Sitting of 22 March 2000

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

  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL [BY ORDER]
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be further considered on Wednesday 29 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  WALES

    Housing
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: When he last met the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss allocation of funds for housing in Wales within the block grant. [114262]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I meet the First Secretary regularly. We discuss a range of issues.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Secretary of State for that helpful answer. No doubt he worked very hard on that one.
    The Local Government Bill contains somewhat compelling incentives to transfer existing housing stock to registered social landlords, but is it the Government's policy to force councils to continue with those transfers, even when it is not financially viable or helpful to them?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that those matters are ultimately for the Assembly to consider, but, of course, they have been considered in England and, as far as I am aware, in Scotland, too. Options are available. There is no compulsion because there is a variety of ways in which to deal with housing: responsibility can be given by a local authority to an arm's-length company or to a registered social landlord, or the matter can be dealt with in some other way.
    Mr. Barry Jones: There is some anxiety in my constituency among Flintshire county councillors, notably Ron Hill and Ron Hampson, who want decaying council estates that were built after world war two to be endowed with new windows, central heating and new doors to make them warm, damp free, modern and up to the standards of this century. Will my right hon. Friend have a quiet word with the First
    962
    Secretary to express the wish that some of those estates be modernised urgently? If he sees him, can he ask him again for £25 million in Airbus grant?
    Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. He may rest assured that I readily convey his remarks and those of other right hon. and hon. Friends to the First Secretary when I meet him. I agree with my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd): housing is an important matter for our communities, especially as a large amount of housing stock is ageing. It is a question of being able to look at priorities and planning for the future.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the Secretary of State agree that, for every pound that is spent on the new Assembly building, a pound less can be spent on housing? In that vein, will he join me in congratulating the new First Secretary on breaking from the old First Secretary and announcing today that he is suspending any development on the new building pending another review? That is a good start, but the block grant for spending on public services can be further protected if the Secretary of State persuades the First Secretary to scrap any replacement for what already exists and works adequately.
    Mr. Murphy: It would be beyond my powers or responsibilities to tell the First Secretary or the Assembly what to do. It is for the Assembly to decide how to spend its money. I understand that the First Secretary is reviewing the whole position of the new building in Cardiff. I am sure that he is doing that with prudence in mind.

    Local Government
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: What discussions he has had with the Welsh Local Government Association about the Local Government Bill [Lords]. [114263]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): Both my right hon. Friend and I have had discussions with representatives of the Welsh Local Government Association about the Local Government Bill. On 25 February, I addressed a meeting of the Welsh Local Government Association co-ordinating committee.
    Mr. Jones: Is it true that the First Secretary, Rhodri Morgan, has insufficient powers to deal with the abuse of allowances in Cardiff, whereby the new leader of Cardiff council receives an allowance that is three or four times greater than that of any other leader throughout the United Kingdom? If it is true, what will the Minister and the Government do to amend the Local Government Bill to give the Welsh Assembly sufficient powers to deal with the issue, which is of widespread public concern?
    Mr. Hanson: As my hon. Friend may be aware, under clause 88 of the Local Government Bill, the Assembly will have the power to make regulations to require councils to set up an independent panel to review councillors' allowances. The Government are looking at the feasibility of including a provision in the Bill to enable

    963
    the Assembly to set up an all-Wales panel. The Assembly has certain powers under existing legislation to examine that issue.
    I recognise that, at the moment, local government has the autonomy to set its own allowances. However, like my hon. Friend, I think that councils and their members should bear in mind their responsibilities to the electorate and exercise their judgment with care and prudence.
    Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): I am interested in that response. I agree with much of what the Minister has said, but, with all the talk of modernising local government in the Local Government Bill, is he not embarrassed that there is a dose of good old-fashioned Labour greed? I am talking about Russell Goodway, the Labour leader of Cardiff council, who receives £58,000 and is the highest-paid councillor in Britain, working a three-day week.
    There is another point here, too. When eight Labour councillors refused to back Russell Goodway's £58,000 salary, initially, they were suspended. Will the Minister say what discussions he is having with his colleagues about introducing some true democracy into the Labour party in Wales? Earlier today, Russell Goodway said:
    I'm saying that in 5 years time, what's happened in Cardiff now will be the norm across the country.
    Does the Minister agree with that?
    Mr. Hanson: I remind the hon. Gentleman—he may have forgotten—that, in 1995, it was a Conservative Government who changed the legislation and allowed councillors to set their own allowance levels. Labour Members will look after the Labour party, and the hon. Gentleman should look after Conservative-controlled councils—such as Westminster. Although he may not be aware of it, the Labour party in Wales has upheld the appeals of the members who were suspended and has asked the council to review its expenditure on councillors' allowances. I reiterate that councillors and Members should bear their responsibilities to the electorate and exercise their judgment with prudence.
    Mr. Ted Rowlands: When my hon. Friend next meets the Welsh Local Government Association, will he tell it to get on with the fundamental review of the whole revenue support grant arrangement—which, over a number of years, has led to the most extraordinary distortions in council tax figures, and has particularly led to huge increases in some of our poorest authorities?
    Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. He will be aware that the Assembly and the Welsh Local Government Association have examined the formula and agree that it needs revision. They are examining how they will develop a new formula, to be agreed and in place for next year's financial settlement.

    Livestock Industry
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary on the future of the livestock industry in Wales. [114264]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I meet the First Secretary weekly and we discuss a wide range of issues, including the future of the livestock industry in Wales.
    Mr. Winterton: Will the Secretary of State for Wales accept that the livestock industry is in severe crisis? Is he aware that the deadline for the British Government to claim agrimonetary compensation is the end of April? Does he agree that such compensation is one very good way of assisting the livestock industry? Is he also aware that all other European Union states claim their full allocation under agrimonetary compensation? Will he claim the full amount for livestock farmers in Wales and give an assurance that he has no intention of reducing support for hill farmers?
    Mr. Murphy: A considerable amount of support has been given to hill farmers. The hill livestock compensatory allowance for Wales was increased by £15 million, from £42 million for this year and for last year. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point on agrimonetary compensation. However, he will be aware that £88 million has been paid to farmers in this country because of the high cost of the pound, and that, over the past number of years, much more than that has been paid. He will also be aware that the Prime Minister intends to hold an agricultural summit next week, at which there will be representatives from the farming community in Wales and all those matters will be discussed.
    Mr. Richard Livsey: May I repeat the question, in a slightly different way, that has just been asked? It is reckoned that farmers in Wales are owed £45 million in agrimonetary compensation for 1999–2000. Although the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned years prior to that year, we are talking about the current financial year, which is just ending. Farmers in Wales are absolutely on their knees. Will the Secretary of State go to that summit with the Prime Minister and advocate very strongly that farmers should receive the money that they have failed to get in the marketplace in the past 12 months because of the high pound? I am very surprised that the Chancellor did not deal with that subject yesterday.
    Mr. Murphy: I understand the problems that are caused by the high cost of the pound and by exchange rates. The hon. Gentleman is aware that we have to examine many other issues in trying to ensure that, in the years and decades ahead, Wales continues to have a viable farming industry. That objective will form much of the agenda in Downing Street next week, when I am sure that the point that he has made will be made forcibly by the farming communities themselves.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he or a representative from his Department will be present at the fanning summit in Downing Street on 30 March? In the absence of

    965
    the agrimonetary compensation scheme that has been requested from the Opposition Benches this afternoon, what other proposals will be taken to that summit?
    Mr. Murphy: I can confirm that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be present at that summit and he is aware, of course, that the dairy sector in Wales has serious problems. The National Farmers Union met in my office some weeks ago on that matter, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has also met the union. We will emphasise the importance of trying to do something to help the dairy sector in Wales, by examining promotional campaigns for milk and in other ways as well.

    Local Authority Representatives
    Mr. Huw Edwards: How many representatives of local authorities he has met in Wales since November 1999. [114265]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have met a number of representatives of local authorities in the past few months. In particular, since October 1999 I have met representatives of 17 local authorities in Wales to discuss the Local Government Bill, and I plan to meet representatives of the remaining five local authorities as soon as possible.
    Mr. Edwards: I thank my hon. Friend for the meeting that was held in the Welsh Office with representatives of the community councils in Monmouthshire. They are concerned about the 18 per cent. increase in council tax that results from the funding formula, and about how it discriminates against rural areas such as Monmouthshire, which also has pockets of deprivation. Those include Llanelly Hill and the Rother estate, both of which will be visited next week by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs as part of its inquiry into social exclusion. I remind my hon. Friend that the schools in those estates—Llwynu and Darenfelin—will be delighted with the Chancellor's announcement in the Budget of the extra funding for primary schools.
    Mr. Hanson: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. As I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), it is a common view on the part of the Welsh Local Government Association and the Assembly that the formula for distributing grant to local authorities has some faults and needs revision. Those bodies are working to produce a new, fairer formula shortly. On the second point, I am proud to be here today as part of a Labour Government who have made available some £50 million in Wales as a result of the Budget, which the National Assembly can use to tackle those very issues in regard to schools. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on his initiatives because the Conservative party would never have given that extra funding to schools in Wales.
    Mr. Graham Brady: When the Minister met local authorities in Wales, did he discuss the problem of the systematic politicisation of NHS appointments, which was identified by the Commissioner for Public Appointments in her report this
    966
    morning? Can he explain why that Government report has not been placed in the Library or in the Vote Office prior to the commencement of business this afternoon?
    Mr. Hanson: I have not had the opportunity to discuss that particular aspect with local authorities. It may be before the hon. Gentleman's time, but I can recall people such as Sir Geoffrey Inkin and Ian Grist, the latter being the former Member of Parliament for Cardiff, Central, who went straight into the chairmanship of a health trust following his defeat in the election. We shall examine the report, but I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that his question is an example of the pot calling the kettle black.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: When my hon. Friend had the deep and meaningful discussions with local authorities' representatives, was he able to discuss openness in local government? Many colleagues on both sides of the House signed an early-day motion a few months ago that criticised some councillors in Gwynedd for being economical with the truth when declaring their interests. Given that, since then, those councillors have had to apologise to the council, does that not show that openness in local government is very important?
    Mr. Hanson: I note what my hon. Friend has said about Gwynedd county council. The Local Government Bill will ensure that local authorities have a strong ethical dimension and that we provide an ethical framework to which councillors can adhere. On the question of openness, I urge all local authorities to ensure that the minutes that they take of cabinet committees are put into the public domain as far as possible, so that people can judge, examine and scrutinise effectively local authorities' decisions.
    Mr. Robert Walter: The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) was right to express his concerns about council tax increases in his constituency. However, if he were more in touch with his constituency—as I was this morning in speaking to the local authority—he would know that the council tax increase in Monmouthshire is 24 per cent. and a typical band D council tax will go up from £480 to £603. That is to pay for the four overspending local authorities in Wales. How will the Under-Secretary of State tell council tax payers in his constituency and in the Secretary of State's constituency why they are suffering council tax increases of more than 10 per cent. when the average for England is only 6 per cent. and the average for inner London is under 5 per cent.?
    Mr. Hanson: The hon. Gentleman would know a lot about council tax in England as he represents a seat in Dorset. Having said that, Monmouthshire still has the third lowest council tax in Wales. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognised that in his discussions this morning. The Assembly and the Welsh Local Government Association have agreed that there should be a damping scheme for 2000–01. The formula for distributing grants to local authorities is flawed. That is why the Assembly, the Welsh Local Government Association and the Government, as we take an interest in it, will look at how that formula works in future years.

    Toxic Waste
    Ann Clwyd: What discussions he has had about disposal of waste from the former Phurnacite plant in the Cynon Valley with environmental authorities (a) inside and (b) outside Wales; and if he will make a statement. [114266]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I meet regularly with the Environment Agency Wales—we met most recently on 1 March 2000—and discuss a wide range of issues. I have also spoken with the First Secretary about that site.
    Ann Clwyd: I hope that my right hon. Friend will discuss the former Phurnacite plant, as I have been talking about it ever since I was elected to Parliament. It was the worst industrial polluter in Britain when it closed down 10 years ago, and the toxic waste that was left is still on the doorsteps of the people of Abercwmboi. There is an impasse between the local authority and the Welsh development agency. Whatever method is used to dispose of the toxic waste, will the Government make available extra funds to pay for its disposal?
    Mr. Murphy: I am obviously conscious of my hon. Friend's interest in the matter. Indeed, some years ago she and I visited the site and I am aware of the difficulties that have arisen because of its situation. My hon. Friend may rest assured that I shall raise the matter with the First Secretary at the first available opportunity.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Has the Minister had a chance to consider the impact on the Phurnacite plant in the Cynon valley of the climate change levy and the—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The plant no longer exists. We are discussing the toxic waste that remains.

    Economic Policy
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the impact of Government economic policy in Wales. [114267]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I meet the First Secretary regularly and discuss a range of issues. I welcome my hon. Friend back to the House and hope that she is now fit and well.
    Mrs. Lawrence: I am sure that my right hon. Friend welcomes the investment in health and education that was announced in yesterday's Budget. Does he join me in welcoming the measures to assist small businesses in Wales, particularly the taxation measures? When he meets the First Secretary, will he urge him to waste no time in establishing a venture capital fund for Wales to help small business start-ups?
    Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the help that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has given small and medium-sized enterprises, of which there are 29,000 in Wales. In addition, the national health service in Wales will benefit by £1.3 billion over four years; £50
    968
    million will go to schools in Wales and £9 million to transport in Wales. Half a million Welsh pensioners and 335,000 Welsh families with children will benefit from the excellent Budget that my right hon. Friend announced to the House yesterday.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: What contribution is made to the Welsh economy by the Welsh proportion of the 284 Labour councillors appointed to NHS trust boards?
    Mr. Murphy: I am not quite sure of the relevance of that question to the main question. Members of local authorities in Wales, from whichever political party, have made a significant contribution to the quality of life in Wales.

    Learning and Skills
    Mr. Martin Caton: What discussions he has had with public and private sector representatives in Wales about the Learning and Skills Bill [Lords]. [114268]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): Since the Learning and Skills Bill was introduced last December, I have met, and discussed the Bill with, National Assembly members. I have had a number of meetings with representatives of the Wales TUC, CBI (Wales), the Welsh Development Agency and local authorities.
    Mr. Caton: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the creation of the Council for Education and Training in Wales gives us the chance of a new start for post-16 education? It will replace competition with co-operation in our institutions, and give equal values to different options in education and training after 16. The hope is that it will get rid of some of the demarcation lines in institutions. Will he join me in congratulating Gorseinon college in my constituency on its high-quality, cross-curricular approach, which has led to the college winning the prestigious Paul Hamlyn Beacon award for outstanding achievement in the performing arts?
    Mr. Hanson: I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating Gorseinon college on winning the award, as it is an important achievement. The Learning and Skills Bill aims to modernise post-16 education and training in Wales, to drive up standards and to address the skills needs of the economy, business and individuals. It also aims to ensure the greater coherence and choice to which my hon. Friend referred. I commend the Bill to the House, and I hope that it will receive the support of all hon. Members in Wales, and elsewhere.

    Child Abuse Inquiry
    Mr. Martyn Jones: When he expects to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the north Wales child abuse inquiry. [114270]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): The report of the tribunal of inquiry into the abuse of children in care in north Wales made

    969
    72 recommendations, most of which do not require primary legislation. At the top of the list is the tribunal's call for the appointment of a children's commissioner for Wales. I have already announced that the Government will table an amendment to the Care Standards Bill to make provision for the children's commissioner for Wales covering children in care.
    Mr. Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. He will know that I am not happy with the way in which the Waterhouse report was drafted, but its recommendations are very important. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the children's commissioner will have the widest possible powers?
    Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Care Standards Bill is being used to introduce the children's commissioner to ensure that the recommendations of Waterhouse on children in care are implemented as speedily as possible. The National Assembly is currently examining the matter of the commissioner's wider remit. We will discuss the remit with the Assembly to determine how best to take the matter forward.

    Child Poverty
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: If he will make a statement on the level of child poverty in Wales. [114271]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): The joint ministerial committee on poverty has agreed to future joint working between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations to tackle poverty across the UK.
    The National Assembly for Wales has set up a social exclusion unit to look at poverty issues and will promote effective joint working to combat family poverty and social exclusion in Wales.
    Mr. Williams: Does my hon. Friend welcome the increase announced in yesterday's Budget of 20 per cent. in the children's tax credit, which is part of the working families tax credit? The children's tax credit has been raised by £4.35 to £25.16 a week. Is not that an excellent way to tackle child poverty, and make work pay?
    Mr. Hanson: I certainly believe that the working families tax credit is a valuable benefit for people in Wales. About 75,000 working families in Wales will benefit from the provision, and the increases will be most beneficial for people on low incomes and for those who suffer poverty. Coupled with the biggest-ever rises in child benefit which this Government have introduced, some 335,000 people will benefit from child benefit increases in Wales. That is good news for people in Wales, and helps us to meet our targets of tackling poverty and halving child poverty in the next 20 years.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What does it do for child poverty in Cardiff when the Labour leader of
    970
    Cardiff council awards himself £58,000 a year for a three-day week? The council tax payers in Cardiff have to pay 10 per cent. more to finance that salary.
    Mr. Hanson: No amount of spurious fluff from the hon. Gentleman will hide the fact that the Conservative party opposed the working families tax credit and would never have introduced the increases in child benefit. The long-term child poverty that this Government have to tackle is the result of 20 years of Conservative government.
    I have explained to the House the position regarding Cardiff city council. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government will tackle child poverty, and that the Conservative party would not.

