, are available to help all NHS trusts. Taken together, they identify how all concerned can improve the quality and care they provide for the dying.
That is a good example of hospices and the NHS working together. I was particularly interested in the reflections of the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, on her experience in the NHS. There can be no doubt that the lessons learnt in the hospice movement have also had a profound effect on NHS practice—it is not yet sufficient, but they have appreciably improved the quality of what the NHS does.
Another area which I have mentioned in relation to partnership working concerns joint appointments for consultants, crossing health and voluntary sector boundaries. I know from a recent visit to my local hospice that shortage of medical directors in particular is an issue for many hospices. We certainly support the joint appointments approach, with a medical director also holding a consultant's post within a local NHS trust. In answer to the question raised about the number of palliative care consultants in post at present, my understanding is that there are 245. That figure is growing year by year, and I am very pleased about that.
A number of questions have been raised about standards and performance indicators and the consistency of service availability throughout the country. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, pointed out, there is no doubt that there are striking differences in the provision available in different parts of the
626
country. That is one reason why, as part of the implementation of our overall cancer strategy, the Government are currently working to develop sets of performance indicators and standards for palliative care.
That work is being taken forward with the National Council for Hospices and Specialist Palliative Care Services as the voluntary organisations with specific expertise in that area. The work is an integral element of the Supportive Care Strategy and will play a significant role in ensuring equitable access to, and quality of, palliative care services. The standards and performance indicators are part of the generic national core standards which will be developed for cancer generally. They will be used as a tool by service providers, health authorities and, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, primary care groups to deliver and measure continuous quality improvement in services in a consistent manner across the country. They will have the potential for making significant differences to patient outcomes.
A number of questions were asked about the New Opportunities Fund and, in particular, about its palliative care initiative. My noble friend Lord Varley raised a number of points about that. As noble Lords will know, the New Opportunities Fund is a major distributor of lottery money and is responsible for distributing grants to education, health and environment projects determined by the Government. The New Opportunities Fund is allocating £23 million as part of the Living with Cancer programme to fund projects based on a palliative approach to care. In answer to my noble friend Lord Varley, I understand that the second phase of the overall NOF cancer funding programme, which embraces the £23 million, was launched in February this year. Applications must be submitted by May and announcements will be made in September. I very much hope that hospices will make bids and, obviously, I hope that they will be successful.
That brings me to what I imagine to be the crux of this debate: the issue of funding of hospices. I know from the comments made by every noble Lord in this debate and, indeed, by the enthusiasm and vigour with which my own local hospice has lobbied me in this area that the issue of funding is a matter of great concern to the hospice movement. I have certainly taken careful note of those comments and of the particular points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Walker, in his opening remarks.
In responding to those matters, I turn first to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Blease and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. They spoke of the intent of the previous government in the early 1990s to move to what is known as "50:50 funding". As the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, also remarked, that concept was withdrawn in 1994–95. My understanding is that it was withdrawn on the basis that it was not sensible to specify centrally what the proportion of NHS funding in each area should be, given the extent of local diversity, both of services provided and of alternative sources of support. I give an example of that. While noble Lords have been absolutely right to point out

627
that on average the NHS contributes approximately 31 per cent of the funding, the actual contributions to hospice running costs vary from 9 per cent to 61 per cent, reflecting local circumstances.
I was also asked about the move from central funding, which, I understand, occurred after the financial year 1995–96. Between 1990 and 1994, funding was allocated to the health authorities in England specifically to support hospices and similar organisations. However, since 1994 those resources have been built into the general NHS allocations. It is also true that guidance was issued to health authorities which made it clear that each health authority should agree a local strategy for the provision of specialist palliative care provision based on an assessment of the health needs of the local population and taking account of local priorities, available resources and patterns of services. I am well aware that there is a general view within the hospice movement that that has not worked through sufficiently. It is felt that it has left hospices with problems in relation to funding and with a lack of certainty about future funding from the NHS.
I also accept the point raised by my noble friend Lord Varley in relation to pay awards made by the NHS which the hospices will follow. I accept that if we make awards above the rate of inflation, if we accept the pay review body awards in full, and if we make provisions to upgrade certain nursing grades for good reasons, that will have a knock-on effect on the hospice movement. It seems to me that that issue falls to local discussion and, clearly, it should be taken into account by the NHS when it considers its resource allocation decisions with regard to hospices.
I have listened very carefully to the serious points made about funding. I believe that the way forward is through local discussion. The health improvement programme is the mechanism by which a serious discussion can take place, embracing health authorities, trusts, the voluntary sector and primary care groups, and where decisions can be made about the appropriate level of future support. Of course, the whole purpose of health improvement programmes is to enable longer-term decisions to be made, rather than the "short-termitis" from which, I believe, we have suffered in the past.
It is important to recognise that ultimately this is a matter for local decision, based on the local healthcare needs of the population, and that there will always be different priorities for different local health systems. I believe that that is inevitable. However, in reflecting on the points raised by noble Lords, I accept the need to examine how the profile of palliative care can be raised overall within the health authority decision- making process. I can assure noble Lords that over the coming months we shall consider how that can be achieved.
In addition, I very much share the concern of both the noble Lord, Lord Walker, and the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, with regard to what I believe they described as the need for long-term stability in funding decisions made by the health service. That point has
628
certainly been made to me by a number of hospices. On that matter, I can say only that I share the noble Lord's wish that the NHS could give more long-term certainty to hospices. I shall certainly explore what can be done to encourage that because I believe that it is important. It is consistent with both the whole notion of a comprehensive spending review and our wish to move to longer-term planning for the NHS in general.
I am also aware that currently approximately only 50 per cent of health authorities have in place palliative care strategies. Again, I accept the need to explore the reasons why some health authorities are able to develop strategies and others are not.
I want to make a couple of points before concluding. I fully accept the points raised by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, about the changes in hospice work and the move towards more home-based care. We should all applaud that. I am confident that hospices will always look for new challenges in the future.
Of course, I applaud and accept all the support that noble Lords have expressed for the hospice movement this evening. I understand the points that have been raised about funding. The noble Lord, Lord Walker, will understand that as a humble health Minister, I cannot give any commitment tonight; but I shall reflect on the debate. I have affirmed our commitment to developing a set of performance indicators and standards in relation to palliative care; to use the health improvement programme as a key feature for bringing about change; and to consider how we can encourage long-term stability in financial allocations. Again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Walker, for introducing this debate.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Walker of Worcester: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his summing-up and for his assurance that he will carefully examine the points that have been made—
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the time allotted for this debate has now elapsed. Does the noble Lord, Lord Walker, wish to withdraw the Motion?
Lord Walker of Worcester: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sport in Schools
7.41 p.m.
Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what they consider to be the role of sport in schools.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel that I speak for every true sports person in the land as I press the Minister to tell us how the Government see the role of sport in schools. Several weeks ago, the Prime Minister said that he wants to see schools finding more time in

629
the curriculum for music, the arts and sport. That sounded hopeful. But what is the follow-up to that? How will it work out in the schools?
First, I ring out a positive note. The recently published Sport England report on schools is excellent. Much more constructive thought is now given to this subject than ever before. Also, I admire the robust contribution made by the Minister for Sport, herself PE-trained; she has worked as a PE teacher and she is passionately keen to see much more participation in sport in primary schools. She is so right. That is where we must begin.