    Local Government
    Mrs. Betty Williams: What discussions he has had with the Welsh Local Government Association about the Local Government Bill [Lords]. [114272]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): Both my right hon. Friend and I have had discussions with representatives of the Welsh Local Government Association about the Local Government Bill. On 25 February, I addressed a meeting of the Welsh Local Government Association co-ordinating committee.
    Mrs. Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that the new deal that will give local councils responsibility to promote well-being in their areas is a significant step forward, and one that shows that the Government have listened?
    Mr. Hanson: The well-being power will ensure that councils are at the centre of their local communities. The Government have given an important power and councils throughout Wales and England will benefit from it.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 22 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.
    Dr. Ladyman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he has a duty to respond publicly to suggestions that are made to him for managing the economy? If so, will he examine research provided to me yesterday by the Library that shows that if a Government came into power committed to cutting the tax burden by as little as 1 per cent. a year, in a year when growth was slightly lower than expected they would have to cut spending by

    971
    £20 billion, and that proportionately £3.5 billion of cuts would have to be found by the national health service? As that is the Opposition's suggestion, does not my right hon. Friend have a duty to ensure that people have an opportunity to compare Tory policy with yesterday's Budget?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has touched a raw nerve. The only reason that we have the money to invest in the health service and in our schools is because we introduced policies of welfare to work, which were opposed by the Conservative party. We reduced national debt, which was given us by the Conservative party, and we achieved strong economic growth, when the Conservative party predicted recession and when their policies would have caused recession. The choice is very simple; a strong economy under Labour or boom and bust under the Tories.
    Mr. William Hague: A year ago the Prime Minister claimed in the House that business taxes were coming down. Taking into account yesterday's Budget, will he give the updated figure for the total increase in taxes on business over the lifetime of this Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: We have cut the rate of corporation tax, and corporation tax and small business taxes are now at their lowest level ever.
    Mr. Hague: Is not that answer an example of why nobody believes anything that the right hon. Gentleman says about tax cuts? The actual figure given by the Scottish Chambers of Commerce yesterday shows that the additional cost to business—[Interruption.] I know that Labour Members do not like hearing from Scotland any more, but they should hear from it. The additional cost over the lifetime of this Parliament is £25 billion to £30 billion. Characteristically, the Chancellor never mentioned in his Budget speech one of the biggest taxes levied on business yesterday, and that was the change to double taxation relief. Is the Prime Minister aware that PricewaterhouseCoopers voiced its extreme concern this afternoon about the matter and said that it fears that the yield could run into several billions of pounds? It fears that this will make the UK one of the least attractive places for large international groups. Is the right hon. Gentleman completely confident in the figures that the Chancellor has given to the House?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I am aware of the PricewaterhouseCoopers letter and its concerns. We believe them to be mistaken and we have asked PwC to discuss them with us. I believe that its assessment is based on a misunderstanding of the tax position.
    Mr. Hague: After what everyone has been through with the Government's figures over the past few years, when it is a contest between the Chancellor's accuracy and that of the most reputable and largest accountancy firm in the world, suspicion is likely to arise on the Government Benches. If the right hon. Gentleman will not acknowledge that business taxes are increasing, what is
    972
    the up-to-date figure for the total increase in taxes as a result of last year's Budget and the present Budget coming into force next month?
    The Prime Minister: As I have explained to the right hon. Gentleman on many occasions, yes, we had two years clearing the deficit that we inherited from his party but now, I am delighted to say, the tax burden is falling. However, I do not want to leave the PricewaterhouseCoopers point before I have answered it again for him. PricewaterhouseCoopers has written on behalf of certain of its clients. It is important for us to investigate whether that is true or not, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman is being absolutely fatuous in suggesting that that applies to the entirety of business in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Hague: Greater credibility would be attached to the Prime Minister's statements if he could answer a simple question such as the one that I just asked him. What is the total net increase in taxes coming into force next month? All he has to do is look at one page of the Red Book and deduct it from another page. The answer, even on the Government's figures, is a £365 million tax increase coming into force next month. On the figures from the House of Commons Library, which strip out all the fiddles, it is a £1.4 billion increase. Will the Prime Minister now tell the House—because this is one of the reasons that it happens—how many people will lose the married couples allowance next month without receiving any compensating children's tax credit?
    The Prime Minister: Child benefit has gone up and there is the basic rate income tax cut. The tax burden this year is falling according to the figures in the Red Book, not rising. For 1999–2000, it is 37 per cent.; next year it falls to 36.9 per cent. With the action that we took clearing the deficit for the first two years, any rise is less than the rise in the last two years of the Tory Government when the right hon. Gentleman was in the Cabinet. It is less than the rise under Margaret Thatcher and less than the rise profiled under Tory plans. In future Budgets, the right hon. Gentleman can also see the path of the tax take. The 10p starting rate, the basic rate tax cut, the increases in child benefit and the working families tax credit mean that Britain's working families are better off.
    Mr. Hague: The question was about the married couples allowance. For someone who is meant to know about the Budget, the right hon. Gentleman does not know very much. The question was how many people are losing their married couples allowance without anything to compensate for it next month. The answer is that 10 million people are losing that allowance, with nothing to compensate.
    Let me read the right hon. Gentleman a letter from a taxpayer—I will send him a copy. It says:
    Having received my tax code now for the year 2000–2001, I am deeply disappointed by the Labour party's continued lying and "spin" about the protection of the family.—[interruptionj

    973
    We know that Labour Members do not want to hear from an actual taxpayer, but taxpayers know more about it than the Prime Minister. The letter goes on to say:
    I read there will be a "Children's tax credit" that only comes into force from April 2001…How this new tax credit can be replacing a loss of allowance for this year is beyond me, as it is introduced a year later.
    What is the justification for the gap between the abolition of the married couples allowance and the introduction of the children's tax credit?
    The Prime Minister: They get the basic rate cut this year, plus there is a £4 rise in child benefit this year, and a £2 rise for the second child, and the average family will be better off as a result of this. If the right hon. Gentleman is opposing all these measures, let me point out another thing. He was a Member of the Government who cut the married couples allowance from 40 to 15 per cent. In fact, his shadow Chancellor cut the married couples allowance, cut mortgage interest relief at source, raised VAT on fuel and introduced the fuel duty escalator. So we will take no lessons from him on tax rises.
    In the end, the question is whether we have sorted out and stabilised the public finances so that the economy is strong. We have, and let the right hon. Gentleman get to his feet now and say whether he opposed all the measures that we have taken to sort out the finances.
    Mr. Hague: The truth is that business taxes are up £30 billion, and the Prime Minister will not admit it; total taxes next month rise by £1.5 billion, and he will not admit it; 10 million people lose a key allowance next month, and he will not give the numbers in the House of Commons; they will lose it with no compensation for a year, and he has no explanation to give the House of Commons; the tax burden continues to rise, even while the Chancellor denies it; and taxes are up by 8p in the pound for businesses, pensioners, drivers, savers, home owners and millions of families. The Government who promised that there would be no tax increases have cynically and totally broken their promises.
    The Prime Minister: On tax, in relation to the married couples allowance, again, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong, because of the child benefit rises and because of the basic rate income tax cut—plus the lop starting rate cut, plus the lower national insurance help. He is simply wrong on that point. In fact, because of the changes that have been made, the figures show that the average family is better off as a result of the Budget. Indeed, by April next year, when all the changes come into effect, on average, households will be £460 a year better off and families with children will be £850 a year better off.
    There is a choice between sustaining the public debt and going back to the policies of boom and bust—the right hon. Gentleman's policy—or sorting out the public finances with the result that we can have stronger growth, more employment, rising living standards and better take-home pay. The truth is that the right hon. Gentleman is fine when he is attacking us—as he showed when he got to his feet just now—but when it comes to his own policies, he does not have a clue.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Having just heard the predictable routine from the Leader of the Opposition—the man of all gags and no policy—
    974
    and before we hear the predictable routine from the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who promises to satisfy the complete wish list of the entire electorate from a single penny on tax, let me ask my right hon. Friend this: will he continue his routine of building a sound economy from which we can carry on providing improvements in our essential public services of health and education, and in the welfare of young and old?
    The Prime Minister: The single most important thing is the strength of the economy. For the first time in decades, under the Labour Government, Britain has come through a slow-down in economic growth without a recession. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, we had interest rates of 10 per cent. for four years and 15 per cent. for a year. What happened then? Because the Conservatives lost control of public finances, they had to put taxes up—they did so 22 times. The only way to sort out the economy for the long term was to take the difficult decisions that we took to put sound public finances in place with monetary discipline; then, the country is better off. That is the way to make working families better off in this country; it is the Labour way. We know the Tory way: it is tax rises, public service cuts and boom and bust.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) is having his own high-profile week, but may I point out to him that I do not think that Catherine Zeta-Jones will be alternatively attracted based on what he said this afternoon?
    Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that, for the Conservatives, the issue is tax cuts whatever the cost? Surely the legitimate question to the Government is: tax cuts, but at what cost?
    Will the Prime Minister confirm two facts—that although the projected underspend for the Department of Social Security budget this year is £2 billion, pensioners will receive only a 75p uprating?
    The Prime Minister: That is not all they will receive, is it? They are receiving help not only through the minimum income guarantee, but through the £100—to be £150—winter allowance; the 10p rate on savings; the free television licences for the over-75s; the free eye tests and the concessionary bus fares. We are doing much for Britain's pensioners, but, yes, we also believe that it is important to proceed with the basic-rate cut for Britain's hard-working families.
    Mr. Kennedy: The Prime Minister confirms what the Chancellor did yesterday, which was to recycle two old policies and promise a consultation. The tragedy is that, by the time this consultation reports after its completion, it will be too late for too many pensioners. Surely the basic state pension should be uprated more at a time when there is a £12 billion budget surplus.
    The Prime Minister: First, it is worth pointing out to pensioners that the Liberal Democrats' policy at the last election was not to raise pensions in line with earnings. Now that we have sorted out the economy largely by ignoring their advice, it is true that they want more. We have not just introduced policies with no effect for pensioners; it is not just a consultation document. The rise in the savings limits means that more people get help,

    975
    and the minimum income guarantee and the £150 are not illusory benefits. But what the right hon. Gentleman will never do when he explains Liberal Democrat policy is explain to people what the cost of that policy is. The effect of his tax policies will be that average families even on average incomes will be £5, £6 or more a week worse off. That is the consequence of his policy and I do not think that it is fair to those families.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: I listened with interest to the earlier exchanges on tax. This morning, I had breakfast with 60 members of my chamber of commerce and they and 1,680 small and medium-sized enterprises and businesses are grateful that capital gains tax has been reduced. On small and medium-sized enterprises and chambers of commerce, does my right hon. Friend agree that chambers of commerce have the grass-roots ability to be at the centre of the knowledge economy? I notice that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday that chambers of commerce can participate in the new enterprise firms if they are in high unemployment areas. May we participate and, if so, may I offer Sittingbourne and Sheppey as a pilot?
    The Prime Minister: The national enterprise campaign will be launched on 11 May and it will be a business-led campaign that will be spearheaded by, among others, the chambers of commerce, the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors. The measures that we have announced this year, together with the 3p cut in small company rates, will cut corporation tax bills of small businesses on average by nearly 25 per cent. Along with the measures on electronic commerce and capital gains, this is a good environment for business. Most important of all, the best environment for business is a strong economy. That is why it is so important that we run the economy in a disciplined and sensible way. I believe that business wants investment in education. The Conservatives may oppose extra investment in education, but I believe that many business people recognise the importance of education and skills for our economic future.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: When the Prime Minister takes his family on their summer holiday this year, will he pay the full cost of that holiday himself or will he expect some fat-cat acquaintance to subsidise him yet again?
    The Prime Minister: That question is typical of today's Conservative party.
    Mr. Roger Berry: May I welcome the biggest-ever real-terms increase in spending on the national health service that was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday? I note the silence of Opposition Members at this point. Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that there are potentially great health benefits from developments in human genetics, but that there are opportunities for genetic discrimination by, for example, employers, insurance companies and others? Will he consider referring the issue of genetic discrimination to
    976
    the Disability Rights Commission, which I am delighted to remind the House will open its doors in only a few days time?
    The Prime Minister: This is an important, difficult and new issue. As my hon. Friend is aware, from April this year, the new independent Disability Rights Commission will promote equalisation of opportunities for disabled people. As an independent commission, it will, of course, decide its own priorities, but I understand that the issue of genetic testing is one that it will consider in the context of drawing up its future work plan. The issue obviously has important ramifications and consequences for disabled people and I know that the Disability Rights Commission will want to consider it. I am proud that it was this Government who introduced the Disability Rights Commission in this country.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: I welcome the money allocated for the NHS, which will help repair the damage of the past two years. Is the Prime Minister aware that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was making his statement yesterday, the cash-strapped South Staffordshire health authority was also making an announcement? It proposed closing the Hammerwich hospital and the Barton hospital, eliminating the maternity unit and the dialysis unit at Lichfield Victoria hospital and slimming down the minor injuries unit. Will the Prime Minister promise please to intervene personally to prevent that very thing from happening?
    The Prime Minister: It is for the local health people to draw up their local health plans. I do not think that it would be right for me to intervene. If the hon. Gentleman wants more money for the national health service, he does not want the tax policy of the Conservative party. I am sorry, but at some point in time, the Conservative party will be forced to choose. Is it in favour of extra investment in schools and hospitals or of a tax policy that will not allow that investment to be made?
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Answer the question.
    The Prime Minister: That is the answer to the question.
    Judy Mallaber: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the announcement in yesterday's Budget that VAT on sanitary protection is to be cut from 17.5 per cent. to 5 per cent., the minimum for essential goods, will be welcomed by women throughout the country and will be of particular benefit to those on low incomes? Will he join me in congratulating all those who have campaigned for a very long time on the issue, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Ms McCafferty)?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly do congratulate her. Women's sanitary protection is currently taxed at the standard rate of 17.5 per cent., but from 1 January next year such products will be taxed at the reduced rate of 5 per cent. It is another Labour tax cut for the many.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Can the Prime Minister confirm that, despite the Budget yesterday, his Government are set to miss and to break his manifesto promise to raise the proportion of

    977
    the national income spent on education in this Parliament? Will he explain why he is allowing his Chancellor to spend almost three times as much on a cut in the basic rate of income tax next year as he has given to schools? Will he tell the House and the people of this country what has happened to his election priority of education as opposed to Tory tax cuts?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The proportion of the national income spent on education will rise in this Parliament. The percentage rise for this year is 8 per cent. We have put an extra £1 billion into education starting this April. That is more than the Liberal Democrats ever asked for. What happens with the Liberal Democrats, as ever, is that the moment we do even more than they ask, they just up the demands. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman explained to the country how he could spend even more on schools, pensioners and local government. No doubt he will be telling us that we have not spent enough on the health service either. [Interruption.] We did not quite get an answer to that. It is not possible to get all those increases out of an increase of 1p on the basic rate of tax. It is just not, and it is about time that the Liberal Democrats took a lesson in economic literacy.
    Mr. Paul Goggins: Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister this morning that the Government are to invest £250 million in the extension to the metrolink tram system in Greater Manchester? Does he agree that it is excellent news for the north-west and will provide first-class connections with Ashton, Oldham and Rochdale and, in my constituency, quality public transport connections to Manchester airport and Wythenshawe town centre and hospital?
    The Prime Minister: I remember visiting the metrolink. It is a fantastic project. The extension will be well worth the money. One of the benefits is that, because it is based on an integrated transport policy, it has cut car usage. It is beneficial environmentally and it allows people to get to work more easily. It gives people greater freedom. It is a first-class public transport system.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: Yesterday's Budget statement showed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, despite his many psychological flaws, is a man of greater intellectual and political ability than the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister now redeem himself by lifting at once the threat of closure hanging over the brand-new breast cancer unit at Glenfield hospital, Leicestershire?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know about the particular circumstances of that hospital, but I am perfectly happy to look into them. Yet again, however, a Tory has had the cheek to get up and tell us that we should spend more money on the health service, when the Conservative party is opposed to spending more money on the health service—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] They say no, but, a few days before the Budget, the shadow Chancellor was asked whether he wanted taxes to be reduced or spending to be increased and he replied that the Chancellor should cut taxes. The truth is that the
    978
    Tories know that they have been rumbled. They are not just a boom-and-bust party; they are a cuts-in-the-NHS party as well.
    Mr. Steve McCabe: If the Foreign Secretary visits Iran later this year, which aspect of Iranian policy will be of greatest concern to the British Government? Will it be the continuing reports of torture, executions and human rights violations, or Iran's weapons of mass destruction programme, which recently led the commander-in-chief of American forces in the middle east to describe Iran as the most dangerous state in the region?
    The Prime Minister: Of course there are concerns about Iran's policy in several different areas, but the question is whether we should refuse to engage with the new Iranian Government. We believe that it is better to engage with them, because there are elements with whom it is important to have a dialogue. That in no way diminishes our concern about other matters, and we shall voice those concerns in a proper way. However, the dialogue that we have begun with the Iranian Government is the right course of action.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Is the Prime Minister, for once, a touch embarrassed that the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments has pointed out that 83 per cent. of all councillors appointed to NHS boards since Labour came to power are Labour councillors—no fewer than 284 of them? Will he, for once, abandon his smug sanctimoniousness and apologise for his culture of cronyism?
    The Prime Minister: Now, in the country as a whole, about 70 per cent. of chairs and non-executive directors have no declared political activity at all; 50 per cent. of appointees are women; and 11.5 per cent. are from ethnic minorities. I am proud of that record.
    Liz Blackman: In the light of announcements already made, no one can doubt the Government's commitment to end fuel poverty, but there is still a great deal of ground to cover. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the inter-ministerial group that is charged with setting out the Government's fuel poverty objectives and how to meet them will report back as speedily as possible and enable us to eradicate that scourge for ever?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I can give that assurance. The programme will combat fuel poverty by supporting the installation of energy-efficient central heating systems in up to 1 million low-income homes. It is estimated that the residents of about two thirds of the households thus helped will be aged 60 or older. We have already doubled grants for people on low incomes under the new home energy efficiency scheme. From this winter, the fuel payment for pensioner households will be increased to £150. In addition, we have reduced VAT on domestic fuel to the lowest permissible level. All those measures mean that we have made a start on tackling a serious problem affecting millions of people in this country.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: On the subject of asylum seekers, immigrants and beggars, and given the Government's

    979
    welcome commitment to anti-racism, may I ask the Prime Minister to look at this Monday's editorial in The Daily Telegraph? It said of the Home Secretary that
    fanning resentment against … immigrants … is the height of irresponsibility.
    It also says that careful language is necessary and the avoidance of "cheap populism" desirable. Will the Prime Minister ensure that Home Office Ministers and all those for whom he is responsible do not speak or act in a way which encourages some of the press to pander to the twin evils of racism and prejudice?
    The Prime Minister: Of course we will not pander to that. However, there is a genuine problem with asylum in
    980
    this country. Unless reasonable and tolerant people deal with what are plain abuses of the system, unreasonable and intolerant people are encouraged. The proper way forward is to do what we are doing: introducing tough new asylum measures that will allow genuine asylum seekers through, but will halt those bogus asylum seekers who do nothing but harm to the cause of proper asylum seekers.
    Therefore we are introducing tough new measures in April that will replace the benefit system, open the new centres, which are important, and speed up the process of dealing with asylum claims. I reject entirely the argument that those measures are in any shape or form whipping up prejudice. They are, in fact, the best way of preventing it.

NHS Modernisation
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
Yesterday the Chancellor announced funding for the national health service, not just for the coming financial year, but for the three years following. Taken together with this year—the first year of the current comprehensive spending review—it means the biggest sustained investment for the health service: a 35 per cent. real-terms rise over five years, and a real-terms average increase of 6.1 per cent. per year over the next four years. That is a rise of more than double the average under the previous Government.
Yes, there have been larger one-off rises, but never a rise sustained in this way. It means that by 2003–04, NHS spending will have risen to 7.6 per cent. of gross domestic product. That is a huge increase in any terms. In a period of predicted economic growth, it is unique. It comes with an immediate injection this year of £2 billion extra for the UK, which includes the tobacco duty increase of £300 million.
We have done this because we believe in the national health service. We never want to see it broken up, reduced to a rump service for those who cannot afford to pay for private health care. The NHS is a unifying force in this country, and under us it will remain so.
Here is the challenge to us in government and to all who work in the health service, however. Everybody knows that the NHS needed the new money announced yesterday, but everybody knows, too, that the NHS needs fundamental reform if it is to provide the standard of care that people deserve in the 21st century. With the money must come the modernisation. A step change in resources must mean a step change in reform.
In our schools, we now accept that, though more investment is necessary, it is not sufficient. There is a real and often hard debate about standards, performance and reform. No one really believes that the one without the other will work. Now it is time to raise the same debate in the national health service.
This afternoon, I will set out the key challenges facing the health service, the means by which we intend to tackle them and the methods for involving the people who work in the health service in this vital task.
I say to our hard-working and dedicated staff in the health service: "You challenged us to come up with the money. We have done so. It was hard won and hard fought. There were many calls upon it—many places where it might have been spent. We rose to your challenge. Now I ask you to rise to ours. Work with us to make sure that this money is spent well: make sure that the national health service confronts the hard necessities of reform to improve the value that we get for the money that we spend."
Some health authorities and trusts carry out four times more hip replacement operations than others. We need to know why. How is it that some trusts can provide elective surgery for all their patients within six months, while in others one in eight patients have to wait more than 12 months?
982
In some accident and emergency departments, non-urgent patients are treated within half an hour, while in others there is a four or five hour wait. There are trusts that see nearly 100 per cent. of their out-patients within three months, while others manage less than 60 per cent.
The proportion of operations done as day cases varies from 75 per cent. in some places to less than 30 per cent. in others. There are around 5,000 elderly patients who do not need to be in hospital but are there because of complications between social services and hospitals over their care arrangements.
Some hospitals employ twice as many nurses as others to staff critical care beds. Why is there a twofold difference in the cost of care between the best and the least efficient hospitals? Some hospitals manage without long trolley waits while others have them on a regular basis. Some patients can get a routine GP appointment within 24 hours in some surgeries, but have to wait four or five days in others. The top 25 per cent. of trusts use their consultants twice as productively as the bottom 25 per cent.
There are huge variations in the proportion of patients at risk from heart disease, who get the appropriate drugs to help control their blood pressure and cholesterol. Nurses in some hospitals discharge patients from accident and emergency, and in others they do not. Some hospitals use physiotherapists to help reduce waiting times for orthopaedic appointments; others do not. Links between social services and GPs work well in some areas, but in others are virtually non-existent. Some medical teams are so much better at preventing and managing conditions such as diabetes and asthma than others.
Those are big issues. The reasons for the variations are of course complex. Some of the problems will be because of a shortage of staff and equipment, but some will be the result of poor management and inefficient organisation. Some will arise out of outdated demarcations between professionals within the service. Some will be systems failures, and some will be professional failures. Each of them must be confronted and analysed, and solutions found.
These are the five challenges that I set for the health service. First, there is the partnership challenge for all parts of the health system—GPs, hospitals, their consultants, primary care groups, social services and community health services. How do we work together to end bed blocking, reduce unnecessary hospital admissions and provide the right level of beds and services for each level of care?
Secondly, there is the performance challenge, to ensure that, using information, incentives and inspection, all trusts and primary care groups come up to the standard of the best; that we provide the right support and intervention for those that struggle to provide proper standards of care; and that the systems are in place to identify and root out poor clinical practice.
As a first step towards meeting that challenge, the Secretary of State for Health will later this afternoon give details of £660 million of the extra £2 billion for next year that will be allocated straight away to health authorities, trusts and primary care groups. He will set out how the extra money will be coupled with new incentives to ensure that every pound provides value for money.