We welcome the development of "life line bridges" linking the best talent in schools with the junior section of local clubs. I could go on. But nothing must deflect us from chasing hard so that more time is given in the school curriculum to physical education and sport at every age group—the younger the better. Frankly, to achieve that will require a huge sea change on the part of headteachers in their understanding of the impact that sport can have on the education of the young.
We all know the problems: headteachers are overwhelmed by too many pupils to cope with; inadequate sports facilities; and too few sport and PE teachers, who work with enormous zeal and energy but who are just too few to be able to cover the ground.
I have spent time recently in teachers' common rooms during breaks. They are a hive of buzz, industry and bustle. Teachers are endlessly filling in paper and more paper. That is a burden which never plagued my teachers, or so it appeared, for they had so much more time to give.
As to the value of sport in school, I give four examples from my own experience: fitness, discipline, the art of concentration and temperament. I shall leave the subject of fitness to other noble Lords because I know that we are all seriously concerned about the low level of natural fitness. Young people are driven or travel by bus to school; there is limited sports activity; they are driven or travel home by bus, where they switch into the computer or television. That is a daily pattern which we must somehow alter.
As regards discipline, I believe that on the sports field it is easier to make young people aware of the real need for discipline. There is the self-discipline required by each individual as he looks to improve himself. There is the discipline of learning to play as a member of a team. There is the discipline of having to conform to the conventions of sportsmanship and fair play. We shall hear a lot about that in the next few years.
On the subject of discipline, in my view it is absolutely essential that the teacher should maintain a firm control—I nearly said "fierce" control, because that is what I had—for the game to be played seriously. As a result, much more fun is derived.
Let us take the art of concentration, which I believe must be nurtured. I was lucky to start early. At the age of 10, I was at a practice football game. The ball was at the other end and someone near me made a funny remark. Stupidly, my friend and I fell about laughing. The master went berserk. There were long blasts on the
630
whistle while everyone gathered at the centre spot. He advanced on me and yanked my ear and that of my friend. That could not happen today, sadly. He bellowed, "Concentration. Every games player must learn the art of concentration". He went on to explain that that is at two levels: when the ball is at a distance, one must always concentrate and be aware; and then when the ball comes, one needs complete concentration. He said, "Everyone will write me today a 100-word essay on concentration". On the next wet day, he discussed it in an amicable way. The word "concentration" was in my mind throughout my cricket career and spilled over into my classroom efforts, for what they are worth, and in listening better to speakers. The fact that it is still ringing in my ears 60 years later in the House of Lords just shows what a lesson learnt early can mean to a young man—a lesson learnt on the sports field.
Last and perhaps most important is the development of a calm temperament. Some say that that is God's gift. They say, "That chap has a marvellous temperament". To a degree, that is right. But I believe that it can be nurtured. Sport is a cruel, hard taskmaster. You are up and winning one day; losing by a mile the next. There are the quirks of form and elusiveness of success. No classroom can match the drama that a sports field can offer. That one must come to terms with seeking to keep an even keel through the daily strains of life itself has been for me the most valuable lesson of all learnt on a sports field.
Incidentally, dare I suggest that the scholars, to whom discipline and concentration come more easily, could be more rounded people if they were more exposed to the rigours of sport?
I am grateful for the number of noble Lords who wish to speak in this debate. I am particularly grateful to those who have put time aside this evening to speak on what is, I believe, an extremely important subject at a very important time.
Dare I say also that the Government have lost the plot a little with regard to the use of sport in making for a more rounded education for a huge number of young people? I urge the Minister to press the appropriate departments for a more vigorous and positive approach and, please, let it be with all speed.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, for making this evening's debate possible. I thank him for setting us off in such a terrific manner.
I start by declaring several interests as chairman of the General Teaching Council and of the Education Standards Task Force. My only other closely related experience is that I once made a film about athletics which I hope went a little way towards celebrating our somewhat better days of sporting achievement; that is, before we forgot how to play cricket, lost faith in our ability from the penalty spot and learnt to come last in ski-jumping without complaining.
All the interventions in this evening's debate will, I am sure, demonstrate the seriousness with which many of us treat the provision of sport in school. In addition

631
to the obvious benefits to physical fitness and health generally, sport remains a powerful tool in helping to shape young people's behaviour and attitudes. It can break down barriers and build bridges among individuals and, indeed, within whole communities. It can have a unique impact on social inclusion and local and regional aspiration, as I have seen in Sunderland, where I work as Chancellor of the University; a city completely united in love of its football club.
Twenty years after it was written, I find it hard to improve on the words used, albeit in a rather unfortunate context, by one of the characters in "Chariots of Fire", played by Sir John Gielgud. He stated:
'"Our games are indispensable in helping to complete an education. They create character, they foster courage, honesty and leadership. But most of all an unassailable sense of loyalty, comradeship and mutual responsibility".
Frankly, I could not have put it better myself.
As I am sure that we shall reach unanimity as to the value of sport, I shall leave questions regarding which party should be held primarily responsible for the current less than adequate provision to those noble Lords with greater knowledge and experience of the history of the matter; though I would suggest that the issue of blame is likely to be the least productive aspect of our debate. Having said that, to my mind it beggars belief that criticism can honestly be levelled at any initiative that in the space of just 18 months has turned around the literacy of our children to a point at which we are comfortably within sight of the Government's overall targets for improvement. That only goes to prove that miracles can happen when sufficient focus, commitment and resource are brought to bear. Surely a similar level of focus, commitment and resources will now be needed to be brought to bear on this problem.
For that reason I welcome the Government's announcement that as we escape from the bindweed of illiteracy, PE will once more be reinstated in the curriculum, but I rather despair at the low level of expectation contained in many of the proposed solutions.
We are told that from September of this year pupils will have at least two hours of physical activity each week, which will include curriculum time and what is termed "out of school" learning opportunities. Two hours is less than halfan hour each school day or even nothing all week if a match can be arranged on Saturday morning. I have to believe that 100 years from now, anyone looking back at Hansard will be amazed that this debate was regarded as necessary, but necessary it clearly is.
Surely it is only in Britain that we tolerate the sort of reductionist discussion which holds that we can either achieve academic success at the expense of our national sporting prowess and physical health or vice versa. It seems bizarre to belabour the issue when we can find any number of working models that deliver excellence in both fields of endeavour.
The private school system in this country has for many years seemed perfectly able to deliver a high level of academic results at the same time as developing a
632
considerable degree of excellence across a wide range of winter and summer sports. "Ah, yes", I hear the cynic's response. "But public schools have far more resources and are therefore able to fund the kit, supervision and, indeed the playing fields required to offer serious opportunity to each of the children in their care". "Ah, yes", say another group of cynics. "But public school kids come from more privileged backgrounds where sport is probably taken far more seriously", to which the only reasonable response seems to me to be, "Nonsense".
The fact is that this whole debate would be rendered irrelevant if we would only stop being two-faced about the barriers to success and acknowledge once and for all the simple truth that we have a choice. We can choose to prioritise sport, to ascribe real value to its health, social and emotional benefits, and to invest accordingly. However, that would mean digging far deeper into our pockets to find the money required to turn what to my mind are perfectly reasonable expectations into reality.