983
Thirdly, there is the challenge for the professions to strip out unnecessary demarcations, introduce more flexible training and working practices and ensure that doctors do not use time dealing with patients who could be treated safely by other health care staff.
Fourthly, there is the patient care challenge. Hospitals and primary care groups should ensure that they all adopt best practice, design out delays and introduce convenient booking systems so that patients with the most serious conditions get treated quickly, and no one has to wait too long for an operation that they need.
Fifthly, there is the challenge on prevention: to balance spending on tackling the causes of ill health with treating illness; to develop a more systematic approach to treating people at risk from chronic diseases; and to persuade more people to play their part in achieving better health by adopting a more healthy life style.
Those are tough challenges. Together we need to find answers. If excellence can happen in one part of the country, I say, "Why can it not happen in all parts of the country?"
In the past two to three years, there has been substantial change and improvement. The internal market has gone. A record number of hospitals have been built. Nurses are returning to the health service. More doctors are in training. There are new services, such as NHS Direct. New standard procedures have just been published for cancer and heart treatment. Casualty departments are being modernised. There is the new Commission for Health Improvement, an Ofsted for the NHS, charged with raising standards in all hospitals, and a new institute to advise on the best treatments and drugs.
But we all know that that has not been enough, and too often the pressure of change has been made doubly painful by the pressure of scarce resources. Now we have a chance to put the extra money to work.
I have set out the challenges, but I offer to meet them in partnership with those in the NHS. In the next few months, the Secretary of State for Health and I will meet and talk to the people responsible for health care in every part of the country. We will consult the leaders of the professions and the health organisations.
For each of the five challenge areas, there will be a dedicated unit to examine the problems and come up with solutions.
Madam Speaker: Order. There are too many conversations taking place around the Chamber.
The Prime Minister: The units will be jointly led by a Health Minister and a key leader from the health service.
The health service is a national health service, and I have therefore invited the First Minister in Scotland and the First Secretary in Wales to join me in a UK-wide group to develop and drive through the reform that we devise.
In addition, for England, a new Cabinet committee chaired by me will be established to agree and monitor the standards of service and improvements that people can expect by the end of the financial year 2003–04.
In July, we will publish a detailed four-year action plan for the NHS. It will outline the improvements that we seek, the changes necessary to achieve them and the
984
timetable for their delivery. That will not complete the journey of renewal for the NHS, but it will take us a long way towards our destination.
It will take tough, often painful decisions about change in order to make progress. However, I want all parts of the health service to sign up to the plan, to feel ownership of it, to agree the priorities we set out, and to help us deliver them. I want the country to unite around it for the future.
However, I do not and will not yield to those who believe that the NHS has had its day. It has not. A modernised health service, not private medical insurance, is the future. The values of the health service are every bit as relevant today as they were 50 years ago, but they have to be applied in a different way, for a different age.
The health service is one of the great institutions that binds our country together. It is one of the great civilising achievements of the 20th century.
It is our task as the party that created the national health service to renew it for the 21st century and defeat the pessimists and the privatisers who would see it dismantled.
Mr. William Hague: The media informed us throughout the day that we would hear the Prime Minister's plan for the reform and modernisation of the health service. There was obviously some mistake in their briefing. If all the clichés and waffle that one could express about the health service had been swept into a heap, the result would be remarkably similar to the Prime Minister's statement.
The statement included such concepts as, "We must now all work together"—brilliant idea! The Prime Minister said that we must all match the standard of the best—what a very innovative thought! He suggested that together, we need to find the answers—absolutely inspirational! There will be a new Cabinet committee chaired by the Prime Minister. Wow! A new Cabinet committee! By July, there will even be a timetable for delivery. We believed that 1999 would be the year of delivery, but there will be a timetable for delivery by the middle of 2000. Today, the Prime Minister produced a timetable for a timetable.
To avoid further distortion by the Prime Minister, I make it clear from the outset that we welcome the additional funding for the national health service. We have always provided additional funding for the health service. However, the fact that the Prime Minister has made his first statement in three years about a matter of domestic policy is a clear demonstration of the Government's abject failure. The need to relaunch their policies on the health service clearly shows that they have failed so far.
After three years of mismanaging the health service, the Prime Minister has the nerve to make a statement about professional failures. What about ministerial failures in running the health service in the past three years? Through his statement, the Prime Minister has taken personal responsibility for the health service, from the Secretary of State for Health. We shall now hold him personally responsible.
Does the Prime Minister now accept that the problems of the NHS have become worse since the Government took office? Is it not the case that the out-patient waiting

985
list has doubled, with 250,000 more people waiting to get on the waiting list? Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten that his promise to take 100,000 people off the waiting list was an early pledge? When he said that, people thought that he meant early in the Parliament, not early in the next millennium.
Now the Prime Minister is launching yet another new initiative, setting out on yet another crusade to save the health service. People remember the Chancellor's £21 billion announcement of two years ago, which turned out to be £3 billion a year, and that the promised improvements did not take place. The right hon. Gentleman may have fiddled the figures before, but now people have figured the fiddles: they know what the Government are up to and they know that the Government have let people down. Will he accept that one reason for the letdown, which must be seriously considered in all those discussions that he is to have, is the way that clinical priorities have been distorted? Will he recognise that that has happened?
The chairman of the British Medical Association consultants committee, Dr. Peter Hawker, says that the Government have tested
the tolerance of patients who are waiting even longer for treatment, and the goodwill of Health Service staff by persisting with an initiative that distorts clinical priorities and denies care to people in more acute medical need.
That is what the BMA consultants think, so if the Prime Minister is to go around listening to people, that is the sort of thing that he will hear. He had better start thinking about it now. His Secretary of State claims that there is no distortion. Why does he not tell the Secretary of State to wake up, get into the real world and acknowledge that there is distortion? He has to deal with that soon, because is it not the result of such distortion that 160,000 people felt compelled in the past year to pay for their own operations rather than rely on the NHS? That is the situation—the situation that the right hon. Gentleman has created.
Is it not the Government's failure that whether people have money has become more important to their health care under Labour's management of the health system than ever before in the history of the health service? Is that not the classic story of what happens when the system is run by ill-informed and interfering busybodies whose only interest is in newspaper headlines and who produce the exact opposite effect of that which they intend? Can we have a guarantee in the Prime Minister's new, relaunched plan for the NHS to end the distortion of clinical priorities and a guarantee based on waiting times and clinical need? Why does he not set aside all the pride of the past few years and support a guarantee on that along the lines of the patients guarantee put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)? Can he not see that there is no point announcing money—[Interruption.] Well, the right hon. Gentleman will find that these points come up from the health professionals, so he had better start listening to them.
Can the Prime Minister not see that there is no point announcing money for the NHS unless we make sure that it gets to the patient being treated? This time, will he get the money into the hands of people who know what to do? The Government's record has not been encouraging; it has been a story of centralisation, with decisions taken further and further away from patients. What is more, have not the people whom he has trusted to take decisions
986
been appointed not on the basis of what they know about the NHS, but on how much crawling and toadying they have done to the Labour party leadership?
Has the Prime Minister read the report of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, who says:
It is clear that there have been instances where a person's political association has been a decisive factor in the consideration of their … appointments …
Less successful candidates have been brought forward to replace those … identified on merit …?
There is evidence to indicate that candidates who declare political activity on behalf of the Labour party have a better chance of being appointed than other candidates. That is the evidence to which the right hon. Gentleman did not respond at Question Time. Can he not see that there is no point in his wringing his hands and gnashing his teeth about people in the health service when he has produced a system of appointments debased, corrupted and contorted by the crony culture that he has built all around him?
Is not that culture also one of the distortion of numbers? Does the Prime Minister realise that no one any longer believes the figures that he presents about the health service? When people hear about the £2 billion, they know that there are already £1 billion-worth of deficits in the health authorities and £200 million of underfunded pay awards. People wonder what will happen with the £2 billion. Unless the Prime Minister can give positive answers to my hon. Friends' questions about health facilities that are closing now, and whether that will change under his plan, the figures that he is reciting will not be believed in the country at large.
Now that the right hon. Gentleman has finally recognised that he is presiding over a permanent crisis in the health service, is it not time to put in place a proper programme of reform? Is it not time that we had health care based on clinical need? It is not time that we had money going as close as possible to the patient? Is it not time that the Prime Minister co-operated with all parts of the health care sector—the NHS and the private sector—in increasing the total resources available for health care? Is it not time that he got rid of his ideological blinkers, his crony appointments and his failed approach based on political priorities?
Is it not true that this statement, which contained so many clichés and so little in actual announcements, is the ultimate demonstration of all mouth and no delivery? Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman started to deliver?
The Prime Minister: If anyone wants to know why the Tories should not be trusted with the national health service, they need only listen to that contribution from the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). The Tories opposed the formation of the health service, and now they oppose the plan to modernise and reform it. It is unbelievable. [HoN. MEMBERS: "What plan?' What we have set out has been welcomed by every group in the national health service, but it is opposed by the Conservative party. As for the health record, we are putting in a 6 per cent. real-terms increase, which is double what the Conservative party put in. The right hon. Gentleman's priorities, which include tax cuts for a few, would mean that the Tories could not possibly afford that sum of money.
We know already that the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to the tobacco duty increase. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is right. [Interruption.] So that would be

987
£300 million out of the £2 billion straight away. [Interruption.] Well, the right hon. Gentleman attacked the increase in tobacco duty yesterday, presumably not because he supported it. Let me state the position that we inherited. The number of beds had been cut by 40,000; the number of nurses in training had been cut; the hospital building programme had stalled; waiting lists for in and out-patients were at record levels, and there was a £500 million deficit.
If hon. Members want to know how good the right hon. Gentleman would be at managing the health service, let me point out his record when he was in charge of the Welsh national health service. When he was in charge of the health service in Wales, it lost doctors; it lost 1,200 hospital beds; waiting lists rose by 6,000; 300 nurses, midwives and health visitors were cut; and health spending increases were just a little over 1 per cent. So we know what would happen if the Tories were put back in charge.
The right hon. Gentleman goes on about private health care. We are perfectly happy to co-operate with the private sector, but we oppose forcing people to take out private health insurance. In case the right hon. Gentleman should deny that that is his party's policy—as Tories try to do occasionally—I shall quote his health spokesman. When he explained Conservative party policy, he said that
people would look to the NHS to provide them with service when they had serious life-threatening conditions, and would look to their private insurance to help them with those things where the NHS had to ask them to wait.
That is why the right hon. Gentleman's health spokesman called the policy a "Trojan horse". It is a Trojan horse.
However, I would have hoped that the right hon. Gentleman could support the process that we have set out today. Having delivered the money, we will now sit down with people in the health service and work out how it is best spent and how we modernise and reform the system. Of course it is right for us to talk to those people before we publish the plan. I make no apology for that; they asked for a promise, and we have delivered it. What the right hon. Gentleman has done today is put himself outside the consensus in the country that recognises that, yes, the health service needs more money, but it also needs to reform and change. We, the party that created the health service, will now work with people in the health service to rebuild it. From today's response, those people now know that the right hon. Gentleman would destroy it.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Yesterday's announcement of additional funds for the health service is welcome news indeed. I also agree—as, I am sure, do Members in all parts of the House—that if we want to take the country with us, it makes sense to proceed with a view to the future rather than merely fighting past battles. Does the Prime Minister accept that that process would be assisted if he acknowledged that those of us who have argued for the injection of roughly the sums announced yesterday have not been behaving irresponsibly, as that is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
Will the Prime Minister also acknowledge that, in conducting his review, he should be upfront with the profession and the public, and openly admit that waiting
988
list targets have distorted clinical priorities? He has cited the deplorable state of affairs in which 5,000 elderly people are languishing in hospital because no other facilities are available. Does he accept that the position is not helped by the fact that the Government have yet to respond to the findings of the royal commission on long-term care for the elderly, and that that too must be seen as part of the process? The response would be incomplete if it did not take account of those findings.
Will the Prime Minister confirm, given that the review will be rather centralised, that the extra money will find its way down to the regions—to both trusts and health authorities? All too often, extra money announced at the centre is not deployed as effectively as it might otherwise be because of insufficient flexibility locally.
At present many trusts are in deficit, and are having to conduct reviews as we speak. As we heard at Prime Minister's questions, closures are imminent. Given the extra money that has been announced, will the Prime Minister instruct the trusts to put their reviews on hold?
Finally, may I raise the vexed issue of appointments to trusts? A commission is being established for the appointment of Cross-Bench peers. Is that not a good precedent for appointments to NHS trusts? Could they not be dealt with by an independent commission, and could not political fingers be kept out of this particular pie?
The Prime Minister: On that last point, the Secretary of State is announcing our proposals in response to what Dame Rennie Fritchie said.
The findings of the commission on long-term care will be dealt with as part of the comprehensive spending review. Obviously, very important issues are involved. The £2 billion will go down to primary care groups and trusts: my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will explain how that will happen when he makes his speech.
I think that we must make a distinction. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to put on hold any hospital changes in the country. Of course I do not know the individual circumstances of each case that is put to me, but there will be circumstances in which reorganisation is the right way forward. We cannot freeze health care in exactly the same way for ever. However, there are also areas in which reorganisation will be specifically a result of problems with resources.
The differences between those two cases are exactly what we need to explore with people. Our proposal for a partnership for change, which will lead to the publication of a plan in July, will not work unless people are prepared to make difficult choices as well as easy ones in the health service. It will not work unless people are prepared to accept, for example, that it is important for us to see how elderly patients are best dealt with in the service. What is the right system to ensure that we give them the level of care that they want?
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's approach in saying that this is the right way: to have the money upfront, and then to say, "Let us sit down with those in the NHS to work out both how we spend the money, and how we make the necessary changes." The right hon. Gentleman's constructive approach stands in very marked contrast with that of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: Anyone who cares about the NHS and its basic principles will warmly

989
welcome yesterday's announcement of the huge funding increase and today's statement: they are in marked contrast with the position of the Conservative party, which appears to have completely given up on the NHS and which wants to push people into the private sector. It is interesting that, during the last Tory Opposition-day debate on the health service, two Conservative Back Benchers were present at the end of the Front-Bench speeches. There is no interest on the Conservative Benches.
May I press my right hon. Friend on three specific points? First, he will accept that, in putting that money into the NHS, we need to make best use of the resources that we have. On that basis, will he look at whether the organisational structure that we inherited from the Conservatives—the internal market, the split between trusts and health authorities—is the best arrangement? There is much evidence nationally of waste as a consequence of that split at local level.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend referred to the relationship between the NHS and social services. Will he look at combining the two organisations, as they are combined very successfully in Northern Ireland?
Thirdly, will my right hon. Friend look at the way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I will conclude on this point.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman certainly will.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I will, Madam Speaker.
Will my right hon. Friend look at the way in which, in certain areas, waiting lists are artificially created to cause demand for private treatment by the same consultants who treat people in the NHS locally?
The Prime Minister: I am sure that the items to which my hon. Friend draws attention can be looked at. Of course, primary care groups and trusts are a way of trying to preserve the concept of devolved budgets, which was the one part of the internal market that had some merit, but to get away from the idea of the paperchase for the contract, which did much damage. We want to try to keep that co-operation locally and to keep devolution, but to do away with the vast bureaucratic expense.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The last questioner was the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health. I will not have further long questions. I ask for brisk questions now. I have today's business to safeguard.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Leading the health service and health care generally must be one of the greatest challenges of our generation. I am not sure that it inspires people to know that politicians are trying to take over all the leadership.
The Prime Minister talks about the professions, but not about health service managers. If all the credit is taken by politicians, but, whenever there are problems, managers are named and shamed, it has a particularly poor effect. "Health Chiefs Face the Sack" is not a helpful headline. The Prime Minister has recognised managers and leaders in industry. Will he please give recognition and support to health service managers in health care?
The Prime Minister: Of course management in the health service is important. The managers are a vital part
990
of the service, but I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the fact that the NHS Confederation welcomed the extra money that we put in yesterday and the offer of partnership for change. It is simply sad that the Conservative party has set its mind against it.
Dr. Howard Stoate: As someone who still works part-time in the health service, may I say that the vast majority of NHS workers in my constituency of Dartford both recognise and welcome the need for substantive changes in their working practices? What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give to the 1 million-plus people who work in the health service that he recognises their extremely valuable contribution and that he will continue to support them in the way that he has so far?
The Prime Minister: I certainly give that assurance. That is one of the reasons why we put in the additional money. Let us look at just one group in the NHS, the nurses. As a result of the additional staffing pay, we have had a 25 per cent. increase in the number registering for nurse training. We also made a very substantial pay increase—I think the largest that has been made—to 60,000 grade E nurses. We are trying to reward people in the health service better, but we must also look at more flexible working practices and more flexible use of people's working time. We must see how we can improve the quality of life for the staff in the health service, too.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: Is the Prime Minister aware that, although he is right to draw attention to the service distortions that need to be dealt with, there was one alliterative challenge that he did not include in his list: patient choice. Was that an oversight, or a policy decision?
The Prime Minister: No. I do not know exactly what part of patient choice the right hon. Gentleman is referring to. If he is referring to the split between public and private—
Sir Brian Mawhinney: No.
The Prime Minister: Well, in that case, I am afraid that I am at a loss to know exactly what the right hon. Gentleman's question is dealing with. At least he gave us some welcome for a process that will involve people in the health service. There are no holds barred in that—we shall sit down and talk about all the issues. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to explain at some other time exactly what he means by patient choice, I shall have a look at what he says.
Mr. Win Griffiths: May I also welcome the fact that the Government are not jumping straight into decisions on how the £2 billion should be spent in the health service? I am also pleased that the Prime Minister said that there will be a joint committee to examine those decisions. The NHS Information Authority produced figures on the 50 most common inpatient treatments and the 50 most common day-case treatments. In Wales, for 22 of the 50 inpatient treatments, costs could vary by more than 200 per cent; for some treatments, costs could vary by a factor of five; and, for 12 of the day-case treatments, costs could vary by a factor of between five

991
and 10. The issue, therefore, is finding the place where treatment can be provided best and most cheaply, and not simply throwing money at the health service and saying, "Get on with it."
The Prime Minister: That is absolutely right. The debate about variations in performance, and how we tackle them, is the debate that I had hoped we would have in the House today. Of course it is right that we need more resources and money in the health service. However, I think that there is a very honest appreciation by the vast majority of people in the health service that some performance variations cannot be explained by social factors, investment or money alone. There are failures in the system that need to be addressed. There is also, of course, really good practice in the health service which could be made universal if we had the right means to do it.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the Prime Minister concede that the Conservative party has been arguing the case for more money and reform in the national health service for more than 10 years—usually while facing resistance from Labour Members and the bogus claim that we secretly want to privatise the NHS, which he has repeated today. Will he also concede that today's statement shows that the Chancellor did not want to pre-empt his comprehensive spending review for the next four years on the scale that he did yesterday? Did not the Prime Minister, in return, agree that he would take personal responsibility for trying to ensure that the money would be spent better—and did not the cliché-ridden jargon that he produced a few moments ago show that so far he has no idea how to deliver on that?
While we will all keep an open mind until July, when the Prime Minister comes forward with a plan, will the Chancellor ensure that all the money that he announced yesterday—not only the £2 billion, but the current allocation—will be given to the health authorities and trusts that need it, as there is £500 million of financial deficit out there, rather than being kept back in little packages at the centre, in the Department, to be announced and reannounced as gimmicky new initiatives in the next few months?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman probably does not agree with the Conservative policy on tax, and at least he is consistent in his view of his own Front Benchers, but the fact is that one cannot possibly have a policy which maintains that, regardless of economic circumstances, one will cut the tax burden the entire time without making swingeing cuts in public services.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman may not be properly familiar with the latest thinking on the Tory Front Bench, but let me point out to him what the Conservative chief health service spokesman—the latest Conservative health spokesman—said. He said:
Philosophically we have moved on … Insurance companies could cover conditions that are not high tech or expensive, like hip and knee replacements, hernia and cataract operations, which currently involve long waiting times. We could then leave expensive treatments like cancer therapy to the NHS.
I appreciate that that is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's policy, but that is Conservative Members' policy.
992
In answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question about the £2 billion, it is important that we get that money down to the front line. As I said, the Health Secretary will be giving details of that in his speech in the debate. However, I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, like me, will have to accept that there is no point in my coming to the House to say, "Here are all the details of everything that we are going to do. Now, I am going to go out and have this discussion." It is important to have that debate and discussion within the health service, and then come to the House with the plan. Then people can have a chance to question us on it. Of course we have ideas about how some of the problems should be dealt with, but it is important to have a dialogue and partnership with people. It is unfortunate that the type of one-nation Conservatism that the right hon. and learned Gentleman represents is no longer represented on the Conservative Front Bench.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I thank my right hon. Friend for his welcome statement on the huge increase for the NHS and his commitment to getting better value for money out of it. I ask him to remind the Opposition that the proposals come on top of the biggest hospital building programme ever embarked on by any Government. Will he join me in paying tribute to the former Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), and to the current Secretary of State, without whose commitment and dedication, we would not be getting a brand-new hospital in Halifax next year, for which we have waited 30 years?
The Prime Minister: I am pleased to do that. It is not merely the hospital building programme, because we have an extra 4,500 nurses now in the health service; more doctors and cardiac and cancer specialists are in training; and every accident and emergency department that needs it is being modernised. We have made many changes already, including getting rid of the old Tory internal market and ensuring that the primary care groups and trusts are put in place. However, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, we must now go further, and we shall be able to go further quicker because of the additional funding that has been introduced. Nobody should be in any doubt about the Tory party's position, which is a desire to demoralise people about the health service so that there is no alternative left to them but the Tories' private health insurance way.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced apparently huge additional sums for the health service, which are welcome. Today, the Prime Minister has announced reform and modernisation, and we all hope that that will be successful. However, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the NHS is sadly all too often used as a political pawn by all political parties? The people whom we are honoured to represent in this place will not accept that Governments of whatever party are really committed to the health service until they see an improvement in the service they receive. A Liberal Democrat councillor in the Macclesfield borough had a cancer operation cancelled four times because of the shortage of intensive care beds—and people who are waiting in pain for a hip operation should not have to wait so long. Only when such cases are dealt with promptly in accordance with

993
clinical need will people believe that the Government are dealing with the health service as they would wish them to.
The Prime Minister: That is obviously right and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his more constructive attitude. We should be able to reach a stage at which, as a result of the extra money, we can provide the intensive care beds that we need. We have increased the number of intensive care beds, but not by nearly enough, and we accept that. It cannot be done unless the money is put in, but that will only be a start. It is also the case that some acute beds in hospitals are not properly used, so change and modernisation have to happen as well. I hope that, by putting in the money and—for the time being at least—resolving the funding issue, we can get on with talking about the modernisation issue. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other more constructive members of his party will join in that debate.
Mr. Chris Pond: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that in my constituency people will prefer the five Ps of his modernisation programme—partnership, performance, professionalism, patient care and prevention—to the two Ps of pessimism and privatisation of the Conservatives, and the 1p that seems to solve all the Liberal Democrats' problems. Is he also aware that, despite the fact that we have a brand-new acute hospital of which we are very proud and which will open soon, some anxiety is still felt in my constituency about the provision of community beds. When he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health talk to West Kent health authority and to the primary care group, will they underline the importance of a community hospital, because we have been waiting for one for a long time?
The Prime Minister: I shall certainly do that. One of the important parts of this exercise will be to make sure that we have the right level of care within the system: the right primary, intermediate and acute care. Part of the changes that are necessary will be to ensure that patients are treated at the appropriate level of care, in contrast with what often happens at the moment.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I noticed that in his statement, the Prime Minister made no mention of mental health services, although that might be a Freudian slip. Nor did he mention the national health service in Northern Ireland. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we welcome the increased financial provision; on the other hand, we have to face harsh realities. In respect of private care and clinical priorities, why should a person with a heart condition be told that if he paid £100 he could see the surgeon sooner, then pay that £100 and still be waiting more than nine months later for the urgent treatment that he requires? It is time that we stopped bluffing ourselves that clinical care is a priority.
The Prime Minister: I do not know about the individual case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but precisely such issues need to be investigated. Change and reform as well as additional resources for the health service in Northern Ireland will be major part of our work.
Mr. David Taylor: Following the completely crass and deeply damaging
994
decision by Leicestershire health authority, the status of the most modern, best-located acute hospital in Leicestershire, with the highest reputation, is due to be downgraded. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that before the extra £30 million is allocated to Leicestershire and its health authority, there will be a requirement that such decisions and plans about acute hospital provision will have to include a logical and sane approach to the allocation of resources.
The Prime Minister: Again, I am in difficulty in commenting on individual cases, the circumstances of which I do not know. Of course there will be additional money for the health authorities, but they will then have to look at their own priorities and judge them accordingly. It is important that we do not try to micro-manage every decision that is taken by health authorities around the country, but obviously additional resources will help to make their decision making more open.
Mr. Graham Brady: In a damning report published this morning, Dame Rennie Fritchie spoke of a disconnection between the purpose of the board of an NHS trust or health authority and the ability of the people serving on it under Labour's policy of systematic politicisation of the appointments process. Given that she has pointed to examples of people appointed to NHS trusts and health authorities other than on merit, will the Prime Minister now identify those who have been appointed ahead of more able candidates and ensure that more able people are put in their places so that there can be progress in the NHS instead of the failure that has occurred under the present Government?
The Prime Minister: I shall simply refer to the following sentence of the Fritchie report:
The issue of the politicisation of appointments is not new—the practice of inviting MPs to comment on the shortlists of candidates was first introduced by Conservative Government …
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I express the hope that the very rigid criteria that are used in allocating money for in vitro fertilisation—criteria that vary across the United Kingdom—can now be relaxed as I have a particularly difficult case in my constituency?
The Prime Minister: I think the best thing is that I look into my hon. Friend's point and write to him.
Dr. Evan Harris: Does the Prime Minister accept that after 18 years of dreadful NHS Tory rule, he inherited in Oxfordshire operation waiting times that were too high and have got higher; out-patient waiting times that were too high and have got higher; and a mental health trust deficit that has got worse? He also inherited Oseney Court elderly persons' home, which has now closed under new Labour and Cutteslowe Court old people's home which has been closed for financial reasons. Eighteen beds at Abingdon community hospital have now been closed under Labour. Will any of those closure be reversed? Will he apologise to the people of Oxfordshire for the delay in bringing funding to the health service? What does he have to say to Dr. Bob Hoyle, formally a Labour councillor in the heartland ward of Temple Cowley in the constituency of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who joined the

995
Liberal Democrats today in protest at Labour's decision to put pre-election tax bribes ahead of health service funding.
The Prime Minister: We have made the largest-ever investment in the health service, and it is being introduced now. This is the right time for that investment, because the Government had to cure the financial deficit that we inherited when we took office. We have done that, and we have gone through two tough and prudent years, as we promised at the last election. We did not break an election promise when we kept to very tight spending plans, we fulfilled one. We knew that we could not inherit a £28-billion borrowing requirement and do nothing about it.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) did not give the full facts about what has happened in Oxfordshire. In fact, more money has been put in than the Liberal Democrats ever asked for, and in-patient waiting lists are down. It is correct to say that out-patient lists are longer, but that is why we must make sure that we put in the necessary investment, which must go along with change and modernisation. In that way, we shall get both in-patient and out-patient waiting lists down. It is also why we must make the extra investment to pay for nurses, doctors and specialists in the service.
However, the process is not helped when Liberal Democrat Members pretend that all the problems of all those public services can be solved overnight, and that there is a limitless amount of money that can be spent. That contention is not true, and it is not responsible. The Government have been determined to avoid boom and bust in the economy, and in the investment in public services. We have been able to put in sustainable investment only because we took the right decisions on the economy. In the end, that is better for the health service and for patients.

Points of Order
4.21 pm
Mr. Graham Brady: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order concerns a matter of which I gave you notice. The independent commissioner's report on NHS appointments was released at 10 o'clock this morning, but it was not made available in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office until 3 o'clock this afternoon, after most hon. Members had entered the Chamber for Prime Minister's questions. Was it not essential that hon. Members of all parties should have had access to the report and been able to read it so that they understood what it contained before the statement on the NHS? If the Prime Minister had had a chance to read it, he would not have given the misleading response that he gave to me.
Madam Speaker: I think that it was a discourtesy to the House that the report was not available, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that distribution of the report was not the responsibility of the Government, as the commission is an independent tribunal. While I have been in the Chair, I have received a letter from Dame Rennie Fritchie, in which she states:
As an officeholder who is independent of Government, I did not know about the convention that copies of reports such as mine should go to the Vote Office for the interests of Members. I understand that you have received a number of complaints that the report was not available in the House. I am sorry for this, and I apologise.
I think that that clears the matter up.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My constituency of Hastings and Rye has been popular with visitors since 1066. Indeed you, Madam Speaker, came to my constituency a week or so ago. You were courteous enough to tell me about that visit, which did us all a great honour. Over the past few months, four Conservative Front-Bench spokespersons have visited my constituency, but none has given me any prior warning. One of the hon. Members involved told me about the visit after it had happened, and two others apologised when I brought the problem to their attention. I shall not mention their names, but last Wednesday, yet another Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss)—
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I have got the hon. Gentleman's point. These are matters that must be resolved between the hon. Members involved. I always take the opportunity to write to hon. Members when I visit their constituencies. Rye is a wonderful place, and I hope to return to it. In the letter that I sent to the hon. Gentleman, I also said that he should not raise matters such as these on the Floor of the House, but should deal directly with those hon. Members who visited his constituency without letting him know.

Child Curfew (Specified Age)
4.24 pm
Mr. Vernon Coaker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to change the maximum specified age at which a child may be subject to a notice given under a local child curfew scheme.
It is important to state first that the Government regarded tackling anti-social behaviour as one of their first and most important priorities. Many people living in communities affected by such behaviour have demanded that firm action be taken. The anti-social behaviour that takes place in our communities is not trivial and it cannot be ignored. It blights many people's lives and many communities. People want something to be done about it.
All hon. Members will know, from their postbags and their surgeries, about the quite appalling behaviour of a small minority of people. That bad behaviour is evident across all communities. It should be recognised that the problem is not confined to inner cities or rural areas. Unfortunately, the problem extends throughout all our communities. Examples of the sort of behaviour to which I am referring can be found in local parks, alleyways, open spaces and shop fronts.
The police and local authorities have for many years been demanding from Government new and greater powers with which to tackle anti-social behaviour. The police, local authorities and local communities had a feeling of helplessness when it came to dealing with such behaviour. It was as though nothing could be done. The Government responded to various calls and demands with the introduction of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which is an important piece of legislation. It provides for partnership between the various responsible agencies and bodies—the police, local authorities, voluntary groups and schools, for example. The Act has encouraged partnership at a local level. There must be joined-up thinking if we are to tackle behavioural problems.
As well as its provision for partnership, the Crime and Disorder Act contained specific new powers, including parenting orders, child safety orders, anti-social behaviour orders and curfews, which were for children under 10. The Act enabled local authorities, where there was a specific problem in certain areas, to apply for a curfew order. Children up to the age of 10 could be barred from going into those areas.
Despite the demands from local communities, the police and various bodies to have new powers, there has been a disappointing take-up. Very few anti-social behaviour orders have been made, and not one child curfew order. What is happening with curfews and why is it that orders are not being used?
I believe that the answer is simple. The age at which curfew orders can be made is too young—it needs to be extended to 16. Most of the few young people who are causing problems in our communities are between the ages of 10 and 16, not younger than 10. The power that I propose would enable a local authority to ban young
998
people for a limited period from an area where problems were arising so that order could be restored. What would that mean for many of our communities?
Problems are arising in parks, open spaces, alleyways and the front of shops, and we should respond to the demand from local communities that something be done. The imposition of a curfew in such areas would give the local authority, in liaison with the police, the opportunity to try to restore order.
We should understand the hell and sheer frustration that some people experience when living next door to people who engage in anti-social behaviour. It is not good enough to say that nothing can be done. People tell me that they understand some of the difficulties involved in dealing with law and order problems. In Nottingham, there have been some terrible examples of firearms offences on the streets. My constituents and many other people to whom I talk understand the difficulties that the police have in dealing with such offences, which are often drug-related. However, they do not understand the inability of the community, the police, local authorities and politicians to deal with gangs of young people who terrorise their neighbourhoods and cause problems. The Bill would enhance the power of local authorities to deal with those gangs. It would be welcomed by the people in our communities and would, indeed, be greatly welcomed by my constituents in Gedling.
We all accept the need to examine the facilities that are available and to do something about them, and of course there is a need for more community workers. I do not accept, however, that the poor behaviour of a small minority can be excused because of a lack of facilities. Indeed, the young people I speak to want something done about the anti-social behaviour that they experience in their communities. Let us not forget that young people make up the largest group of victims of crime. I spoke to a sixth form recently, whose pupils were as adamant as any of us that they wanted anti-social behaviour addressed so that they could more readily enjoy the open spaces and leisure centres that are sometimes not available to them because of the activities of a few. I believe that extending the age range for which the curfew could be used would make a real difference to the powers that are available to local authorities and the police.
It is often argued that such measures infringe an individual's human rights. There is a balance to be struck between the human rights of an individual and the human rights of a community. I am concerned about the human rights of the many people who live next door to a park, try to shop in a particular area or are abused when they walk down the street.
In conclusion, I believe that the Bill, in extending the age range from 10 to 16, will give local authorities a greater opportunity to tackle a blight on many of our communities. It will give us the opportunity to address those problems, to meet the needs of our communities and to tackle anti-social behaviour. That is not a trivial problem; it is a huge problem for many people in many communities.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Vernon Coaker, Mr. Lawrie Quin, Mr. Andrew Reed, Gillian Merron, Mr. John Heppell, Liz Blackman, Ms Rosie Winterton, Ms Ann Coffey, Mr. Neil Turner, Ms Joan Ryan and Caroline Flint.

Child Curfew (Specified Age)
  CHILD CURFEW (SPECIFIED AGE)
  Mr. Vernon Coaker accordingly presented a Bill to change the maximum specified age at which a child may be subject to a notice given under a local child curfew scheme: 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 94].
Orders of the Day
  WAYS AND MEANS
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [21 March].

  AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance; but this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

  (a) for zero-rating or exempting a supply, acquisition or importation;

  (b) for refunding an amount of tax;

  (c) for varying any rate at which that tax is at any time chargeable; or

  (d) for any relief, other than a relief which—

  (i) so far as it is applicable to goods, applies to goods of every description, and

  (ii) so far as it is applicable to services, applies to services of every description.—[Mr. Gordon Brown.]

  Question again proposed.

  Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
  4.34 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: I would like to begin by asking those on the Treasury Bench to clarify a point that the Prime Minister made in his statement to the House. The right hon. Gentleman said that by 2003–04, national health spending will have risen to 7.6 per cent. of gross domestic product. 1 hope that the Secretary of State for Health and his team will correct that figure, which relates to total health care spending, not NHS spending. The House of Commons Library and the King's Fund have both independently confirmed that the figure that the Prime Minister gave the House was wrong. I hope that a Member of the Treasury Bench will have that corrected as soon as possible.
  I welcome the plans for increased expenditure on the national health service. I do so as the shadow Health Secretary, as a doctor and as a user of the NHS. When people who use the NHS and those who work in it opened their newspapers this morning, they will have felt that their prayers had been answered and that everything would be rosy from now on. No doubt people had the same feeling when they woke up on the morning after the Government were elected, saying that they would save the NHS within 24 hours. However, people found that their hopes were cruelly dashed in the following months.
  Those people experienced the same euphoria when the Chancellor announced extra funding of £21 billion for the NHS in 1998, only to find their hopes dashed once again as the figure was constantly reduced. We have now been marched up the hill of raised expectations for the third time.
  It is a sign of the panic in Downing Street at the Government's low poll ratings on health and the dissatisfaction expressed by the public that the Prime

  1001
  Minister felt he had to come to the House to give us a statement of complete waffle, while the Secretary of State for Health sat, demoted, alongside. The Government now have a timetable of four months in which to think about how they ought to be running the NHS, even though Labour had 18 years in opposition to think about that, and they have now been in government for three years. It seems that the Treasury has come up with the money, so the rest of the Government are trying to work out how to spend it.
  That is a sad indictment of how much effort the Government have devoted to the matter. Indeed, it is no more than justice after the sloganising in which they engaged before the general election. We are now told that the £21 billion was not £21 billion—it has come down quite a way. People could rightly be forgiven for asking what difference yesterday's £2 billion would make, if the £21 billion announced two years ago made no difference to the health care that they currently experience. They might wonder whether all was as it seems, given the fact that if one shakes hands with the Chancellor, one has to count one's fingers afterwards.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend talks about the sad indictment of the Government. Is not the greatest indictment the fact that when I and others asked the Prime Minister at Question Time whether, with all that extra money, he would intervene to prevent closures, he said no? He said that he could not intervene; there was nothing he could do about the matter.
  Dr. Fox: My hon. Friend should not expect too much. In his statement, the Prime Minister made it clear that when hospitals open, the Government have to take credit for our hospital building programme, but that when they close, Ministers must not micro-manage the system. It seems that it is all right for Ministers to take credit when things are going well, but when things go wrong it is nothing to do with them.
  When we consider extra allocations to the NHS, we need to ask whether further costs will have to be met that would not have been covered otherwise. The answer is yes, there are. There is the non-funding of the pay award by the Government. That will now have to be met from any extra allocation made to the NHS. There is the working time directive. Prescription budgets in primary care are rising by about 11 per cent. this year. There are the structural deficits, of which I shall say more in a moment. There are superannuation costs; the cost of reducing the hours of junior doctors; and capital charges excess. All those costs put an extra burden on the service, but none of them are recognised when those headline allocations are announced. It is down to those who have to make the tough decisions to carry the can for those costs. Ministers should take direct responsibility for many of those decisions.
  There is constant reannouncing. Yesterday, the Chancellor said that there was an extra £2 billion, but it was not immediately apparent to everybody that that amount included the £300 million from tobacco tax announced last year. Many people—including many commentators in today's media—thought that the £2 billion was on top of that amount.
  1002
  The Government announced yesterday that they wanted 10,000 extra nurses. However, the Royal College of Nursing helpfully pointed out that the Government had previously said that they wanted to recruit 15,000 more nurses. Yesterday's announcement was not new; it continued the Government's existing intentions on nurse recruitment. When the Secretary of State replies, will he tell us over what time scale the new nurses will be recruited? Are they 10,000 whole-time equivalents—that is, full-time nurse posts—or are they 10,000 nurses in total with some working part-time? If the answer is 10,000 nurses in total, how many whole-time equivalent posts do the Government intend them to fill?
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: Is my hon. Friend able to throw any light on the £300 million to be raised from tobacco excise duties? When referring to further developments in tobacco excise duties, the Red Book states:
  Thereafter, excise duties fall slightly as a proportion of GDP largely reflecting the relatively slow growth in the demand for excise goods. The tobacco forecast takes into account the impact on revenues of the direct effects of additional anti-smuggling measures, including the deterrent effects of fiscal marks
  that will be announced today. As we do not know whether the anti-smuggling measures will work, is that £300 million guaranteed for the health service or does it require the anti-smuggling measures to work?
  Dr. Fox: My understanding is that the £300 million depends on the Government succeeding in raising the revenue and making it available to the NHS. I hope that the anti-smuggling measures will work, but if they do not, that money will not be available to the NHS. By a slight irony, if people decide to stop smoking as a result of the 25p-a-packet rise, less money will be available to the NHS. However, I am sure that the Secretary of State has already made the appropriate judgment on whether that would be advisable. I hope that people stop smoking and that the tax rises will dissuade them from smoking.
  Mr. Peter Bradley: In a sense, the hon. Gentleman has anticipated the point that I wanted to make. Would it not be extremely welcome and be a saving to the NHS if people gave up smoking? The £300 million that would otherwise go towards treating the many respiratory diseases that are brought on by smoking could be saved.
  Dr. Fox: It would be nice if the world was as simple as some of the points raised in the House, but it is not quite like that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, those who require treatment for smoking-related illnesses are already out there. Although some may have a reduced morbidity as a result of giving up smoking, many will not and they will continue to cost the NHS large sums of money. Let us hope that, in the years to come, the people who give up smoking as a result of either price increases or better education will reduce the burden on the NHS and the far greater human cost that is associated with smoking-related illnesses.
  If the Secretary of State is to provide answers to my questions about nurses, will he also tell us how many of the 10,000 nurses will be taken on to fill existing vacancies and how many will be taken on to fill new posts and new roles as part of whatever modernisation proposals