We need money to buy back the sports field sold off by the previous Government. We need money and commitment to train a generation of brilliantly motivated and highly professional sports teachers. We need cash to invest in the kit for every age group and, if necessary, every sport. We need to pay the groundsmen and the extra staff required to develop the skills and support the team competitions from which schools gather their sense of achievement. We need to ensure that sufficient funding is effectively targeted and managed for our Olympic hopefuls after they leave school. Then, and only then, I suggest to your Lordships, will we be wholly entitled to indulge our national preoccupation with whinging and whining on the back pages of our national press as we greet yet another Test failure; yet another near medal-less Olympic fiasco; yet another national humiliation on an international stage.
As long as individual success can only be achieved at the price of parental near-bankruptcy; as long as we look to our imperial history as a source of inspiration rather than our current levels of financial commitment, we are deluding ourselves and, frankly, wasting a whole lot of time and energy.
There is an alternative. We may decide as a society that we do not want it both ways; that we do not sufficiently value the benefits of sport. That is OK, but let us at least be honest about it. We could stop applying the odd million pound's worth of sticking plaster to this gaping wound and just retire to our sofas to watch "Match of the Day". We could even reinvest that odd million in making programmes about other people's sporting achievements, and possibly sell them abroad. Better still, let us invest the few bob we save and put it into the health service to shore up the support system we shall undoubtedly need as a nation of increasingly obese, unfit, couch potatoes.
In conclusion, this is surely what in policy terms is known as a "no-brainer". The health and social benefits of sport arc not in dispute; our willingness to

633
fund them is. In terms of its outcome, this is not an either/or situation. We can have academic and sporting excellence—
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that this is a timed debate and he is well past the allotted time.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I shall be finished in exactly 30 seconds. I hope the House will indulge me.
We can have academic and sporting excellence. How we achieve that is not a particularly complex problem on the scale, for instance, of the search for a cure for cancer. Give or take, there are around 25,000 schools in England and Wales. The question is simple: is the long-term health of our children and the overwhelming sense of national pride that comes from international success worth the price tag attached? It is all a question of national will, and the final answer lies in another place at the far end of the corridor.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, for raising the issue of sport in this House. As we all know, this is a timely debate.
I agree with the noble Lord that schools seem to have missed a trick by giving such a low priority to sport, especially team sport which I believe to be the most important. Equally, we all know of the problems of bureaucracy and form-filling. I do not think that we should try to turn political tricks on this question. It is much too important for that and affects us all, whichever side of the House we may sit.
It is difficult for schools in general and teachers in particular to keep up with form-filling and to look after sports. It is a sad fact that for many teachers it is not possible to devote the time they so unselfishly gave in the past to organising games such as cricket, football, rounders and, indeed, any team games, which are so essential to youth and what is most missing today.
This is in no way to denigrate individual achievements. A shining example which I was lucky to see was Lennox Lewis winning the heavyweight title, and unifying that title, for Britain. Another achievement, perhaps not so headlined in the press, was the dramatic announcement a few months ago by the noble Lord the Minister of his prowess at bar billiards and his championship.
More seriously, we seek to promote team games, which are character building. Though we may not make the headlines—with the notable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey—most of us will testify how we all carry the lessons of teamwork, which may well mean unselfishness and fair play, into our adult years.
We have heard the Government tell us that school fields are no longer being sold off to the extent they were. That they should be sold at all is sad. A rather
634
disturbing article appeared in yesterday's Daily Telegraph on which perhaps the Minister will be able to comment when he comes to reply.
It is at school that youth should absorb the lessons that team participation brings. All too often these days it is from watching TV that boys and girls learn how games are played and the antics in which their sporting heroes are engaged which stick in their mind. We are all saddened to see the increase in professional fouls and today's adage seems to be, "Anything goes provided you do not get caught doing it". That is a sad indication of what we are doing in this country.
That was not the attitude of past years. It was at school that one was taught about fair play. It used to be said, "that just is not cricket"—a saying which today would probably merely bring laughter. It is not as though such changes in attitude have brought us any good. We need only study recent Test Matches and World Cup competitions to see that the new attitude has not achieved anything. I hope the Minister can assure us that the Government accept that more is required than lip service to the reduction in the sale of playing fields, for instance, which I mentioned. We need a proactive effort to promote sports in schools; assistance to headmasters once again to promote sports and thereby the team spirit in schools. Those are sadly lacking at the moment and a generation of young people who do not automatically absorb such teachings in school is a generation which is letting down both themselves and the country.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I must first declare an interest as the chairman of Warrington Rugby League Club. Secondly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge, for asking the Question. I would feel more certain of winning a few Test Matches if Cowdrey C. was coming in at three or four.
I want to discuss practical examples. When we look at the Sport England survey of schools, it makes for disturbing reading. There is less sport played in schools now than five years ago. Even more disturbing is the fact that 95 per cent of primary schools have no qualified PE teacher, and 85 per cent have no part-time assistants in relation to sport. That is dismal reading. That is why I want to concentrate on Warrington, a town I represented; a town I know a lot about.
Although pressure has been put on the primary schools in relation to literacy and numeracy, in Warrington most of the primary schools allocate extra time for sport and PE. In addition, there are good links between the secondary and primary schools so that help can be given from one to the other. Warrington also had its own sports festival last year and its primary schools received very good Ofsted reports.
I want to talk also about what we are trying to do with the William Beamont Secondary School. The school obtained a grant of £278,000 from the Department for Education. Because the school is part of a public private partnership, the private partner put in another £1 million which enables the school to have 10 all-weather pitches, a new sports hall and better

635
changing facilities. It also enables Warrington to put forward the William Beamont school as a sports college for 2000–01. That means pupils who show prowess in sport can develop their ability along with their academic studies.
I may be accused of parochial preaching but I want to mention what Warrington Rugby League Club is doing. It developed a link with primary schools and is putting those schools in touch with their nearest amateur rugby league club. Since September 1999 that partnership has resulted in 5,000—I want to emphasise both boys and girls—receiving coaching in rugby football. That is a way forward for the future. In addition, it enables the club to look at the difference between participation and excellence.
The club initiated a schools scholarship scheme. Children who are outstanding in sport in Warrington can be offered a scholarship through the club, just as they would if they were good in arts or drama. They can then go along to the William Beamont school and develop their sport along with their academic studies. That is the way to spot the winners of the future and to maintain our sports. When I refer to "sport" in relation to William Beamont and the participation of the Rugby League club, I mean all sports, not just rugby. We are looking at children who are good at all sports.
The rugby club players are participating in the scheme. They encourage healthy eating and advise children on the right diets. They sit down at the schools and eat with the children as well. The stadium at Wilderspool will form the "wolf den". It was opened by my good friend Estelié Morris, the Minister for Educational Standards, and it will cater for children who are losing interest in school. It will offer them an education through the club and through the colleges. Players will participate, encouraging the children to develop an interest. They will be able meet their local heroes—we are the only professional club in the town—and find a new interest. I believe that by bringing about the "den" we will be helping children from the most deprived areas.
I should like to say to Peter Deakin, our chief executive and his staff, to Daryll van der Byll, the coach, and the playing staff that they are doing an excellent job, not simply on behalf of the Warrington team but in helping to promote it as part of the community.
8.7 p.m.
Lord MacLaurin of Knebworth: My Lords, for too long in this country we have failed to recognise fully the parlous state of physical education and sport. I mention from the outset "sport" and "physical education" because the two are linked; they are not mutually exclusive. In the past many experts have tried and failed to identify the difference between the two, but for what purpose? Physical education may not be sport, although sport is certainly a form of physical education.