  1003
  the Government intend to introduce? When the Government consider the priorities, they should consider an important point made by the Royal College of Nursing yesterday. The priorities must include long-term care, to which I shall refer shortly, primary care and improving the essentials of care—dignity, hygiene, nutrition and privacy. They are much more difficult to quantify when we do business, but they are extraordinarily important for patients.
  I mentioned the fact that the Prime Minister had given us the wrong level of NHS funding as a proportion of GDP, and I wonder whether Ministers have had time to confirm that so that they will not allow him unintentionally to mislead the House. However, if we are moving towards the level of funding in the European Union, we have to move towards the level that our European partners spend. They currently spend about 9.1 per cent. of GDP on health compared with rather less in the United Kingdom. The figure for the EU comes down when the United Kingdom is added in, but the irony is that the figure will keep increasing as long as we increase the proportion of GDP that we spend on health. It becomes an ever more difficult target to chase.
  I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends not to be churlish. If we are getting a large increase in funding over a period and if it is spent wisely, it will undoubtedly help to move the United Kingdom's health outcomes closer to those of the countries that we might expect to have similar outcomes. The Government's figure of 6.4 per cent. for the NHS by 2003–04 would require a 20 per cent. increase in the private sector's spend to bring it up to the figure of 7.6 per cent. that the Prime Minister used this afternoon. It would require the NHS and the private sector to work in partnership and both to expand if we are to approach European levels.
  We are not fundamentally different from any other country. If we want our total expenditure on health to rise to the levels found in countries with similar economies to our own, we will require growth in both the state sector, over which the Government have control, and the independent sector, over which they have less control but which can, none the less, encourage those who can afford to do so to relieve pressure on the NHS. I think that people increasingly understand that. That is why 160,000 people bought care outside the NHS last year. I hope that we can find constructive ways of making it possible for those who wish to use more of their post-taxation income to buy care to do so more cheaply. In that way, choice in health care will be not only for those who have large savings, the wealthy or those who would pauperise themselves by using all their life savings.
  Mr. Geraint Davies rose—
  Dr. Fox: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he always attends health debates.
  Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Conservative party is committed to matching the expenditure forecast for health that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor laid out yesterday, and, by the sound of it, perhaps to doing even more? What rebalancing would take place between private sector and public sector health
  1004
  provision? The hon. Gentleman makes great play of the need for a partnership, and it sounds as if there would be at least some privatisation. How much? Would it be half?
  Dr. Fox: I am extremely pleased to say that we welcome unambiguously the rise in health spending and it would be matched by an incoming Conservative Government. Private sector provision does not have to be instead of public sector provision. We are talking about additionality. We have agreed to match the expenditure that the Government propose and we want to see measures to encourage additional private sector care. That will help us bring our total expenditure up to the same limits as in other countries. Those measures would be on top of what the NHS spends.
  We have a great opportunity in Britain. We have a well-developed state model in the NHS system—better than that in most other countries in Europe. We also have a creative private sector in financial services. One of the problems that we face is that many of the products available for personal private health care are too expensive and inflexible. We need a large change in the quantity and quality of many of the products that are available. Otherwise, individuals will not purchase them and we will not achieve an expansion in the number of individuals who purchase private sector care. That is an important point. Changes in the independent sector as radical as those in pensions in the early 1980s will be required if we are to achieve the growth that I should like to see to complement the growth in the state sector, which we have already announced we would match.
  Mr. Davies: I seek clarification. The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that he will match pound for pound all the public sector investment that we have promised and beat the global total by a significant amount through extra private provision. Is that his pledge for the election?
  Dr. Fox: A member of the Labour party has understood that it is possible, by increasing private sector expenditure and state sector expenditure, to achieve a total increase in the health care that is available.
  If we are to reach the European average for total health care spending, on the Government's figures for 2003–04, it would be necessary effectively to double the size of the private sector in the United Kingdom. That is a tall order, given what is currently available. I should therefore like to see dramatic and radical changes in what is offered by the private sector in Britain. I hope that it will rise to the challenge, as it has in many other sectors. There is a chance to combine the excellence of most of the NHS and the creativity of the financial services sector. That could give us the best of both worlds. I hope that that is a challenge to which the private sector can rise and which any changes in the NHS can help us to meet.
  Mr. Ivan Lewis: Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House the consequences of expansion of the private health care sector for the time of doctors, nurses and other essential professionals? We all acknowledge that there is a shortage of them. If there was a significant expansion in the private sector, less of those professionals' time would be available to the NHS.

  1005
  Can the hon. Gentleman also explain, if we are so far behind the average expenditure of other European—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a speech at this stage—perhaps later.
  Dr. Fox: None the less, the first part of the litany contained an important point. It is rather odd that Labour Members should say that it is possible to achieve a 6.1 per cent. increase in real terms in NHS provision without putting a strain on the supply of doctors and nurses, or that it would be possible to bring in more, while saying that it is not possible to achieve a 1.2 per cent. increase overall in the private sector without putting a strain on the supply. Both those assertions cannot be right. As the Government have acknowledged by their efforts to bring nurses back into nursing, there are many trained professionals who do not currently work in the system. A lot of GPs take early retirement, as do many consultants—indeed, the so-called leakage of consultants taking early retirement is greater than the increase in the number of medical students sought under the Government's recent plans.
  Mr. Lewis: I seek clarification. Up until this week, Britain's spend on health care was considerably below the European average. What does it say about 18 years of Tory Government that we find ourselves so far down the league table of health expenditure? How can a tax guarantee that taxes will always fall under a Tory Government co-exist alongside a promise of massive expenditure on health care being honoured? The two pledges are contradictory.
  Dr. Fox: That will teach me to be charitable. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have spent less than the European average. For his information, we were overtaken by the then Common Market average spend in 1963 and we have remained behind every year since—I am sure that I do not have to remind him that the Conservatives were not in office throughout that period.
  I do not pretend that we are spending enough. I came to the House of Commons having spent all of my working life in the NHS. I want the NHS to be improved and I have no problem saying that it would have been nice if we had spent more over the years. I am keen to look to the future and to ensure that we achieve an improvement in this country's health care, in both the state and private sectors. To be frank, I do not care where health care comes from; I just want more health care. I want better and more health care for more patients more quickly and more treatments provided as they become available. That is a perfectly simple desire that is shared by most people in this country.
  I have no problem saying that the Conservatives did not do everything perfectly, or that we got things wrong. However, it is entirely possible to achieve an overall reduction in taxation at the same time as an increase in expenditure on health—that is what happened in the 1980s. In the Red Book published yesterday, the Government say that the overall tax burden will fall slightly in the middle of the next Parliament, at the same time as they increase health expenditure by 6.1 per cent. in real terms. The Government cannot have it both ways:
  1006
  if it is possible for the tax burden to fall and expenditure to rise under a Labour Government, it is, by definition, possible. Let us have no more such distortions.
  We have a great opportunity, but, when it comes to improving health care, it is not only money that counts but how that money is spent. Outside, there is growing disbelief and an unwillingness to listen when politicians throw around figures and the Government talk about £X billion extra being spent; people want to see how the spending affects them, their local hospital and their local health authority.
  That point was today well put by the King's Fund, which describes the extra money provided by the Government as a "good sum", but warns the Government against frittering it away on centrally organised grant schemes. It says:
  The NHS needs to be able to spend this on the things that matter most.
  These are primary care, good medical care for the elderly and good mental health.
  While this is a nice amount of money, the question is how the NHS is allowed to use it.
  That question is central.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment appears to understand the need to get money directly to schools, and we welcome that; so why has the Prime Minister told us today that the Secretary of State for Health will announce only £660,000 of the £2 billion to be provided, and that there will be strings attached to the money? As the Prime Minister says, it is not up to the Government to micro-manage the service, because politicians cannot second-guess what happens at local level. I hope that the Government will not continue increasingly to centralise every possible decision and so remove from trusts, health authorities and, more important, doctors the power to take decisions. The result of imposing political priorities is the distortion of clinical priorities.
  After financing and the trend towards centralisation, the next important issue to raise is the politicisation of the culture of running the service. The report from Dame Rennie Fritchie published today provides a damning indictment of the way in which the Government culture now runs throughout every part our public service, as they appoint every placeman possible. It will come as some disappointment, to say the very least, to many people that as a result of the placing of Labour party activists everywhere, a large proportion of the extra money being poured into the NHS will go into the pockets of Labour party activists who just happen to be lucky enough to have their noses in Labour's NHS trough.
  Of appointees who were politically active in 1995, 8.9 per cent. were Conservative and 7.6 per cent. were Labour. By 1998, of those who were politically active, 77.7 per cent. were Labour party activists. That is a disgusting distortion of the system.
  Dame Rennie Fritchie stated that appointments were being
  politicised in a systematic way.
  She continued:
  The Secretary of State sets the tone for the process.
  The principles in her code of practice have been or risk being breached in both their letter and their spirit. What counts is not what appointees do for the NHS, but what they have done for the Labour party.

  1007
  It is interesting that in the Prime Minister's constituency, Sedgefield, there was an appointment to South Durham NHS trust. He was the bar manager at the local Labour club, but I suppose that unlike many other appointees, at least he had some business experience, and he probably would have been able to arrange the proverbial in a brewery.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Is it not particularly deplorable that whereas the appointment process was essentially endorsed by the Nolan report with the establishment of independent scrutiny, Dame Rennie reports that recommendations from Members of Parliament and often from local authorities were allowed to bypass the independent scrutiny that had been established?
  Dr. Fox: Indeed, my right hon. Friend is correct. That is one of the most worrying aspects of the culture of cronyism, which pervades not only central Government, but increasingly local government and every arm that Government touch. I hope that when the Secretary of State replies, he will give us specific assurances that that will stop, and that he will shortly meet Dame Rennie Fritchie to discuss the allegations and the solutions that she proposes.
  Many of us in the Opposition were shocked at the way in which the Prime Minister brushed off serious allegations about probity and potential conflicts of interest that Dame Rennie Fritchie identified so well in her excellent report.
  Mr. Giles Radice: You did the same when you were in office.
  Dr. Fox: As I have already shown, the previous survey carried out in 1995-96 demonstrated that that was not true. There is a culture of rottenness, corruptness and cronyism that pervades this Administration, which has never pervaded any previous British Administration. They attempt to manipulate and control at every level of public life, whether it be the law, the media, through Parliament or the quangos. The Government are obsessed with control and getting their people in place, irrespective of whether they are the best people or not.
  Mr. Radice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Fox: No, indeed not. The right hon. Gentleman made as good an intervention as he will, from a sedentary position.
  The Prime Minister's statement this afternoon was trailed as very important. I have never heard a Prime Minister address the House with such a bunch of meaningless waffle as I heard this afternoon. It was a platitude from start to finish. He spoke of a partnership challenge, meaning why do not we all just work together? That is truly remarkable. He mentioned a performance challenge, suggesting that we should all do our best—as though those who work in the NHS would do anything else.
  1008
  The Prime Minister spoke of a challenge for the professions, and called on staff to be flexible. What does he think they are being, in the face of the Government's hostility? He proposed a challenge on prevention and suggested that people should have a healthy life style—what a revolutionary thought. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) espoused that some years ago, when we published "The Health of the Nation".
  It was sheer gall for the Prime Minister to tell the House about a patient care challenge to treat the sickest patients quickly, when for three years the Government have presided over a waiting list initiative which every health care professional in the country says has distorted clinical priorities, to the extent that some of the sickest patients are waiting far longer than they need because health managers are being penalised financially if they do not meet their waiting list targets.
  That was brass neck, even for the Prime Minister. What a cheek, when we hear that cardiology patients in Bristol have died on the waiting list. The Paymaster General, who used to make so much noise in opposition, was silent when patients in Bristol were dying, and when patients have been paying to get more treatment.
  A gentleman who came to my constituency surgery last week had been clinically advised that if he did not have a coronary bypass operation within six weeks, his condition would become life-threatening, but he could not have the operation done in the NHS within a year. At the same time, we are still undertaking more minor procedures, resulting in a distortion of clinical priorities. What the Prime Minister said today is diametrically opposed to the effects of his own policy of the waiting list initiative, which needs to be ditched. If it were not for the Prime Minister's arrogance and his point-blank refusal to believe that he could ever be wrong, even in the face of advice from every part of the medical and nursing professions, people would not have died unnecessarily.
  Mr. Nigel Beard: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that at the heart of the Prime Minister's statement was the concept of medical audit, which is an attempt to overcome the gross disparities in treatment and cost in different regions, which have grown up over many years? Why, over so many years, did the previous Administration, whom the hon. Gentleman supported, tolerate such gross disparities?
  Dr. Fox: The figures showing what was happening within the NHS were not always available. It was only the development of the internal market that showed up exactly what was happening, yet the Prime Minister now wants to abolish the source of the information about which he spoke today. The problem with the Prime Minister's statement, as with so many of his statements, is that his words are not the same as his or the Government's deeds. In this case, they are diametrically opposed. The British people will rightly judge the Prime Minister, who has now put himself at the centre of the Government's health policy, not by the words that he uses in the Chamber but by his actions and the effects that they have on patient care. He will be judged not by what he says at Prime Minister's Question Time, nor by his photo-opportunities or by his soundbites, but on whether

  1009
  the sickest patients will now be treated more quickly. I hope that his words are right and that he will apologise for the fact that his policy has been entirely wrong.
  Mr. Ivan Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Fox: No, I have already given way quite a lot.
  There are several matters which any party in government has to bear in mind when considering budget allocation for the NHS, the most immediate of which are cost pressures, historic deficits and demand pressures. Let me outline for the Secretary of State one of the cost pressures.?
  The Government said that they wanted to attract another 10,000 nurses. What economic model has been used to decide what level of pay would be required to bring 10,000 extra nurses back into the system, and what would be the resulting additional cost for the nurses that we already employ? That cost pressure would be inevitable, given what the Chancellor said yesterday.
  The NHS has large and growing historic deficits, so whenever new money is allocated, the first call on that is for the deficit that health authorities have built up, which may be as much as £1 billion. I notice that the Prime Minister did not deny that figure when it was put to him by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
  In addition, there are the demand pressures of new pharmaceuticals and new treatments. We are moving towards gene therapy and stem cell transfer—new technologies in medicine which will be extremely expensive. We shall have demand pressures to an extent that we have never known before. All that needs to be considered when planning ahead. I hope that the Secretary of State will say something about that because it is a matter of real concern to health professionals.
  It was disappointing to hear nothing in the Budget about long-term care and its funding. We have now been waiting 14 months for an adequate response to the royal commission. I imagine that the excuse is that there cannot be an announcement because we are waiting for the results of the comprehensive spending review, yet the Chancellor did not feel compelled to stick to that when announcing the spending totals for the NHS. As with anything else, if it suits the Government, they will break the rules, but if it does not, they will keep quiet. Each year, under this Government, 40,000 people lose their homes, yet when the Government took office they promised a quick solution to the problem of long-term care. The phrase "quick solution" is used in much the same way as the phrase "dealing with the early pledge", which means roughly the same in their language as "more" or "extra" in relation to the truth. I hope that we might hear something about that when the Secretary of State replies.
  We welcome the increased spending on health, but we need to know how it will be spent. When the Secretary of State details today exactly what measures the Government will take to ensure that the money goes to patient care, not to Ministers' pet schemes, we will be able to judge whether it will result in better patient care. The Government must be judged by clinical outcomes, not by input or throughput. Where the Government make the right decisions, they will have the Opposition's wholehearted support; but if they get it wrong and waste
  1010
  this opportunity for the sake of quick progress or cheap headlines, they, and in particular the Prime Minister, will never be trusted again.
  5.4 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered a Budget for a stronger and fairer Britain; a Budget that continues to build steady economic growth, that will modernise our schools, transform our hospitals and support families and communities throughout the country. He announced the right measures at the right time to do what is right for Britain.
  The Budget has been widely welcomed in the country. It was welcomed by the Institute of Directors as
  confirmation of the Government's belief in creating an enterprise economy.
  It was welcomed by the Trades Union Congress as
  a generous and much needed boost,
  and by the British Medical Association as a
  major step in putting the health service on a firm, long term basis.
  I have seen probably eight or nine Budgets in my time in this House; other hon. Friends will have witnessed many more. However, I have never before seen Opposition Members looking so mute and so glum during a Chancellor's statement. Nothing expresses more clearly the distance between today's Conservative party and the public than their respective reactions to the Budget. While nurses and teachers were described as being over the moon, the Leader of the Opposition—with his new, trendy, David Beckham haircut—looked as sick as a parrot. As well he might.
  The Budget is for the whole nation, and because it does what is right for Britain, it also does right by the NHS. It demonstrates the Labour party's commitment to the NHS and our determination that it should succeed.
  Mr. Blunt: I should like to bring the Secretary of State back to policy, if he can stop inventing Conservative party positions. Why was it satisfactory yesterday to passport money directly to head teachers, but impossible today for the £660 million of the £2 billion to be passported directly to health authorities? Why must it have strings attached by the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends?
  Mr. Milburn: If the hon. Gentleman will wait a moment, I shall tackle that point. I hope that he will be satisfied when I have made my announcement.
  Mr. Blunt: I doubt it.
  Mr. Milburn: So do I, because, like the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Gentleman will never be satisfied. The more we give, the more he wants.
  No one—not even the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt)—should underestimate the significance of the Budget announcement for the national health service. It constituted a key moment in the history of the NHS.
  For more than 25 years, the NHS got by on an annual real-terms increase in funding of approximately 3.2 to 3.3 per cent. a year. The Conservative Government's record during their last two decades in power averaged