Our youngsters generally receive their first experiences of sport through schools' physical education lessons. Gone are the days when children,
636
before entering school, played freely in the streets, in the fields, climbed trees and rode bicycles. Many enter school physically and socially under-developed. It is vital therefore that their introduction to sport through physical education is a positive one.
The responsibility for delivering physical education and sport to our young children is enormous. We learn from research conducted at the University of Exeter, for example, that the average child between the ages of 13 and 16 receives only around 20 minutes a week of beneficial cardiovascular activity. We know also that by the year 2030 there will be only 1.5 million children in this country under the age of five, as against 3.3 million in 1961. So we have a declining market. By the time most children reach secondary school, they are already lost to sport.
It becomes more important, therefore, to ensure that the links between exercise, health and well - being are established in the minds of our children from the point at which they enter school. If we establish good habits early on, while few will aspire to become international athletes, the social benefits of sport will remain and we will continue to find willing and enthusiastic volunteers on whom sport will continue to depend.
Therefore, it seems to me that we need to shift our emphasis to the primary sector where we need specialists in physical, social and health education who can feed in positive values in the young and create in their minds the link between these three disciplines, to introduce skill learning and to sow the seeds that sport is a force for the good in their lives.
Having then set about bringing physical education and sport back into the mainstream of school life, before we can make progress in improving standards at the international level, we need to recognise that there is a sporting continuum and that, at each stage of the child's development, learning must be supported by excellent teaching and coaching with a scientific base.
For many years we failed to provide sufficient resources for teachers and coaches. Many of our best coaches have been tempted overseas. Others have remained, making the best of a bad lot. I can hear people saying that we now have a lottery. That is absolutely right. But are the funds being spent strategically?
In schools, head teachers are saying that 57 per cent of teachers cannot deliver the National Curriculum in physical education. At teacher training college, most student teachers receive only 30 hours of physical education or sports training during their four-year course. We also know that since 1987 a further 97 per cent of 14 year-olds have fewer than two hours of physical education each week. These are damning statistics. Regardless of our political leanings, we should be ashamed of the way in which we have allowed physical education and sport to become marginalised in comparison with other subjects.
In the 1960s, we began to offer students newer sports such as golf, badminton, table tennis, and so on. Now it seems to me that the choice has become more

637
one of either opting-in or opting-out of the PE programme. The problem has been worsened by the decline in specialist teacher training courses and a subsequent decline in the morale of teachers in physical education.
Children learn discipline through sport; they learn to work in groups; they are given opportunities to show leadership; and they learn how to make good decisions. But we have almost written off an entire generation in physical terms. We must, therefore, redress the balance and aim by the year 2010 to have in all primary schools the specialists I have already mentioned. We must also do better than relegate physical education and sport to after-school activities for those few who are interested.
Physical education should be a core part of the curriculum. There must be more funding provided at the primary level to create the massive shift in attitude among teachers, parents and children that exercise is part of the education for life. Given the declining numbers in the younger age groups, it is vital that we present physical activity as fun, as enjoyable and that skill learning is introduced as soon as youngsters enter the school system by enthusiastic professionals. For sport to take the quantum leap, there is a need for radical changes in policy, structure and funding. The function of the Sports Council movement needs to be reviewed and altered radically. We must ensure that television and all sponsorship money finds its way down to the grass roots of all sport.
We have given many sports to the world. I earnestly hope that the Government will give physical education and sport a very much higher profile in all our schools than it presently enjoys. That would be good for all our children and our nation as a whole.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I heartily endorse all the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge, on the effect of sport on character building. I am, possibly, the only Member of your Lordships' House who has a diploma in physical education, although noble Lords will appreciate that it is a very yellowing document these days.
I shall concentrate my few remarks on the more practical aspects of physical education and sport. It is generally thought—indeed, it was mentioned twice tonight—that schools are required to provide at least two hours a week of physical education, which includes sport. But that is not the case. I have with me the physical education section of the new national curriculum, which states:
"The Government believes that two hours of physical activity a week should be an aspiration for all schools"—
an "aspiration"; in other words, it is not necessary. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that there were once two compulsory subjects in education: one was religious education and the other was physical education. I think it is time that we went back to that. Physical education ought to be a compulsory subject.
638
The report of Sport England, which was published last week, says that some schools do not have any physical education time at all. If that is the case, it is little short of scandalous and the Government really ought to be looking into the matter. Much is said these days, and rightly, about the foundation of physical education and sport being laid in primary schools. However, there is a snag.
Fully qualified physical education teachers—those holding a degree or a diploma in physical education and sports science—cannot, and should not, be expected to teach 7 to 11 year-olds. Their training is directed towards secondary age pupils and, more than that, to schools with a wide range of facilities, such as a gymnasium, a sports hall, a swimming pool, an athletics track, and so on.
It is no surprise at all—at least, not to me—that there is a shortage of PE specialists in primary schools. There is a strong case for including specialist PE training in the training of some primary school teachers. Indeed, some teachers in primary school have that as their main interest and it should be exploited in their training. Such training should and would be different in a number of respects from the training that people receive who intend to teach in secondary schools.
Perhaps the most important sports facility is the playing field, and here we have a considerable problem. The previous government—I do not say this in a political sense—literally allowed the sale of thousands of playing fields, both school and community playing fields. We are still feeling the legacy of that policy today in our schools.
I should like to inject a personal note. It relates to a matter that I raised during the very first week of the life of the present Government, just after they came into office. It has taken two years to change the system. Where there is local objection to the sale of playing fields or community fields—and there very often is—the matter must now be referred to the Secretary of State for his decision. That is the new position and it is an improvement. However, when I say that of 83 applications for sale made up to the end of last year only three have been refused by the Secretary of State, it may not be—I put it no stronger than this—as effective as might be thought.
I realise, of course, that the more rigorous criteria—there are more rigorous criteria and—may have reduced the number of applications. I believe that to be the case. But, on the basis of what I have just said, the position needs very careful examination. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take due note of the situation.
My final point concerns the range of sports and activities to be taught. Of course, things have changed a great deal since the early days when physical education came into the curriculum. It consisted then of physical training based on the old Swedish system of exercising, football and cricket. Every school should provide the widest possible range of sport. This depends on the school's facilities and the qualifications of the teachers. In some ways, it means that pupils

639
should be given something of a "taster", if I may so describe it, of the range so that their inclinations and strengths can be developed, be it in basketball, swimming, athletics, gymnastics, cricket, tennis, netball or other sports. Most specialist PE teachers can train pupils to a high degree of competence in a number of sports. The obvious question to ask is: are we providing adequate facilities for sport in our schools and sufficient specialist teachers? The evidence suggests that there has been much improvement in this field in recent years, but a great deal remains to be done.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I do not wish to declare an interest other than a particular enthusiasm for improving the situation for sport in this country. I believe that it is well known that I come from Northern Ireland, where I believe that for years we have done things better. To prove it I shall list our sports stars.
We are a province the same size as Lancashire but we have such people as Darren Clarke, Rowan Rafferty, Eddie Irvine, Dawson Stelfox, who climbed Everest, etc. We produce these stars and we win. Why is that? We have the highest activity rates of school aged children across 30 countries. We have the fittest schoolchildren in the UK. I read, rather sadly, the comments of Sport England's Public Affairs Unit, which states,
"In general, children are receiving a declining amount of physical education each week … The proportion of primary school children … doing PE five days a week fell from 4 to 1 per cent … The survey found that the vast majority of primary schools had no full-time".
PE teachers etc., etc., etc.
A hundred years ago we worried about malnutrition in schools; now we worry about obesity in schools. It is time something was done about this matter. We in Northern Ireland have been doing things differently. One of the key factors is that, since its inception, the Sports Council for Northern Ireland has always been part of the Department of Education for Northern Ireland. Education is managed by five Education and Library Boards, each of which has its own PE adviser. Our present Minister of Sport understands the system well.
The Sports Council for Northern Ireland has its own unit, which focuses primarily on the development of school sport. The Department of Education for Northern Ireland's strapline "Learning for Life" gives vision to teachers of the relevance of the physical education programme to the future lifestyles of their pupils and therefore enhances the importance of school and community sporting links.
The ethos of the strapline "Learning for Life" is promoted through in-service training for teachers and at a number of high level conferences which are held each year with plenty of attendant publicity. The Northern Ireland common curriculum gives children a broad and balanced experience of sport, and is compulsory to the age of 16 across a wide range of activities. Two of the key strands which are essential components of the PE curriculum delivery—these are
640
inspected—are: attitudes which encourage a sense of fun, confidence building, fair play and co-operation; and health related physical education which makes children and parents aware of the relationship between activity and mental and physical well-being.
PE falls under the unique banner of creative and expressive studies. Hence, unlike in this country, it is protected from being squeezed by the extra pressure applied by governments to the literacy and numeracy initiative, as outlined in the Guardian of February 28th and the Guardian Education Supplement of February 29th. Those articles demonstrate clearly the problems that arise in this country from such a policy.
The Sports Council for Northern Ireland has recently launched the Youth Sport project. This now operates in 600 out of 1,300 schools. This has led to a dramatic increase in the number of extra-curricular activities provided to children of all ages. Five schools of sport, one for each area, have been established with a special remit to develop excellence in young people.
All this adds up to strong parental expectation that schools will deliver a high level and high quality of PE across a wide range of sports; and to high commitment from non-PE teachers, who are prepared to give time and effort to "out of school activities". We have never suffered from the withdrawal of teachers from those activities that occurred in this country when there were industrial relations problems. Those problems arose many years ago but they still exist. Some 93 per cent of primary schools in Northern Ireland provide a range of five or more activities after school. There is strong parental support of extra-curricular activity, which includes local clubs and school teams. We are fortunate to have a large number of medium-sized community based sports clubs. All this is delivered by a highly motivated and dedicated force of PE teachers, whose enthusiasm is maintained by professional in- service training and the ongoing relationship between the Education and Library Boards and their PE advisers, who link in with the Sports Council for Northern Ireland and with the senior people in the department. Therefore I offer a better and an alternative way.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, when as a schoolboy I used to follow the England cricket team, it never occurred to me in my wildest dreams that I would find myself speaking in your Lordships' House in a debate initiated by one of its greatest ever players. Therefore it is a privilege, 40 years on, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, for the pleasure he gave me and my generation then, and for introducing the debate this evening.
When he batted for England, one of his greatest skills was that of timing. It is obviously a skill that has not deserted him as he has initiated this debate in the week that Sport England has published its report Young People and Sport in England. That survey presents a contradictory and a disturbing picture. On the one hand young people and their parents still attach a huge amount of importance to school sport. It

641
is shown to improve academic achievement, to reduce truancy and to increase fitness and health. But on the other hand the survey shows that the amount of physical education provided in schools has declined alarmingly.
People believe that schools should provide three- and-a-half hours of PE a week. Sport England states that the minimum should be two hours, and that it should be part of the core curriculum. We have heard much about the core curriculum from a number of noble Lords during the debate. I share their view, as indeed does the Central Council for Physical Recreation; namely, that sport should be included in the core curriculum. I understand that the Government say that two hours should be an "aspiration". However, the proportion of children getting even two hours a week fell from 46 per cent to 33 per cent over the five years between 1994 and 1999, so we are not even matching the Government's aspiration.
A further problem to which my noble friend Lord Dormand referred is the loss of school playing fields. As your Lordships will be aware, the present Government changed the policy of the previous administration, and since October 1998 it is supposed to have become much harder for playing fields to be sold off. One important change is that Sport England has become a compulsory consultee in the planning process and the decision is now taken at ministerial level.
In common, I imagine, with several of your Lordships, I have been sent some critical briefing on this subject by the CCPR, which claims that the new policy is not doing nearly enough to stop the sale of playing fields. I hope that when my noble friend replies to the debate he will be able to assure us that, if a playing field is sold, it is normally replaced by alternative school sports facilities.
Another serious concern is that the levels of skill in the most important sports of younger children are getting worse. Trevor Brooking, the Chairman of Sport England, was quoted in last Sunday's Observer as saying,
"The fundamental problem is that children are not being taught the basic techniques of how to hold a bat or racquet, or how to kick a ball. Kids leaving primary school at 11 now are. technically, the worst generation I have ever seen".
This means that the pool of talent from which the great sportsmen and women of the future will be drawn will be that much smaller and they will have less time to develop their skills than if they had had the benefit of participating in sport at an early age, as did the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey. I refer to his comments about playing football at the age of 10.
My final point concerns the question of sport for girls, a particular problem to which far too little attention is paid in this country. I wonder how many of your Lordships are familiar with Title IX—which is always written in Roman numerals—of the United
642
States Educational Amendments of 1972. This is the landmark legislation which banned sex discrimination in schools, in both academics and athletics. It states:
"No person in the US shall, on the basis of sex. be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits o?. or be subjected to discrimination under, any educational programme or activity receiving federal aid".
That means that, for every dollar spent on boys' sport, exactly the same amount has to be spent on the girls. It is widely believed throughout the US that it is this legislation which has been responsible for the huge growth in high school sport for girls in the United States. Before Title IX, only 16,000 women played college sports; now 160,000 compete at college level.
The sport which has benefited most has been what the Americans call soccer. Of the 18 million Americans who play soccer, 7.5 million of them are women. It is widely believed that that is why the Women's World Cup was won by the Americans last year.
Let me conclude with a quote from a paper which is probably not often referred to in your Lordships' House. The Omaha World-Herald states:
"As the U.S. women's soccer team takes its victory lap around the country this winter, playing indoor soccer games against the World All Stars in front of sellout crowds, they do much more than just celebrate their monumental victory this past summer in the World Cup. In a way, they are celebrating the landmark ruling of TITLE IX. which was a monumental victory for all women athletes".
I have not the slightest doubt that if we had similar legislation in this country the prospects for girls' sports generally would be transformed. Perhaps my noble friend will tell us that that could become an aspiration too.
8.31 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, for instigating this discussion. My only regret is that there is not sufficient time to do the topic justice, because, as other noble Lords have said, the recent surveys are quite depressing. The noble Lord introduced the topic with the elegance that I remember him demonstrating at the crease some years ago. My only regret then was that he did not play for Lancashire—where I, too, used to go in at number three.
I want to focus on what we mean by sport in schools, why it is important, and to offer some thoughts on its current state. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I reverse the question and spend time considering the role of schools in sport as well as the role of sport in schools—and schools, of course, are not the only players, so to speak.