  1011
  less than that—approximately 2.9 per cent. Indeed, in their last full Parliament, it was even less: just 2.6 per cent.
  Annual growth of 3 per cent. has landed the NHS in its current position. The system, by international standards, is efficient and fair but there are fewer beds, fewer doctors and fewer nurses than in comparable systems. The NHS is, as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development rightly says, a remarkably cost-effective institution.
  In Britain, we rightly take pride in what the NHS does and in what its staff achieve, but we know that it is an institution, which, for too long, has been coping when it should have been thriving. It has been surviving, but it should have been modernising. Now, through this substantial new investment, we have the chance to give the NHS a new lease of life and to reinvent it for the new century.
  That is what is now on offer. In our first two years in office, we had to stabilise the public finances. That required a tough approach to spending. I believe that it was the right thing to do. Today the country is reaping the benefit. There are 800,000 more jobs in the economy, a record number of people in work, and a record number of vacancies for work. Investment in manufacturing is growing, and youth and long-term unemployment is falling. A strong and growing economy is providing the foundations for strong and growing public services.
  The NHS will now reap the benefit of our approach. Prudence has indeed been for a purpose. We increased NHS investment in our first two years by approximately £2 billion over and above the plans that we inherited. We spent what the country could afford. Yesterday's Budget means that the NHS will have grown by 50 per cent. in cash terms by 2003–04, and by 35 per cent. in real terms. For the next four years, the NHS in England will grow by an annual average of 6.3 per cent. above inflation. That is twice the long-term growth trend.
  From today, we can draw a line not only under decades of underfunding, but decades of instability in health service finances. There has been too much boom and bust in the economy, but there has been too much boom and bust in NHS funding as well. We now have a platform of sustained increases in funding which provide a sure foundation for the sustained modernisation that the health service needs.
  I do not pretend for a moment that the extra resources that we have provided for the NHS will solve every money problem. Like every other health care system in the world—whether public, private or a mixture of the two—the NHS will continue to have to make tough choices about how resources are best used. It will take time and effort as well as resources to give Britain the modern health service that it needs.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: Has the Secretary of State considered the fact that advances in gene technology mean that in a short time every citizen of this country will be able to give his general practitioner a profile of his family history and the likelihood of his
  1012
  dying from a hereditary disease? That will lead to an unprecedented demand for health services. How will they be provided?
  Mr. Milburn: There is enormous potential in gene therapy and in genetic technology advances more generally. They will require changes in the way the NHS provides its services. I say one thing to the hon. Gentleman, as he is a signed-up advocate of the Conservative Front-Bench policy on private health insurance: that will not destroy the NHS, but it will destroy the private health insurance market, for a very simple market reason. Those with the advantage of access to genetic technology and genetic tests will find out whether they are predisposed to certain illnesses and diseases—perhaps cancer or coronary heart disease. What will be the private health insurance industry's reaction? It will fail to insure those people, which will be a logical and sensible market decision.
  Those who pin all their hopes on the private health insurance sector as the future for health care improvement in our country have got it wrong, because that will not work. Advances in genetics, gene therapy and gene testing will, in my view, render the private health insurance market, which is already unstable, even more unstable in future.
  Mr. Paterson rose—
  Mr. Milburn: Let me continue. The resources provide the chance to address decades of neglect and give the NHS the means to modernise its services. I can tell the House that that process will begin at once. Last week, the NHS Confederation, which represents trusts and health authorities throughout the country, called for a £600 million increase for local health services. Today, I can tell the House that next week I shall make available £660 million direct to health authorities and on to primary care groups, NHS trusts and hospitals in England. They will be able to spend that cash to meet the service pressures that they face and to take forward local spending priorities.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Milburn: In a moment. Let me finish what I have to say. Those bodies will be expected to show consistent progress and improvement. There will be incentives to encourage good performance and to eradicate bad performance. We shall ensure that the cash reaches front-line patient services, but it needs to be spent wisely and well.
  The money will be paid at stages during the year. The bodies that deliver will receive their full allocation and be free to spend the funds in accordance with their agreed local priorities. Those that are unable to deliver will still receive the bulk of their allocation, but will have more support and, if necessary, intervention. They will have the opportunity to make up any lost allocation in one period by upping their performance in the next. That is about instilling a new performance culture in every part of the health service in every part of our country.
  The new resources will help the NHS to run balanced budgets year after year. They will fund new drugs, improve services for cancer and coronary care and help

  1013
  to speed up treatment for patients. There will be resources to help primary care groups to develop their services and resources to develop intermediate care services, building the bridge between hospital and home ahead of next winter.
  I can also tell the House that in the weeks to come I shall make further allocations direct to health authorities, and then on to primary care groups and hospitals. I shall keep a clear eye on ensuring that those allocations help to address the very real health inequalities that scar our nation.
  Mr. Fabricant rose—
  Mr. Philip Hammond rose—
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke rose—
  Mr. Milburn: It appears I have a queue of Conservative Members who want to intervene.
  Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his usual courtesy in giving way. I am sure that he can guess what my question is, because he was present at Prime Minister's Question Time. On the face of it—before we have had a chance to read between the lines—what he says sounds remarkable. It is good news if it is to be believed. Does it mean that he can assure my constituents, let alone people throughout the country, that there will be no more hospital closures?
  Mr. Milburn: It is good news. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) have been asking me all afternoon for an assurance that I will get the money out there. I shall get the money out there: that is what will happen. It will go to health authorities and then on to primary care groups. The primary care groups will decide. Local doctors and nurses are in the driving seat—not bureaucrats sitting in health authorities—and it will be up to them to decide where the money goes.
  On the question of whether it is ever right to close a hospital, I do not want to go into the particular case that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, because I do not know enough about it. If he wants to raise it with me in correspondence, I shall be happy to look into it. Tories have the idea that it is not right to change the nature of local health services—perhaps today's Conservative party is so out of touch that they are becoming modern-day Luddites. Sometimes we must change the make-up of local health services. For example, in Norwich right now we are closing hospitals. Why? To build a brand-new hospital. Why are we doing that? Because we cannot deliver 21st-century care in hospitals that were built before the 20th century.
  Mr. Hammond: I understand that the Secretary of State cannot give an absolute assurance that he will never close or reconfigure hospitals, but will he give an assurance that he will not approve any further plans by health authorities that result in a net loss of beds in their areas?
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman wants to have his cake and eat it. First he does not want me to micro-manage or centralise the service, and then he does. Which is it? I shall give him a clear assurance on one point. For the first time in 30 or 40 years, the Government have bothered objectively to inquire into the number of beds in the system and how many we need. My own view, which accords with the result of the national beds inquiry, is that we do not have enough beds in the system. Indeed, the trend of a huge decline in the number of hospital beds, which the Conservative Government exacerbated, is not sustainable for the future, and we need to address that problem.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are consulting on the national beds inquiry, and I hope that he will submit a view. Let us hear what members of the Conservative Front-Bench team have to say about this issue. When the consultation is over, we will produce clear guidelines, which we will expect every health authority to adhere to, so that we can be assured that in all parts of the country we have the right number of beds, of the right sort and in the right places.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I was trying to intervene when the right hon. Gentleman was making what I think was an important announcement about how he proposes to distribute this money to health authorities over the next year. I hope that he will correct me if I have misunderstood him, but it sounded as though it was a completely new and highly centralised method of controlling the distribution of money to health authorities.
  As I understood the right hon. Gentleman, health authorities will not be able to work on a set and certain budget for the year. The money will be distributed in tranches, according to the Secretary of State's and his Department's judgment of a health authority's performance. Does that mean that once a quarter the right hon. Gentleman and his Department will go through the process of judging the performance of each and every health authority in England, and give penalties or rewards? I do not think that his Department is competent to do that. The process will lend itself to attempts at central direction and political lobbying for the release of more or less money in different parts of the country, which will be one of the first problems that the Prime Minister's reforms in July will have to address.
  Mr. Milburn: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman was Secretary of State for Health, and when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was a toughie. He was a tough guy on value for money; he was a hard guy on poor performance. Now he is not. Is he for poor performance, or against it? Which is it?
  Let me say something which, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman fully understands it, I think he will commend. Of course I want to get the money out, but I will not throw good money after bad. I want to ensure that the money reaches front-line patient services, in a way that is fair to both patients and taxpayers. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman well knows from his experience as Secretary of State for Health, it is not fair for some parts of the health care system to perform disproportionately better than others; and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear today, we are not

  1015
  prepared to allow real differences in performance in some parts of the country to hold back performance in the country as a whole.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Milburn: It is nice to be popular. I give way to the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley).
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman recognises, part of the measurement of outcomes was made possible by the internal market: it was the purchaser-provider distinction that enabled people to measure.
  Will the right hon. Gentleman be allocating the resources by means of the postcode lottery that gives people in his area £115 a year more than those in the costly home counties? Although there may be arguments for deprivation funding, the cost of care in areas such as mine is acute. As a result, one in 10 of my constituents waits for more than a year for treatment, while only one in 100 of the right hon. Gentleman's does.
  Mr. Milburn: I thought that the right hon. Lady was against the north-south divide. She now seems to want to exacerbate it. As I understand it, she is calling for a transfer of resources from north to south. In the real world, greater equalisation means a transfer of resources around the system, does it not? If the right hon. Lady is calling for a transfer of resources from poorer parts of the country to more prosperous parts, I am afraid that I must sorely disappoint her: that will not be possible.
  Mr. Brian Cotter: I welcome the extra funding, and also what the Secretary of State has just said. I hope that he will consider what I am going to say constructive.
  Mrs. Greed, from Weston-super-Mare, has been denied treatment for hepatitis C by Avon health authority, one of only three authorities in the country that are denying treatment for the condition. Will the Secretary of State give that serious consideration? I think it extremely unfair that Mrs. Greed should be denied treatment.
  Mr. Milburn: I am aware of the problems surrounding treatment for hepatitis C, and I think the hon. Gentleman is aware that we are taking action to deal with them. I have said many times from the Dispatch Box that I, unlike previous Secretaries of State, will not sweep the lottery of care under the carpet and pretend that it does not exist. It does exist, and we are taking action to deal with it. That is why, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we established the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. As he also knows, one of the first issues that it is examining is treatment for hepatitis C. It will produce its conclusions in due course, and I expect all parts of the NHS—including the part in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—to take account of its guidance.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Milburn: I shall give way to one or two of my hon. Friends; then I want to make some progress.
  Dr. Howard Stoate: My right hon. Friend, like me, will share the Prime Minister's real concern about the enormous variations in care across the country, which are clearly unacceptable in a national health service. What would he say to those in constituencies such as mine, where we are to have a brand-new state-of-the-art hospital, about which we are very pleased? Can he assure my constituents and me that he will examine the position relating to community beds and step-down beds? Could a facility be provided outside the general hospital, which will be dealing with acute cases, to give people convalescent step-down care, thus speeding them through the system and improving efficiency even further?
  Mr. Milburn: I give that assurance. Part of the £660 million that I will allocate next week—more details will be available then—will be precisely to develop those intermediate care services. We know that there is a need to build capacity throughout the NHS. We do need more beds in the system, but it is glaringly obvious to anyone who goes to an acute sector hospital that the problem is not just the beds there, but the lack of available beds in the community.
  One of the findings of the national beds inquiry is that perhaps 20 per cent. of acute beds in hospitals are occupied by elderly people, who would probably be well enough to leave, provided that they had a period of rehabilitation and recovery. We want that to happen consistently as part of a big national programme to build intermediate care.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my right hon. Friend think it strange that the Opposition now say that they will more than match the amount of money that we will put into health, yet have consistently voted against all the economic measures—the new deal, independence for the Bank of England, the end of boom and bust and making work pay—that have enabled us to get 800,000 people back into work and to have the wealth to put the money in now?
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes an extremely telling and accurate point, but I sound a note of caution. He should examine not just the Conservatives' record in the past, but their prospective record.
  Mr. Michael Jack: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Milburn: May I make a little progress?
  The extra resources that we are providing will add impetus to the modernisation that is already under way. In the past three years, we have been laying the foundations for modernisation. The internal market has gone, replaced instead by a system that puts local doctors and nurses in the driving seat to shape local health services. Co-operation between health and social care and other parts of the care system has replaced conflict.
  The expansion of the NHS is under way. When we came to office, not a single PFI hospital had been built. Today, 38 new hospitals are under way—the biggest programme in the history of the NHS. When we came to office, accident and emergency services were neglected and rundown. Today, 190 A and E departments are being modernised—all that modernisation is about to start. Again, it is the biggest such programme that the NHS has ever seen.

  1017
  When we came to office, the number of nurses in the NHS had fallen and the number of nurse training places had been cut. Today, both are rising. Large pay rises for nurses are helping us to begin to turn the corner on nurse shortages. Today, 4,500 more nurses are working in the NHS than a year ago. With the extra money, there will be more increases. The same is true of doctors. Today, there are 2,300 more doctors in the NHS than there were when we came to office.
  The modernisation of NHS services is under way. When we came to office, waiting lists were at a record level and rising. Today, they are falling. When we came to office, cardiac and cancer services had suffered years of neglect. Today, those services are getting the investment and the priority that they need. When we came to office, there were no means of setting or policing standards. Today, we have new standards set by one new organisation—NICE—and inspected by another: the Commission for Health Improvement.
  All those changes have laid the foundation for a modern NHS. The new resources that we have provided will mean a springboard for improvement in patient care.
  Mr. Jack: The Secretary of State used the word "fair" to describe the mechanism by which he would allocate the money. He has just described some of the sectors where he might want to spend that money. I am still unclear as to how what is fair will be adjudicated on. I wonder whether he could give an example of how, under his proposed plan, he would adjudicate nationwide on who received money for, say, cardiothoracic treatment.
  Mr. Milburn: Cardiac services are a good example and an important test bed for fairness. The great irony is that this country has a lower number of heart surgery interventions than comparable developed countries. That is the sad truth. It is a consequence of decades of neglect. We are trying to put that right, but there is another unfortunate internal national problem, if the right hon. Gentleman likes: often, precisely those areas that have the highest incidence of coronary heart disease have the lowest number of heart surgery interventions. As he knows, very often, the poorer parts of the country need cardiac services most, but receive them least. That is what we have to put right.
  In all candour, I tell the right hon. Gentleman that the consequence of those facts is that we shall be targeting our investment in the areas that most need help. It is unfair that, in this day and age, a working-class, unskilled man has three times the chance of a professional man of developing coronary heart disease. We have to start addressing those big health inequality issues if we are honestly to say that we have a modern health service that is meeting the United Kingdom's fundamental health needs. That is a test bed for fairness, and that is something that we are determined to do.
  The national health service needs not only cash, but reform. It does not require one at the expense of the other; it requires the two working together. Big real-terms funding increases must now be matched by big real-terms improvements in services. The Government have met the call for increased funding with a step change in resources. Now we need a step change in results. I believe that, for too long, lack of cash in the health service has masked a lack of consistency. There is too much variation in both practice and performance across the NHS. That is unfair both to patients and to taxpayers.
  1018
  As the Prime Minister told the House earlier today, there should no longer be any excuses for poor performance. Patients want not excuses, but excellence in their local health services. Hence, in the next few months my right hon. Friend and I will be working to ensure that those new resources are properly used to deliver better health care right across the country. We shall be doing so in discussion with the professions and staff of the health service, with patients and with NHS managers.
  Yesterday, when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer finished his Budget statement, I met leaders of the professions in my office in the Department to kick-start that process. Tomorrow, I will be publishing our proposals on how we intend to take forward the dialogue on developing a new performance culture in the NHS. Over the next few months, we will be working with the professions and meeting NHS staff and patients to determine how we can use those extra resources as a catalyst for change throughout the NHS.
  We will construct a national plan for the national health service. The plan will embrace all who share a commitment to the traditional principles of the NHS, and who have an equal determination to modernise its practices. However, it is now glaringly obvious that not everyone shares that commitment. The Budget has exposed the isolation of Conservative Members as the privatisers of the NHS, just as it has demonstrated Labour's commitment as the moderniser of the NHS. That is the divide on health today.
  Yesterday, the Government renewed our historic pledge to an NHS that is free, fair and funded from general taxation. The investment that we are making will not only sustain the NHS, but modernise it, so that it meets the challenges of the new century.
  The contrast with Conservative Members could not be clearer. The party that voted against the NHS now seeks to turn people against the NHS. Barely a day goes by without Conservative Front Benchers—we have heard them at it today—singing the praises of private insurance simply to bad-mouth the NHS. Last summer, a Conservative Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)—who has disappeared from the Chamber—said that she tries
  to use the NHS … to see what it is like for people who do not have the privilege of private health care.
  By the autumn, the Conservatives were describing their policy as a "Trojan horse" for private medical insurance. By the winter, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was admitting that Conservative health policy meant that
  hip and knee replacements, hernia and cataracts
  would no longer be available on the NHS.
  As winter turned to spring, Conservative Members' policy turned from tragedy to farce, as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge declared that
  people would look to the NHS to provide them with a service when they had serious life-threatening conditions and would look to private insurance
  for the rest.
  Conservative Members do not have a national plan for the NHS—they have a secret plan for the NHS. While we want to expand NHS services, they plan to shrink them. While we plan to improve care services, they plan to reduce the NHS to a core service. While we are building

  1019
  a 21st-century health service to meet the needs and expectations of the public, they want to force the public to go private.
  Mr. Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order.
  Mr. Blunt: It is indeed. I have sat here through debate after debate on the health service and other matters, hearing direct lies about Conservative party policy being put by Ministers from the Treasury Bench. It does nothing for the credibility of the House when deliberate untruths are repeatedly told by—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I had an idea that the point that the hon. Gentleman wished to make was not a point of order. Those are matters for debate, not a point of order.
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman's agitation and concern are not so much directed at me as at his Front Benchers and, perhaps, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, with whom he had a former association. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I did not mean anything bad by that, because I know that they were just the best of friends. While the Budget provides historic real-terms increases year on year in the health service's budget, the Conservatives' tax guarantee is, as their former leader said, "mad", and could only mean
  swingeing cuts in the health service.
  The Conservatives have made their choice and it is tax cuts for the privileged few, not investment in public services for the whole nation. Just 10 days ago, the shadow Chancellor said of the Chancellor's Budget choices that
  he can either reduce taxes or he can increase public spending.
  He continued:
  What I would recommend is that he use that money to reduce taxes.
  The Conservatives have made their choice. They have already promised billions in tax allowances, tax reliefs and tax cuts for a privileged few. Like a half-witted Houdini, the Leader of the Opposition has put on a straitjacket on tax and spending. He can twist and turn but he cannot now escape. It is the straitjacket of the tax guarantee—[Interruption.] It is no use the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) getting agitated. As surely as night follows day, cuts in health service spending would follow the tax guarantee. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot have the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) shouting across the Floor from a seated position. He has raised points of order, but this is a point of order about which I am informing him: he should not do it.
  Mr. Milburn: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Conservatives' "mad" economic policy dictates a crazy health policy.
  Mr. Paterson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Milburn: No, because I am finishing my speech. The Conservatives cannot commit to the health service because they are already committed to tax cuts for the privileged few. They could not sustain the NHS so they would have to reduce the NHS. They cannot afford to modernise it so they have to commit to privatising it. That is the logic of their position, and the Budget has made it all too clear.
  This is a Budget that has sharpened the great divide in British politics. It is a Budget for economic stability, not for Tory boom and bust. It is a Budget for hard-working families—to help them, not harm them. It is a Budget for fairness—to tackle poverty, not create it. It is a Budget for prudence with a purpose, not perks for the privileged. It is a Budget for those who work in the health service and those who rely on the health service. It is a Budget that no Tory Chancellor could ever have delivered: a strong economy and strong public services; an enterprise economy and a fair society. It is a Budget that the Conservatives cannot even hope to match. It is genuinely a Budget for all of Britain.
  Dr. Fox: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I asked at the outset of my remarks whether the Prime Minister had inadvertently misled the House at the beginning of his statement and whether a Treasury Minister could let the House know whether that was so. I noticed that there were exchanges with officials, and I wondered whether a Minister could clarify that point before the debate continues.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has finished his speech and I have no control over what he does.
  5.39 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Until yesterday, I thought that I would remain unique among Chancellors in having given a combined Budget dealing with tax and public spending. I presented four Budgets, all of which were in November, under an arrangement introduced by my predecessor, Norman Lamont. We announced the tax changes for the year and the public spending commitments after an annual review which examined carefully the needs of each and every Department. We looked at the consequences for public borrowing or public repayment of debt and all those factors were judged with a view to serving the real purpose of a Budget—trying to create the right climate for a successful macro-economy so that we could continue creating wealth and secure jobs while providing sufficient resources to pay for public services.
  I thought that the new Government had gone back to the traditional Budget, in which tax measures were settled in the first part of the year. Every three years there was a comprehensive spending review which considered public spending. For that reason, when I was asked, as previous Chancellors often are, for my predictions for yesterday's Budget I said that I could not think why the Chancellor had given the impression that he had a vast war chest to give away and that he would be most unwise to do anything of any consequence by way of giving away on taxation. I said that if he had a bit to spare—as he has—he should save it for the comprehensive spending review in June or July when the real announcements will be made.