I am grateful for advice to the Youth Sports Trust—of which I know the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, to be a patron—to Sport England, to the Health Education Authority, to the Trust for the Study of Adolescence, where I am a trustee, and also to teachers who have given me valuable insights.
First, then, what is "sport"? I do not wish to confine my remarks to competitive sport or to team games, important though they are. There have been moves for the past 15 years, at least, to encourage health-related

643
exercise in schools in all parts of the UK. This is supported by the new curriculum guidelines on PE, to which I shall refer later.
Schools can help to set patterns for future fitness, as can families, clubs and private facilities outside schools. Future fitness is partly established while young. Successive reports from the UK Department of Health point out that the UK has high levels of coronary heart disease. Regular physical activity has been shown to combat not only this disease but to improve skeletal health, with a positive impact on, for example, osteoporosis, particularly in women. According to the report Young and Active, the recommended activity levels are one hour a day with, at least twice a week, activity to enhance and maintain muscular activity and bone health.
Research from universities, the Sports Council, Sport England and OPCS suggests that young people are not participating in enough physical activity to acquire the potential short and long-term health benefits. There is a particular need to increase activity levels among young people who have a disability, who are female, or who are from a black or minority ethnic group. For example, female school leavers aged between 16 to 24 appear to have half the level of physical activity of males of a similar age.
Young people, of course, are not thinking about avoiding coronary heart disease or osteoporosis when they take up physical activity; they want to enjoy it. Enjoyment was the main motivating factor found in nine studies of young people and physical activity. Others included excitement of the game, improving skills, keeping fit, losing weight, being successful and relaxation.
Physical activity can make a valuable contribution to education in general, as others have said. It encourages collaborative working, discipline, tenacity, the ability to cope with success and failure, and self- esteem.
Traditional games lessons—with which many of us are familiar—may have the opposite effect. We were fortunate if we enjoyed games and were good at them. If we were not, then not only could this damage self- esteem but it could discourage us from any kind of physical activity in future. I remember, both as a pupil and as a teacher some years ago, the forged notes with the ingenious excuses as to why someone could not play hockey that day, and the cunning employed by some of the less athletic boys, who contrived as the cross-country run began to hide in the local chip shop and to join the run as it returned. We cannot force children to enjoy sport. We can try to offer a choice of physical activity.
Schools cannot do it all. Time given to PE in schools—as the Sport England survey shows—has gone down. That is not surprising given the pressures on the curriculum. I cannot see this being reversed, except perhaps in specialist schools. We need to examine the potential of after-school activity, of local facilities and of activity and research sponsored by the commercial sector. I know, for example, that Nike, with the Youth Sports Trust, is looking into the activity levels of girls of 11 to 14.
644
It seems to me that local health clubs and gyms, sports clubs and classes in, for example, yoga, pilates and martial arts, could be usefully used by education authorities to ensure that young people do some kind of activity which they enjoy and may continue. Maybe some kind of credit system could be established locally, where a youngster could miss a sport in school that he or she was not suited to do for something else possibly outside school.
The national curriculum for maintained schools promotes activity-based PE, including dance, games, gymnastics, athletics and so on. There is an emphasis also on gaining personal knowledge and skills about activity, and on planning and evaluation. The Healthy- Schools Standard has sport set within general health education. The GSCE and A level in PE demand not only active participation in sport but also analysis of what sport is about.
I want to suggest some possibilities for improving levels of physical activity and standards of sport in young people. First, we need a comprehensive national survey of health and fitness in young people. We need, built on objective surveys, to set targets for improvement and to monitor standards. We need more case studies on good practice. We need better links between primary and secondary schools. We need more training for teachers and encouragement for their enthusiasm. We need school inspections for PE which focus on extra-curricular activities and not on team sports only. We need more collaboration between agencies at a local level, such as education, health and leisure, and with the commercial sector.
I am not pessimistic about sport in schools. I think that we need to build on new approaches so that activity for all, as well as excellence, becomes a reality.
8.38 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, one can only adequately consider the role of sport in schools if one also considers the contribution made to schools by local amateur sports clubs. I hope that I may address a few remarks to that end.
The CCPR report, to which several noble Lords have referred, also said that the Government are addressing only half the equation if clubs are not considered along with schools, in particular the funding of clubs. Most noble Lords will be well aware of the important contribution that amateur community sports clubs make to school sports. Indeed, it is a growing contribution as the level of sports activity within schools themselves declines, as we have heard today.
Some of the advantages of having vibrant local sports clubs are as follows. Out of term time, sport is only available to most pupils through local amateur sports clubs. They often have much better facilities than the schools, whether kit or pitches; the coaching is invariably better. Sometimes the coaches are ready and willing to go into schools. The hard competitive experiences that pupils will receive competing in their local sports clubs is valuable. The noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, referred to the concentration factor.

645
There is wider socialisation to be had in clubs, across the age groups. There is also the learning of the importance of making a contribution to the club, without which the club will fail. There are the parental links that clubs so readily provide and which are hugely valuable and underpin good sporting achievement both in schools and outside.
Many clubs provide sports facilities that are simply not available in schools. In my own home town of Sudbury, for example, although 30 miles inland we have an excellent rowing club which trains young children from the local schools.
There is the vibrant link that the clubs provide between schools and community. We all bewail regularly in other debates the decline in community and the lack of awareness of citizenship. This is a real bridge that carries young people into the community, where they mix with all sorts of other people. It can become, and often is thank God, a life-long obsession where one eventually declines from being a player into being a provider, maker of tea, marker of pitches, fixer of fixtures. I play in the Sudbury Fifth XI—one has to be over 50 years of age or under 16—and an excellent side it is.
I refer to the remarkable speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the NCVO annual general meeting in February. It was remarkable for its vision and the extra concessions he announced for charity. I sincerely hope, as raised in this House in earlier debates, that the Minister and the Government will carry through to a conclusion, so to speak, the efforts that are now being made to help local community amateur sports clubs to do the job I have described even better by allowing them the same tax exemptions—income tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax—as charities. That is hugely important, and doubly important because it encourages local citizens to make contributions to their own institutions. Where that happens one can be quite sure that the contributions will be well aimed, well applied and well policed because people do not like wasting their charitable funds. I hope that the Minister will consider that point.
8.42 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, for initiating this debate and congratulate him on attracting speakers. Very little has been said in this debate with which I disagree.
As I was jotting down notes, the one thing that came across was that everyone thinks that sport is a good thing. That is rather reassuring. Everyone is agreed that it has gone wrong as far as schools are concerned. The crack that has occurred is probably as a result of the Education Act 1988. That is probably the collapse of something that was already struggling. Academic institutions such as schools faced a variety of fashions and academic pressures. The idea of a healthy body had been pushed on to the back burner. Finally, the 1988 Act killed it off because teachers had to count their hours—and their voluntary activity, which was
646
propping up an inadequate system, disappeared. We all should take the blame for that because we helped to set the tone. The Conservative Party has talked about the fact that we have non-competitive sport. Non- competitive sport is exercise. Sport is a competition. That is why we do it. That is why we enjoy it. It is fun. It is a competition. One is testing oneself against someone else. One hopes that teams are evenly matched. That is surely the essence of sport.