  1021
  Yesterday's was an extraordinary Budget. It was not a traditional Budget or the sort of Budget that I presented; it was a strange cross between a tax Budget and a spending review, dominated above all by political ambitions for the next election and beyond and a political settlement between the Chancellor and the Prime Minister which led to today's debate.
  I shall turn to the Budget in a moment, but the tax measures were, as I had predicted, fairly inconsequential. There were some interesting ideas on welfare to work and the working families tax credit, which we shall no doubt debate on another occasion. There was some interesting but modest stimulus to e-commerce and the dot.com economy. The rest was a bit here and a bit there. I do not think that anyone will look back on this year's Budget and remember anything about it. It was pretty dull, although that may have been wise.
  The last few moments of the Budget were dominated by the issue that has taken over today's debate. Suddenly, part of the comprehensive spending review—the part devoted to the health service—was pulled out and spun to the headlines. It has completely dominated the Budget.
  Clearly, the Prime Minister, who we saw in a panic on the Frost programme, insisted that something was done on a big scale to try to match up to his promises on the national health service. The Chancellor said that he was not giving all that money to one Department unless he could be sure that something would come of it. So the Prime Minister has personally taken charge, when he can think of what he wishes to do. The result has been a complete U-turn on the Government's policy on health for the past two or three years and the first day of the Budget debate has the Secretary of State for Health coming out with all that wide blue yonder stuff, along with some worrying detail, in order to try to turn the debate back to the health service.
  Let me go into a little more detail as it is an extraordinary political operation. Let me turn to the Budget first, as we ought to be concerned with the real economy. Why has the Chancellor been so unbelievably cautious? It is because of his one fear about the current economic prospects, the one fear that he did not mention in his speech yesterday—the consequences of an overvalued pound on key sectors of the economy. The pound's value in the present market is far too high—DM3.20 plus. For most of my time as Chancellor it was DM2.50. The pound's value has been largely driven by the monetary policy of the Bank of England and the Bank's continuing fears of inflationary pressures coming back, and perhaps fiscal indiscipline on the part of the Chancello0r. Although until now both the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England have denied responsibility for the pound—my view is that neither of them should have control over it or target it—they each have a responsibility to act together in paying heed to the currency's value.
  Yesterday, the Chancellor was anxious to say that he was going in for even greater fiscal tightening, for this year and next, than he promised last November. The elements of economic policy include taxation, spending, borrowing and debt, but it was debt that dominated the Chancellor's mind.
  The figures for the health service that we heard today have to be put alongside the fact that we are repaying £12 billion of debt this year. Next year, we will repay
  1022
  £6.5 billion of debt, and £5 billion the year after that. The surpluses currently planned by the Chancellor are absolutely enormous. I do not know why he is obsessed with paying back debt on such a scale—it is a good thing up to a point, as borrowing is tax-deferred—but he inherited perfectly healthy public finances.
  I cannot decide whether the present inspiration comes from Pitt the Younger or from President Clinton, but the Chancellor appears to be dedicated to eliminating our national debt. However, as a percentage of gross domestic product, our debt is miles below the Maastricht criterion, and is at a perfectly healthy level, compared with our competitors.
  The tight repayment of debt dominated the Budget. That is why tax continues to rise, as I shall explain in a moment. The Chancellor has done nothing about that. It is also why spending remains an even greater mystery, although I hope that the amazing promises about health service investment over the next four years, which I welcome, come to pass. However, I think that they were ill planned, and that they were driven more by the "Breakfast with Frost" programme than by any careful consideration of what that investment in one Department might mean for the Government's economic and spending policies, or for their political priorities.
  If the Chancellor's tight policy were to have the effect of persuading the Bank of England to make a rate of 6 per cent. the possible peak for interest rates it might remove from the markets the impression that British interest rates are going to go higher. That in turn might eventually help to create a climate in which the pound could decline. If that were to happen, I would be glad for British manufacturing—and for British agriculture, which at the moment is being ruined.
  I would be glad also for the sake of the prospects of inward investment into this country. For various reasons, BMW is not the best example to cite, as the strength of the pound was only one factor—the others involved all sorts of behaviour by that company—in the Longbridge plant decision. However, when one talks to the president of Sony or to any major inward investor into this country—even to any sensible British investor in a British company that wants to trade in Europe—it becomes clear that the high pound is the biggest problem that anyone is facing.
  Dr. Stoate: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to point out the problem posed by the strength of the pound to many sectors of the British economy, but does he not agree that the only real mechanism to reduce that strength is to cut interest rates? Would not that lead to inflation and a return to the boom and bust of the 1980s?
  Mr. Clarke: I do not think that that is necessarily what will happen. I have debated this matter before. I, too, am a hawk on inflation, but I disagree with the judgment of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. There is intense competition in today's global markets, with price-averse consumers and a high rate of technological change. As a result, the inflationary pressures are not as great as the MPC claims.
  A true comparison of inflation across Europe, using the only comparative method available, shows that Britain has the lowest rate of any member state of the European Union—so much for the claims that I was profligate, and

  1023
  for the claims that we faced crisis on inflation in the past. I think that our monetary authorities are too hawkish. We need a better and a more genuinely independent Monetary Policy Committee, with a membership drawn from a wider range of people.
  However, instead of going further into the question of debt, I shall move on to the public finances. Inflation has remained stable for most of the past four or five years. The Government have created the myth that they had to sort out the public finances. That.is used as the excuse for the Government's complete U-turn on health. It is their apology for starving the health service of funds for their first two years in office, when in fact they had no reason at all to do that.
  It is true that the previous Conservative Government, at the time that we left office, would have returned to balance and surplus somewhat more slowly than this Government have achieved. Nothing in the economic outlook has really changed. The borrowing requirement inherited by this Government was well on the way down, and all our assumptions have been justified.
  Mr. David Ruffley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Clarke: In a moment.
  We were setting a target of the public sector current balance being in surplus by 1999–00. The public sector borrowing requirement was going to go into repayment in 2000–01. We left healthy public finances and there was no need for some of the desperate measures that were taken.
  Mr. Ruffley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that as a result of the policies that he put in place as Chancellor of the Exchequer, the last Red Book that he published in November 1996 demonstrated that the public sector current balance would be in surplus this fiscal year? Does he agree that when the Labour party claims that its policies have brought public finances into surplus, that is yet another example of a great new Labour lie?
  Mr. Clarke: I agree. My hon. Friend was working for me in the Treasury. It was no doubt partly because of his advice that we had public finances sorted out. We spent four years doing so. We handed on a healthy economy and healthy public finances to a very fortunate Labour Chancellor, who then found that the global economy began to improve when he first took office.
  The Chancellor has remained with tough policies because he has not known what to do about the strong pound. He does not know what to do now, and it is becoming a crisis for farmers and manufacturers. His policy has been too tough on tax. I do not understand why the Prime Minister and the Chancellor think that there is any profit in trying to deny that the tax burden is continuing to rise. It has risen substantially since Labour took office. The Government increased taxes quite sharply initially, using the mythology that they faced a public debt crisis. Actually, they were raising money for a political war chest. However, the Government are continuing to increase tax, certainly on business and on the average taxpayer.
  1024
  I refer to page 200 of the Red Book, because tax is now defined rather peculiarly by the Government sometimes. It is necessary to choose the right tables because they cleverly use the working families tax credit and the integrated child tax credit, for example, to try to reduce any ordinary, old-fashioned definition of the tax burden. On page 200, there is a current receipts line in table C7. On that basis, it is plain that compared with 37.6 per cent. of gross domestic product that the Government inherited from the Conservative Government, they are anticipating 39.2, 39.6, 39.7, 39.9, and 39.8 per cent. Who knows, the figure might be less in the year 2003. Right now, however, the tax burden is increasing, and that part of the Budget yesterday provided for a continuing burden on middle England, Mr. and Mrs. Average and, in particular, motorists and a great deal of British business.
  My main complaint about the tax burden is not only that the Government increased it and continue to increase it, but that much of it involves the wrong taxes. There is too much tax on business. There are taxes on pensions and the tightening of tax relief on savings, with the result that the savings ratio is declining. The tax burden is increasing and a large part of it is economically damaging taxation.
  Yesterday, the Chancellor sought to get away from what is in some ways a difficult picture. I accept that the economy will see 3 per cent. growth this year and that we are running exactly in parallel with the Germans and the Italians. However, we just missed a recession 18 months ago. The Chancellor now takes pleasure in that, but boy was he lucky. We had two quarters of flat economic activity. Like the Italians, we were left bewildered as to quite why we had not gone into recession. We are now recovering and we will get what the Germans will get this year, which is about 3 per cent. growth. There might be a steady strengthening, but the Chancellor did not have much to say. He left the tax burden high and the fiscal policy tough.
  The Chancellor then went into spending. I thought that he would say, "Leave all this to June and July, when I shall have a comprehensive spending review." Not at all. He announced the parameters of the spending review for three whole years from 2001 onwards. There will be a 2.5 per cent. limit on public spending in real terms each year for three years. That will be somewhat less than the growth of the economy, and not very generous for Departments as a whole or for local government and other public spending. There will be a pretty tight three years after 2001, except—remember "Breakfast with Frost"—for a bonanza for health.
  It will not be quite the bonanza that it has been made to appear, but the Government have always oversold their figures. However, there will be a large increase in spending on the health service. It will not take us to the Prime Minister's target of getting up to the European average, but he is lucky because no one knows what his target means. That is because nobody can remotely know now what the GDP of any European country will be in 2004, or the levels of European spending. The proposed increase in spending would not get the right hon. Gentleman to the present levels of European spending by 2004, but there will be a big spending spree.
  The Secretary of State suddenly has substantial sums, which I welcome, that will go to the health service. His inheritance is dreadful. I like his predecessor personally, but I shall not vote for him to become mayor of London.

  1025
  I am extremely glad to see him removed from the position of Secretary of State for Health. The first two and a half years of the Government's stewardship of health were a catastrophe, not least because they starved the NHS of money. They pretended that they were imposing the previous Government's figures, but no Secretary of State or Chancellor in the Conservative Government ever avoided having an annual public spending round.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), who succeeded me as Secretary of State for Health, is in her place. If I had gone to her as Chancellor of the Exchequer and said, "We will not have a spending round this year, and the figure that we pencilled in last year is the figure," she would have resigned. Her officials would most likely have taken her through the door and made her resign. They would have said, "This is madness."
  The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) had not been shadowing the Department, and presumably ignored his officials. He found himself let in for a two-year nightmare while a financial crisis crept over the whole system. Let us not dwell on the past, but after that he did many silly things by tampering with the reforms that he had inherited. Most of that tampering made things worse, including adhering to a ridiculous slogan on waiting list numbers, which has been distorting priorities, sometimes with criminal effect, inside our finance-starved health service.
  We need a completely changed approach. The Prime Minister seems not to realise that collaboration with the private sector was banned under his first Secretary of State for Health, and he is now encouraging it. That is helping to ease some of the pressures. However, we are now told we shall have great reforms and a new policy. I, too, have taken through great health reforms, and it is not an easy process. I remember Labour's ferocious indignation when I put forward a diagnosis of the problems of the health service, which I and every Conservative Secretary of State talked about, including the difference in performance from one place to another. Labour opposed the entire diagnosis.
  It is no good producing, as the Prime Minister did, a few worthy slogans, thinking that he will have everything sorted out by July. His great friend President Clinton thought that his wife would have sorted things out in America in 18 months on that basis. I think that Hillary Clinton got further when she started than the Prime Minister got this afternoon when he produced a few worthy management school clichés and said that he would have everything sorted out by July.
  Various things are needed. The Government must get rid of their obsession with numbers on waiting lists. I agree, however, that there must be the right stimulus for good performance and the discouragement of bad performance. Fortunately for the right hon. Gentleman, he has all the results of the NHS reforms that I and my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey and other hon. Friends put through. He has management information, a purchaser-provider divide and clinical audit, which we introduced. We used that locally. We gave incentives to fundholding general practitioners and to health authorities so that they could move the money with the patients, choose quality and determine value for money in making the best provision in their areas. They could determine the best way of controlling the process.
  1026
  The contract system may have needed sorting out, but it did not need movement, as the Government have introduced, to a totally centralised health service.
  I was appalled when I heard the Secretary of State's description of how he will hand out the money. He has gone one step further from the past practice of having an initiative for this and one for that, a priority there and pots of money out in the middle. It seems that Richmond Terrace, the headquarters of the Department, is now to keep its hands on all the money that is going out throughout the country. It will supervise day-by-day performance and use carrots and sticks according to performance. If the right hon. Gentleman tries to run it all from the centre, he will go back to the worst of the health service 20 years ago. I wish him well. He must give up this policy of centralisation.
  There is no disagreement about the need for a better health service. I am totally committed to the principles of a better national health service. All attempts at reform have been to improve it. However, the Secretary of State's reforms go back to the ability to control everything from the centre—politically. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman's management abilities, I assure him that there is not in the centre the ability to reach the right decisions for the largest organisation of its kind in western Europe. The health service will go back to being a bureaucratic and political shambles.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does my right hon. and learned Friend, who understood how important it was to delegate, appreciate the comment of Nye Bevan? He said:
  the Minister of Health will be the whipping-boy for the Health Service in Parliament. Every time a maid kicks over a bucket of slops in a ward an agonised wail will go through Whitehall.
  My right hon. and learned Friend's reforms tried to counteract that state of affairs and ensure that power remained at the local level.
  Mr. Clarke: When I first came to the Department of Health in the early 1980s, that is the way it was.
  I hear that the Secretary of State is trying to take responsibility for community hospitals here and programmes there. He will be completely mad if he does that, and he will be completely mad if he issues the money according to his judgment of their performance over the last quarter. He will not be able to manage that.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No, I must get on.
  What does this money for the health service mean for the other Departments? My complaint about the Government's policy on the health service, until now, has been that nobody has assessed annually its needs and how it is getting on. That is how the crisis has built up. Now there is provision for the health service, and every other Department has been ignored. The Home Office and transport get peanuts, while the provision for education, which is no longer the No. 1 priority, although not bad, is not enough.
  What about local government? What about defence? What about agriculture? Ministers in those Departments are presumably listening to the money being dispensed, with no idea of what it means for them except that they

  1027
  have to fight for what is left within 2.5 per cent. of gross domestic product. It is spread over three years, so we do not know what the GDP is going to be. A cautious view will be taken, so any other political priority will presumably be squeezed into what is left. I presume that the health provisions are in cash terms, so that if the economy slows down, the health service will still get its share. The whale will get bigger, and the bath water will get less for all the minnows who sit around the Cabinet table. That is no way to control priorities in future.
  When I was Chancellor of the Exchequer and when I was a Cabinet Minister, my highest priority, in terms of public resources, was always health. My second priority was always education. It was not difficult—that was the position of the Conservative Government during almost the entirety of our 18 years in office. So I do not complain about the health provision. However, we need annual spending rounds. We need to see how the economy is actually performing—the outturn in terms of patient delivery and quality, the outturn in defence, the pressures on Departments. This three-year grandstanding is a bizarre way of deciding political priorities that are now cast in stone. It has been done because the health service is in a mess and the public realise that it has deteriorated since Labour took over. They have to be promised jam tomorrow, so all the talk is about 2003 and 2004—the other side of the election, when the Government will make everything better. That approach has distorted public spending.
  We talk about the percentage of GDP in 2003 and 2004, and whether the surplus will last. Of course, if we look clearly at this vision, it is all predicated on forecast. It is all illusion. We have to have forecasts; we always produced them. The likely development of growth, inflation and unemployment are worked out—I used to publish forecasts for unemployment by the end. The public sector borrowing requirement, or cash requirement, as it now is, and public spending are taken into account. But it never works out as expected. Anybody here who knows what the economy will be like in 2002 should make himself a very large amount of money and order the first of his yachts. The fact is that none of us has the first idea what pressures will face the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 2002.
  The Prime Minister and the Chancellor are constructing castles in the air. It all depends on what happens to the global economy. Is there another south-east Asian crisis? Are there problems in Latin America? The Chancellor has had such a lucky run that he thinks that he has abolished economic cycles. He thinks that he is going ever onward and upward, running more and more of the government as he disperses the results of his control of the economy. That is illusion; it is as bad as Midas. He will come to disillusion.
  We do not know when the economy will next turn down. I think that it is on course for recovery for a year or two more. However, I would like to think that next year, when we see what happens, we might have back a responsible Chancellor who presents a Budget with real figures and tells us why he is tightening or loosening policy. We want a Chancellor who brings back a genuine public spending round that addresses priorities, compares Departments and does not give us fancy, management-school descriptions of how great reforms and great money
  1028
  will give us a health service of a kind that we have not seen before in three or four years' time if only we will re-elect him and give him the time to do it.
  This is the strangest Budget I have ever known. The measures are dull; the economic outcome is uncertain. I wish the Secretary of State well in improving the health service, but I do not think that he knows yet how he will do it. Meanwhile, I trust that the British economy thrives, despite the Government's peculiar, political method of running it.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Giles Radice: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). Frankly, we can see the difference between his performance and that of his Front Bench. The Conservatives really should have him on the Front Bench, but that is a matter for them.
  I warmly welcome the Budget. I welcome the development of welfare to work, which has provided considerable help for my constituency. I welcome the increase in the working families tax credit, the increase in child benefit—which was of course announced in the previous Budget—and the useful help for pensioners, especially the raising of the savings exemption and the increase in the winter allowance. The new regional fund of £1 billion for economic development is very helpful and will certainly be welcomed in the north-east. I welcome the £1 billion for education, on top of the £3 billion that had already been planned. It is good that that money is going direct to schools. Then there is the £2 billion extra for health, on top of the £2.9 billion that was already announced in the previous comprehensive spending review.
  The Government have made a commitment to very large increases in health spending over a number of years. Those increases will be ring-fenced because the Government say that this is a major priority. I have to tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if we believe two areas to be particularly important, it is not so strange to ring-fence them in this way. We have not done it in the past; we have not given priority to the areas that we think important in public spending. As a result, when things have gone wrong, budgets in those areas have been cut. There is a case for doing what the Government are doing. This is a very large increase, and the Government are right to want value for money. I am pleased that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Health are putting in place mechanisms for ensuring that the money goes where it should and is properly spent.
  As for whether these spending increases can be afforded, the Chancellor is noted for his caution. I think that that is a virtue in Chancellors—those who are not cautious usually come to a sticky end. My right hon. Friend has approached the matter with his natural caution, but there is of course a history. We have only to look at 1987 and 1988 and the horrid example of what happened to Nigel Lawson's strategy: spending increases, tax cuts, overheated economy, increased inflation, and then raised interest rates which plunged the economy into recession. That example is in front of every potential Chancellor, and is certainly in front of this Chancellor. Nobody wants that to happen again.
  We had a golden scenario and we threw it away. We do not want to do that again. That is why the Chancellor has locked in his fiscal tightening—paying off £12 billion