We have teachers who are not providing this base. That is something about which the Labour Party might have something to say. The Liberal Democrats in the middle will say, "We told you so" on both counts, but they will get no prizes for that.
If we accept that we all share the blame, we can then try to see what can be put right. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, showed us one example of the way forward. Unfortunately, we cannot follow that now because we have to start from where we are, not from where we should be. The fact is that one has to integrate and take these things seriously across the board. One has to be sure of what is going on.
As for the Minister of Sport—I have referred to this before—no matter how good that person is, he is a very small fish in a very big pool. That person has to attract the attention of the Department for Education and Employment, and of the Treasury.
The speech of my noble friend Lord Phillips about small clubs was absolutely apposite. It is something I have raised before. As we cannot expect teachers to do this, it is the small clubs which carry on and which provide the team organisation and the diversity of sport which modern society demands. We are no longer satisfied with kicking a football around, hitting a cricket ball or a tennis ball. We have a much greater and more diverse sporting world in front of us. We need to interest people in all the other minority sports. Apparently, in certain parts of the country, Rugby Union and Rugby League although well established are minority sports.
We have to try to achieve a situation where school teachers are trained in creating that sampling base. It must start in primary school unless one is prepared to give it about double the time in secondary school. If we are going to do that, we must look to the training of teachers—to new teachers coming into the profession and to teachers already in service. If we do not do that we cannot succeed.
Parents who are enthusiastic about sport will take their children to the small clubs. The haves and have- nots will grow dramatically apart. If we allow that to happen, we will create a couch potato child in front of the television or video screen who will go on to become much more a part of the problem. I refer to the people who talk about watching sport as opposed to playing it. If we do not address that, we are going nowhere on this issue.
Schools cannot provide every single participation activity as they did in the past. We have seen the destruction of the past. We cannot go back to that. It

647
just is not going to happen. We must ensure that the whole community is involved, and we must look at the situation as a whole.
I have heard the Minister previously on the subject of school playing fields and other activities. He gave a very reasonable answer, saying that certain small sports fields are now being disposed of because they are not needed any more, or are being sold off in order to provide an all-weather pitch somewhere else. That is a decent answer. He also said that sometimes the school itself no longer exists. That hits the issue on the head. It is not just an educational and school problem; the whole of that community is losing an asset.
The degree of consensus within this debate tells me that we must either all have it very right or very wrong. I wonder what the Minister thinks is the correct interpretation.
8.48 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing this debate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, when I was a child never in my wildest dreams did I think I would end up batting in the same team as my noble friend. It is a delight to be able to do so tonight.
It is a timely debate because we, on these Benches, launched our own blue paper on the future of sport last night. Copies are available in the Opposition Whip's Office. We want to deliver a commonsense future for sport. We still await publication of the Government's strategy for sport. I hope that the Minister may be able to give further information about the publication date tonight.
Today's is a timely debate following upon Sport England's publication of the disturbing results of its latest survey this week. It found that schoolchildren spend far less time on sport than they did only five years ago. It highlights 10 causes for concern about the state of physical education in both primary and secondary schools in England.
One issue on which we are all agreed is that sport matters in a child's education. It teaches our children life skills and it helps to keep them healthy. Most of us first experience organised sport in school and it helps to shape our attitude to sport as we progress through our educational careers and well beyond. It is thus vitally important that children are encouraged to become involved in sport at an early age, especially since less intensive leisure activities, such as computer games, are now more available to children. Schools should aim to make sport as enjoyable, wide ranging and well taught as possible, since schools foster recreational and international athletes alike.
As I argued in an earlier debate, it is vital that when we talk about using sport as a vehicle for social inclusion we avoid treating it solely as a therapy. It should be a discipline for excellence, too. In promoting sport as something we can all do, we must not forget to promote it, too, as something that only some people can do very well. A number of those are present this evening.
648
I was interested to hear from my noble friend Lord Glentoran about the successes in Northern Ireland in producing sportswomen and men of high calibre. I hope that we are able to learn from that example.
Sport England's survey points out the importance of having,
"experienced and qualified teachers who can motivate and help young people acquire the skills and knowledge that will enable them to go on to maximise their sporting potential".
I was interested to hear the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, about the issue of training teachers. The Sport England survey discovered that 95 per cent of primary schools had no full-time specialist teaching staff for PE lessons—I appreciate the reasons given by the noble Lord for that being so—and 86 per cent did not even have part-time specialist staff. Primary school teachers now receive as little as 30 hours training in their four years at teacher training college. The number of PE specialists in training is set to drop by 30 per cent in the next three years. There will be 1,200 fewer people pursuing those courses. What do the Government believe should be done to reverse that decline?
In general, children receive a declining amount of physical education each week. Falls in the amount of time spent in PE lessons are particularly pronounced in primary schools. Only 11 per cent of children aged six to eight spent two hours or more a week in PE lessons last year. That is down almost a third on the figures from five years ago. My noble friend Lord MacLaurin was right to say that it is critical to shift the emphasis on sport to the primary sector.
Next Wednesday is International Women's Day. That caused me to reflect in particular about the participation by girls in sport and PE. Reports such as Sport Uncovered have had some very worrying things to say about what is called the gender factor; namely, that girls give up sport, particularly competitive sport, earlier than boys, given half the chance. I have concerns about the trend in schools to let girls opt out of competitive or team sports. It is on the basis that the girls do not like it and can get perfectly healthy exercise by taking part in dance or aerobics. But I do wonder what this will mean for the ability of future generations of women to compete effectively in gaining employment in the business and professional world when they have missed out on an opportunity given by competitive sports to learn teamwork and leadership skills.
Surely our overall objective must be to restore sport to the heart of educational institutions. The question for all of us is how we and the Government can help and not hinder this process. I look forward to the Minister's response.
8.55 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, for giving the House the opportunity to consider the important issues of the role of sport in schools, which was his subject matter, and the role of schools in sport, which

649
my noble friend Lady Massey, rightly, I think, added to the subject matter. It reminds me of the Bellman in The Hunting of the Snark:
"No one shall speak to the man at the helm"
The Bellman added:
"The man at the helm shall speak to no man".
Perhaps I may find myself in that position.
It is particularly appropriate that the noble Lord should have opened the debate. After all, his outstanding career was launched at Tonbridge school, where I understand he was in the school First XI at the age of 13. It could be argued that he gave at least as much to his school in sporting terms as he took from it. For those of us with more modest sporting abilities—in my case, much more modest, although it was cruel of the noble Lord, Lord Sand berg, to remind me of my minor jest about bar billiards—we have to take what we can from the opportunities that are available to us, in school or anywhere else. One point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, and echoed throughout the debate, concerned the importance of sport both in terms of fitness and in terms of character building and discipline. In order to achieve that, sport has to be enjoyable and fun. That was recognised throughout the debate.
The simple answer to the noble Lord's Unstarred Question is that the Government place very high importance on school sport. We are committed to improving the quality of teaching and learning in physical education and school sport. We have begun to put in place plans to help schools to build up their expertise to help all young people reach their potential in the sports and activities which they enjoy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to the role of team sports in other activities. I hope she will agree that when we are talking to 14 to 16 year-olds we have to give them a wide range of choice. If that choice includes, as well as team sports, gymnastics, dance and outdoor activities, that probably is more likely to bring more young people into those activities which have the benefit of building fitness and character than if the restriction is to team sports alone. Good physical education and sport is not an optional extra. It must sit at the heart of the curriculum.
Much has been said about the curriculum as an issue. It is entirely appropriate that we should have had a number of references to the Sport England national survey which has just been published. My noble friend Lord Faulkner described it as a contradictory and disturbing picture. He is right. There are clearly some very bad findings in the report and it is only right to acknowledge them. But there are some good things as well.
My noble friend Lord Dormand was concerned that a wide range of sports should be available. The number of sports available in schools is still about eight, both for boys and for girls, and has been the same since the previous survey in 1994. The survey showed that 87 per cent of children play sport frequently outside school. That has not changed since 1994. Indeed, membership of local sports clubs by
650
children has increased from 42 per cent to 46 per cent. I do not know whether that encourages my noble friend Lord Hoyle. The other encouraging figure that I drew from the report is an increase from 62 per cent to 67 per cent in the proportion of children playing sport in their lunch breaks and from 74 per cent to 79 per cent in children playing sport after school. Although some elements of the picture are disturbing, there are some encouraging aspects.
On the issue of the curriculum, it is true that it is now an aspiration that all pupils will spend a minimum of two hours a week on physical activities within and outside the curriculum. The reason why it is an aspiration is that, generally speaking, we have tried to be less prescriptive for all subjects in the national curriculum than we were previously, and we have allowed that for some schools there could be a different balance. As for the two hours referred to by my noble friend Lord Puttnam, many schools already achieve that and more, but the Government want to see the two-hour minimum offered in all schools. I hope that will be seen as an aspiration which has some teeth to it.
In order to achieve that, we have taken a number of initiatives to which I want briefly to refer. First, there is a programme to appoint up to 600 school sports co-ordinators, who will have a major impact on the development of physical education in school sport, both in primary and secondary schools. I entirely take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord MacLaurin, about the importance of primary schools and starting from the primary school. The co-ordinators will organise programmes to bring suitably qualified specialist coaches into schools to support teachers and coach pupils. They will organise inter-school competitions, build links between groups of schools, and bring families together with schools and local authority sports development officers and governing bodies of sport. I was pleased to hear from my noble friend Lord Hoyle about the role of Warrington rugby league football club in schools.
The co-ordinators will be in place over a period of four years. Both in schools and in out-of-school-hours clubs, they will have a great deal to contribute to sport in school—and sport for schoolchildren, which should be the definition that we are talking about. After all, £160 million is available from the New Opportunities Fund and £80 million from the DfEE standards fund to support out-of-school learning, including sport, focusing on communities with the greatest needs.
A second initiative to which I want to refer is the provision of specialist sports colleges. I acknowledge, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, that Northern Ireland has had such specialist schools for a long period of time, but we are building up the number of specialist sports colleges. There are 37 up and running now; 23 more have been designated; and we plan to have over 100 sports colleges by September 2003. They will receive additional capital and recurrent funding from the Department for Education and Employment to raise standards in their specialist subject and across the whole curriculum. They will also work with primary and secondary schools,

651
sharing good practice and providing guidance and support to other teachers. They will work with local sports administrators and sports providers, aiming to provide a seamless pathway of quality sporting opportunities, from curriculum sport right through to sports clubs and beyond. They will provide opportunities in physical education and sport for all pupils, not just those with particular talent and ability.
A number of noble Lords made reference to the need for better teacher training and for in-service training, as was referred to in relation to Northern Ireland. That is what the Youth Sports Trust does. Sue Campbell of the Youth Sports Trust has been appointed to a joint post between the Department for Education and Employment and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which we are convinced will beef up the activity of both departments. So far as concerns initial teacher training, the Teacher Training Agency is reviewing DfEE Circular 4/98. We shall make sure that the Teacher Training Agency is aware of the concerns expressed and ask it to do what it can to address them.
Sports facilities present a difficult problem. The Sport England survey quoted one in four teachers as saying that sports facilities are inadequate. That must be a starting-point for change, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, rightly said, with all speed. Of course, some schools with poor facilities do a marvellous job with them. But that is not an argument for having poor facilities. The most important thing I have to say, apart from mentioning the general increase in educational expenditure, is that schools have been under-represented in terms of lottery funding. In 1998–99 the amount of lottery money going to schools and colleges from the sports lottery fund fell from £31 million to £14 million, and Sport England is committed to putting that right. It will now devote at least 20 per cent of its lottery resources over the next 10 years to youth sport projects.
I turn now to the vexed issue of playing fields. I do not want to make this a party political issue and shall try very hard not to do so. The changes that we have made involve local authorities being required to consult Sport England on all planning applications. That has been happening. There has been a significant increase in the number of local authorities consulting Sport England. The DfEE has made it a requirement
652
that all state schools should seek approval from the Secretary of State for the sale of playing fields, including consultation with community and other user groups. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Dormand that it is not enough to say that, because a school is closed, the playing field is not needed. Community use and adequacy of provision in the area as a whole ought to be the considerations. The Secretary of State for Education gives approval only when the funds raised are ploughed back into sport and education, and where remaining playing fields fully meet the needs of the school and community, both now and in the future.
I shall not go over the figures for those playing fields that have been disposed of. The figures that I want to leave with the House are these. First, of the applications considered by Sport England in 1996–97, 13 were approved against its objections; whereas between 1998 and 1999 only six were approved against its objections. That is a significant measure. In addition, because of the new legislation from the Department for Education and Employment, the number of school playing field disposals has dropped from 40 a month to only 12. One could be purist about it and say that no playing field should be disposed of. However, I hope that noble Lords regard that as a very significant improvement.
I have run out of time. I express gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for his praise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech to NCVO. The charitable status of sports clubs is a difficult problem, and if it can be resolved adequately it will make a huge difference to the provision for young people. But I hope that all of the comments that I have made show how seriously the Government take the issue of physical education and sport in schools. We have a duty to ensure that children learn at a very early age the benefits of physical education and sport and how much fun it can be. Then, and only then—we are not there yet—we shall build a solid foundation on which to develop our sporting heroes and stars of the future, and a nation of confident and fit young people who have a real interest in the development of their communities.
House adjourned at nine minutes past nine o'clock.

  General Pinochet
  General Pinochet
  Chechnya: Human Rights
  Chechnya: Human Rights
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  Arable Area Payments: Field Margin Measurement
  Arable Area Payments: Field Margin Measurement
  Long-term Care of the Elderly
  Long-term Care of the Elderly
  NHS Doctors: Resignations
  NHS Doctors: Resignations
  Former NHS Doctors: Resumption of Employment
  Former NHS Doctors: Resumption of Employment
  NHS Sickness Absence 1998–99
  NHS Sickness Absence 1998–99
  Local Election Pilot Schemes
  Local Election Pilot Schemes
  Police Officers: Whistle-blowing
  Police Officers: Whistle-blowing
  Racism and Xenophobia: Treaty of Amsterdam Definition
  Racism and Xenophobia: Treaty of Amsterdam Definition
  Police Service Radio Communication Project
  Police Service Radio Communication Project
  Afghan Hijack Victims
  Afghan Hijack Victims
  General Pinochet: Home Secretary's Decision
  General Pinochet: Home Secretary's Decision
  Asylum Applications, Northern Ireland
  Asylum Applications, Northern Ireland
  Asylum Applications, Turkish Citizens
  Asylum Applications, Turkish Citizens