  1029
  of the national debt. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe knows better than anyone how quickly the figure can go from a large surplus to a large debt, so it is right for the Chancellor to be cautious. Of course, by paying off debt and reducing it, my right hon. Friend will release extra resources for public spending. An extra £4 billion will be released this year because we shall pay less in debt.
  Table 2.7 on page 32 shows that the overall fiscal impact of the Budget is either a minus figure or only 0.6—that is the only plus figure, which appears for 2003–04. If that table is correct, the Budget is cautious. The Monetary Policy Committee considered the Budget. Today, its minutes stated:
  Overall, the broad fiscal picture looks somewhat tighter than had seemed probable a month ago. The impact on future activity and inflation seemed to be fairly small, although that would, in part, depend on whether the Budget had any lasting effect on sterling's exchange rate. More analysis would be needed once the full details of the Budget were known.
  The Budget has not received a thumbs down from the MPC. That is important, because if we want to get interest rates down, the fiscal stance must not be over-expansionary, otherwise the MPC will compensate by putting up interest rates, so the Chancellor did something useful in that regard.
  In our report on last year's Budget, the Select Committee on the Treasury explained the tax burden for the benefit of the House. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the former Chancellor pointed out, it is true that the figures can be considered in different ways, for example by including the working families tax credit. Incidentally, it is not strange to do that; we used to count in tax credits until 1995 or 1996 when the conventions were changed. The figures show that the tax burden rises and then begins to fall. As the former Chancellor said, it is true that if we remove the WFTC, the tax burden rises. If we include the receipts figure that he cited, the tax burden is rising. However, he is not really in a position to criticise the Government on that matter.
  I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might attend today's debate, so I looked at his last Red Book—his projection was that the tax burden would rise. The plan was that it would rise in every year between 1997 and 2002. Of course, he might not have stuck to those figures—just as he would not have kept to the figures on public spending. However, I hope that he would have done so. It is true that, under the former Chancellor, the public debt—the public sector deficit—began to be reduced. I applaud him for taking the tough actions that were required, but the job was not completed.
  The problem is that while there is a large public sector deficit, there will always be a problem with interest rates. That is a constant danger. If one can reduce the public sector deficit, it is almost certain that interest rates will go down, too. The Government were right to take action to bring down the debt.
  It is no good the Conservatives complaining about the rising tax burden when they were, rightly, planning for it themselves. Then they were in the real world, but now they are not. The only thing they can gripe about from the Opposition Benches is the tax burden.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I was arguing about the type of taxes that were raised—on pensions, savings and so on. However, my main complaint was that I cannot understand why the Government keep denying the obvious fact that the tax burden is rising and that it will continue to rise after the Budget. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be agreeing that, on any definition we care to choose, the tax burden is rising.
  Mr. Radice: The tax burden is not rising if we include the working families tax credit. That is a new wheeze—one that I wholly support—to bring down the tax burden for low-paid workers. The Government are entitled to include that figure as long as they also include the other figures—as they do, to give them credit. The Select Committee on the Treasury will produce a report to give a definitive answer on the matter, I hope by the time the Finance Bill receives its Second Reading.
  Mr. Andrew Love: It will include the right figures.
  Mr. Radice: Indeed.
  I do not think that the former Chancellor argued for large tax cuts in the Budget, but the shadow Chancellor did. When asked whether there should be increased public spending or tax cuts, the shadow Chancellor was in favour of tax cuts. It is irresponsible to call for large tax cuts, especially when the economy shows signs of operating at the top of output and there are some indicators of overheating. If big tax cuts had been made, the MPC would have had to respond and interest rates would have risen. That is not a sensible policy. I am amazed that the shadow Chancellor argued for it. Perhaps he had to do so because of the commitments that had already been made by the Leader of the Opposition.
  Another absurd Opposition commitment that was not mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe was the guarantee to reduce the tax burden, irrespective of economic circumstances. If the tax burden is to be reduced, cuts have to be made in public spending. As the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), pointed out, one would have to make cuts in health spending. The Opposition have put themselves in an odd position: it may be a striking policy, but it is a stupid one.
  The Opposition's alternative would be to privatise the health service. Their Front-Bench spokesmen say that they will not do that. However, if that is true, the figures do not add up. That is phantom politics. I shall know that the Opposition are serious when they abandon such approaches.
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) referred to table C7 on page 200. That shows the tax burden falling until 2005, under the proposed levels of public expenditure announced yesterday.
  Mr. Radice: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the tax burden is falling? The Opposition have just been arguing that the tax burden is rising. I said that if we add in the

  1031
  working families tax credit, the tax burden begins to fall at the end of the period. On other indicators, the tax burden actually rises.
  Mr. Ottaway: The working families tax credit is an even £500 million throughout, so the trend is exactly the same whether or not it is added in—by 2005, we end up with a lower burden of taxation.
  Mr. Radice: What might happen in 2005 is interesting but, as the former Chancellor said, it is not very germane. Treasury officials must make forecasts, but we do not know what will happen in 2005—we may all be dead.
  Mr. Ottaway: Does the right hon. Gentleman trust the figures?
  Mr. Radice: We can trust the figures for two years ahead; they are genuine. However, the world is uncertain; I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has learned that in his political life. We do not know what will happen in 2004–05 and the figures are, in any case, a little matter of just 0.1 or 0.2 per cent. They are not very germane, so we should not detain the House any more on this point.
  Mr. Ottaway: The point about future uncertainty is exactly the point that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe made. The important point is that, yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there would be growth in the economy for several years to come. Is the right hon. Gentleman casting doubt or aspersions on that statement?
  Mr. Radice: Even my right hon. Friend, who is a very great Chancellor, does not know what will happen in 2004–05. He hopes for growth, but we cannot be certain that we shall get it. I hope that this will not be the standard of the Opposition's arguments throughout this Parliament because, if it is, we shall not get very far in our debates.
  I want to discuss the risks associated with the Budget, because there are always risks with any Budget. I agree with the former Chancellor that the inflation target in the Red Book looks achievable. We have low inflation and the MPC thinks that, on present interest rate policy, the inflation target that has been announced is achievable. However, like him, I hope that the MPC brings interest rates down soon. Inflation may not he such a risk.
  There may, however, be a threat to output. We cannot be certain what will happen to world trade, but it is looking okay. What will happen in the United States? Will there be a fallout from shares losing value and from a stock market readjustment? We have been waiting for that for a couple of years at least, but it has not happened yet.
  The strong pound is another issue. There is no doubt that it is hurting British trade. The contribution of net trade is negative to national output, and we have seen examples of that and heard what big manufacturers have said about the problem. I am more sceptical than the right hon. and learned Gentleman about what can be done because the answers are largely outside our control. It is true that a reduction in interest rates could have an impact, but we reduced them considerably last year and the pound remained very strong.
  1032
  The pound's relationship with the euro is the key. I take the same position on the euro as the right hon. and learned Gentleman; I wish that we had joined at the start. I hope that we shall join as soon as possible after the next general election, provided that the circumstances are right. However, there is not a great deal that we can do now, because the pound's relationship with the euro—and not so much with the dollar or the yen—is a problem. We are waiting for the euro to rise because it is in the interests of British manufacturers that it does so. We hope that it will rise as soon as possible and, on any rational ground, it should do so because of what is happening in the European economies. Growth in France is strong and Germany and Italy are now recovering, so the euro should rise. Until it does, we shall continue to have a strong pound, which will not be in the long-term interests of our manufacturing industry. I do not have any answers on when it will, and I am surprised that the former Chancellor thinks that he does.
  I do not believe in economic miracles. "Events, dear boy," Harold Macmillan once said, change things a lot, and especially in economics. I do not believe that Chancellors of the Exchequer are perfect. I even believe that Chancellors from parties other than my own can sometimes make a good contribution. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was a good Chancellor. However, a big change has taken place. In the 1980s, public opinion polls showed that the Labour party was not trusted to run the economy. However, similar public opinion polls today show that twice as many people think that we are better at running the economy than the Conservative party than vice versa. There has been a big shift in public opinion. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on what they have achieved. Over three years, by prudent and sensible management of the economy, by giving the MPC control over interest rates, and by having a tight fiscal policy, they have brought about a low-inflation, low-unemployment, steady-growth economy. That is a big achievement.
  The fruits of that good and prudent management are coming through in sensible cuts in income tax. We have a 10p starting rate and the standard rate has been cut from 23p to 22p, but the fruits are even more apparent in the increased public spending on vital national services, particularly health. I congratulate the Government on their management of the economy and I look forward to next year's Budget.
  6.26 pm
  Dr. Peter Brand: We clearly welcome the £2 billion in the Budget for the national health service, if only because the Government have recognised that the health service was desperately in need of an injection of resources and funds. The Government have abandoned their argument that it was no good throwing money at the NHS until they had completed restructuring and had trained expensive specialists at some point in the next 10 years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken a welcome step. I also welcome the assurance that we shall have extra funding over the next four years, even though it will not take us to the Prime Minister's promise—later translated into an aspiration—of reaching parity with the average level of spending in the European Community.
  An infusion of resources is important because it may allow the NHS to achieve something that it has not been able to achieve for several years. We have heard claims that the NHS provides a comprehensive service, free at

  1033
  the point of need and paid for out of general taxation. That has not been true for 10 years at least. It is true that any medical intervention that one cares to name is done somewhere in the NHS, but a comprehensive service is not available everywhere.
  From his Olympian heights, the Prime Minister issued challenges this afternoon to the NHS. He said, "These are the five challenges that I set for the health service." The NHS is not just an organisation, but an arm of government. The Prime Minister is the Head of Government, so he, the Secretary of State for Health and all the minions in government have a joint responsibility for the people who work in the health service.
  A long list was announced this afternoon of disparities in the health service and of the quality targets for which we should aim. None of that comes as a surprise to those who work in the health service. It is surprising that the Government have only just realised that these things are going on. Often, lack of resources or the pressure of work that staff at all levels in the NHS suffer stand in the way of meaningful change.
  I should like to go through the five challenges that were set. I believe that they are challenges not only for people who work in the NHS but for the Government. The partnership challenge is vital, but it does not go far enough. The Prime Minister talked about GPs, hospitals, their consultants, primary care groups, social services and community health services. An important contribution is also made by the private sector, especially in long-term care, the care of the mentally ill and the care of people with learning difficulties. It was a terrible omission that the right hon. Gentleman missed out the voluntary sector. Whether the partnership is formal, through contracting, or informal, through advocacy services or carers, the voluntary sector is a partner within the delivery of the health service.
  I hope that in the discussions that we are about to have, both the private and voluntary sectors will be involved. We will not get right the services for people with learning difficulties, the elderly, the disabled and the mentally ill unless we involve the whole gamut of people who are currently involved in them. I am afraid that there are still significant organisational and budgetary barriers to joint working. A great deal was said by a previous Secretary of State about breaking down the Berlin wall—
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Is the Liberal position on private nursing homes that no additional subsidy should be given to the private sector, above and beyond what is given to council nursing homes for elderly people?
  Dr. Brand: We believe in co-ordinated commissioning of care through the NHS jointly with social services. In fact, we would go further and combine the two functions. We also believe that there is a place for a mixed provider of care. We certainly would not treat providers differently. One of the real problems is that the NHS has locked itself away from the community. It is in the interests of the NHS trusts that provide hospital services to decant people, put them under the care of social services, and hope that some form of community service will pick up the more expert input that is required.
  Speaking as a GP working in the community, I know how difficult it is to get specialists to go out to nursing homes, or to have someone admitted to hospital from a
  1034
  nursing home when they need more specialist care, because they are no longer a priority for that hospital trust. Those barriers need to be broken down. The care teams working with patients are keen to break them down, but we have structures that get in the way.
  The second challenge is the performance challenge. That is absolutely brilliant. It is a bit like "Challenge Anneka". It is right that we should all strive to do our best, but I hope that the Government, especially when they talk about incentive payments and non-incentive penalties, recognise that different parts of the country are at different stages of development in the modern agenda of team health care, and that often what people need is help rather than to be penalised. I would not want to see patients disadvantaged because a set of consultants or managers or a local authority was not prepared to make the proper contribution to patient care.
  The flagship of the Government's changes has been the setting up of primary care groups and trusts working jointly with the local authority and the voluntary sector through a health improvement programme. That sounds splendid and fine. That is how it ought to be. Health care is best delivered by the smallest possible unit that is most sensitive to a community's needs. That is why I am so anxious about some of the central Government initiatives that seem to be the flavour of the month.
  A framework has been set up to deliver local health care. National and regional services should interact with primary care groups and health improvement programmes, but often they bear no relation to what is being done by the people on the ground. I am not against NHS Direct, but why should it not be integrated with the out-of-hours co-operative services already provided by GPs in most parts of the country? Why should it not be integrated with the ambulance service and social services out-of-hours emergency services? There are structural issues in the way. It would be much better to give the agenda for delivering a service, and the resources, to the people on the ground and say, "This is what we want made available to your population. How are you going to do it?" Instead, we have a system imposed from the top.
  The same argument can be used in relation to walk-in clinics. I am sure that they are appropriate to cities or suburbs with mobile populations. They do not sit easily with the traditional primary care in the rest of the country. If the Government are keen to make primary care walk-in services available throughout the country, I am sure that they can be provided, but there are enormous resource implications. The Government should be honest about how that is to be delivered.
  The next aspect of performance is again one of the flagships mentioned by the Secretary of State. We supported the establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. I hope that it will work closely with systems such as Prodigy, which give best clinical advice to practitioners. I am extraordinarily disappointed that NICE has so far accepted only 13 references and reported on only one case. It is committed to doing only 30 investigations in a year. That will not keep up with new developments and will make it extremely difficult for NICE to have a valid role in looking at clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. That is an important issue.
  It is no good Ministers hiding behind NICE, which has a long reporting time on urgent issues on which decisions have to be made, such as the treatment of multiple

  1035
  sclerosis and hepatitis C—so well illustrated by the case of the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter)—and the scandal that up-to-date anti-cancer treatments are available in one place and not in another. Most of those things are not in clinical dispute. It is a question of establishing a national framework, and it is taking too long to deliver that. NICE will also make an enormous difference when up-to-date anti-psychotic drugs can be delivered so that the mentally ill in the community can have a reasonable quality of life rather than just be knocked out so that they are quiet.
  The Prime Minister's third challenge is a challenge for the professions, which he asks to strip out unnecessary demarcations, introduce more flexible training and working practices and ensure that doctors do not use time dealing with patients who could be treated safely by other health care staff. Where has the Prime Minister been? Modern medicine has been a matter of teamwork for the past 10 or 15 years. Doctors do not have the expertise to take on things that are best done by other people. In practice, we have moved on a lot further than the regulations have allowed. The Government are dragging their feet on issues such as nurse prescribing, nurse practitioners and allowing nurses to make referrals to consultants. Why should I have to countersign a referral letter from a nurse practitioner who is more expert than I am in the care of people with chronic asthma? We made local arrangements, but I would be officially in breach of my terms of service if I did not sign the letter saying that I would make all the necessary arrangements. We must move on.
  Another aspect that challenges not only professionals but the whole team is the recognition of the value of the wider NHS family. We tend to forget that people such as auxiliaries, cleaners and porters make an enormous contribution to people's sense of well-being. Cleaners also make an enormous contribution to health. It is disgraceful how filthy hospitals now are, and the Audit Commission report on hospital infections came as no surprise to me. We need to get away from the compulsory competitive tendering process, which results in a firm cleaning in the morning and the evening, while in the intervening period bed bottles sit there making the place not only unpleasant but unhygienic. I am pleased that Ministers appear to agree with me on that point. I shall continue in the hope of further agreement.
  The fourth challenge is the patient care challenge for hospitals and primary care groups to ensure that they all adopt best practice. No one is arguing with that; what is important is that we have the resources to measure outcomes so that we can establish best practice. One of the changes introduced by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) gave us the resources to do that. It is important that the modernisation fund, which appears to have been used as often as our mythical extra 1 p on income tax—
  Mr. Love: It certainly is mythical.
  Dr. Brand: If we were in power, it would not be mythical; it would be real.
  It is sad that, in many health authority areas, the modernisation fund has had to be used for the waiting list initiative rather than for its proper purpose, which is to
  1036
  ensure that electronic communications between hospital departments and between hospitals and local communities get on stream.
  The fifth challenge is prevention. We all, at times, pay lip service to the concept of prevention. I am beginning to conclude that some of the public health measures that would do much to prevent illness and improve health are better organised through local authorities than through the NHS. Housing, transport and education measures do much to tackle social exclusion and improve health. Let us take for our example the aim of ensuring that people live in warm homes. This country has an extraordinarily high winter mortality rate: it is the highest in Europe and higher than the rates recorded in Finland and Sweden; I am told that it is even higher than Siberia's, although I do not trust those statistics.
  There is no reason why, with better integration, we could not arrive at a cost-effective means of addressing those issues. For example, primary care teams could identify homes that would benefit from better insulation and better heating, and issue a prescription to that effect. That was the subject of a private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith).
  Many interventions that prevent further disease are now possible, but they carry resource implications. It was interesting to hear the Prime Minister refer to lipid-lowering drugs. We are the lowest users of such drugs in the European Community, and we have the highest rate of heart disease; I am sure that there is a link between those two facts. However, lipid-lowering drugs are extraordinarily expensive; capped drug budgets mean that priorities have to be assigned; and priority is often given to the treatment of heart disease rather than its prevention.
  Finally, on prevention, the Government take great pride and put huge resources into the prevention of cervical cancer, which is a worthwhile endeavour; but I cannot understand why they will not give people free access to dental checks, given that as many people die of oral cancers as women die of cervical cancer. The simple act of going to the dentist enables people to receive advice and treatment that might prevent oral cancers from developing.
  Jackie Ballard: My hon. Friend will have noticed that neither the Prime Minister nor the Secretary of State for Health mentioned dentistry in their speeches today, yet that is the element of the NHS that has been privatised to the greatest extent over the past 10 years. In my constituency, it is not possible to find an NHS dentist as a new patient and, if one is not already registered, one has to travel up to 20 miles to get emergency dental treatment. Does my hon. Friend believe that the Government are committed to restoring access to NHS dentistry?
  Dr. Brand: I am not sure: it depends on one's definition of national health dentistry. The Government have some centralised initiatives, such as the phoneand-go clinics, and they have assured us that everyone will have access to treatment for dental pain and emergency measures, but that is not the same as national health dentistry as I would like it to be provided: that is, through mixed-practice general dental practitioners who

  1037
  offer both NHS and private sector dentistry. The expertise and advice that can be offered by such practitioners could be made available to all their patients. Dentistry has changed massively over the past few years. Far more can be done in preventive dentistry—through the use of hygienists and appropriately qualified staff. Such arrangements free dentists up to carry out the more intricate work that we have all needed on occasion.
  I have gone through the five challenges. Now, I shall suggest two further challenges, which I hope the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Health will take into consideration. The first is resource allocation: the current system is not sufficiently sensitive to enable everyone to move to benchmarks. If those benchmarks are not well established, such a change is unduly harsh and creates great distortion in health services. Many examples have been cited of health authorities that do not now provide the service that they should provide, but which are having to make cuts in significant areas of their budget just to keep up.
  My last challenge—which the Secretary of State for Health should tackle jointly with health authorities—is doing more about the welfare of people who work in the NHS. People leave the NHS not necessarily because of money but because they cannot cope with the stress, with the inflexibility and, occasionally, with the unreasonable behaviour of others working in the current system.
  It is ridiculous that nurses leave inner-city NHS institutions because they are not offered safe housing or a safe means of transport between the hospital and their home in the early morning. It is ridiculous that people who work irregular shifts at irregular hours are faced with hospital canteens that are closed at all but the most regular hours. It is extraordinary how penny-pinching can destroy staff morale. We all want NHS staff to be paid better, but a small increase in resources can make staff feel far more valued and make their lives far easier.
  We clearly support the extra funding for the national health service. I was somewhat sceptical about it being directed from the press room at No. 10 Downing street, but I am prepared to wait to see what happens. We want a clear national framework for the national health service, as well as a locally sensitive health service, locally delivered.
  I hope that the Government will not wait until the end of their consultations to release the money for this year. It may be better to take a little longer over the consultations, but provide support for an extremely stressed service for the next 12 months. We do not want little dollops. One can die the death of 1,000 cuts, but having 1,000 plasters does not necessarily help when what one really needs is a blood transfusion.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Jon Trickett: I am delighted to speak on the Budget today, when we are discussing the national health service. Like all hon. Members, I welcome the large increase in funding for the NHS which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. The statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today helps us to understand better how that money is to be spent.
  I welcome the emphasis on a twin-track approach, combining clinical excellence with equality of access. It is important that clinical excellence in hospitals, acute
  1038
  centres and so on should be accessible to the entire population, which is clearly not the case at present. I shall return to that when I discuss the situation in my area, Wakefield.
  I do not find the official Opposition's fiscal stance credible, particularly in combination with their undertaking today to honour the spending commitments that we have entered into in the Budget. The Opposition outlined the fiscal stance that they would adopt, were they to be re-elected, which in itself is implausible. They would reduce the overall tax burden, whatever the economic circumstances. It is arguable that the tax burden may decrease as a proportion of gross domestic product in an economy that is growing. However, we heard the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the former Chancellor, say that he envisages that the cyclical process will continue, and so do I.
  At the moment at which the cycle moves into recession and GDP fails to grow, public expenditure inevitably rises in the welfare budget. That is almost a truism. In those circumstances, when GDP is falling or static or barely growing, and welfare expenditure is increasing, the commitment to reduce the burden of tax is wholly implausible, unless the Opposition are willing to argue that they intend to decouple the link between taxation and expenditure. The public sector borrowing requirement would then grow rapidly and possibly spiral out of control.
  I have not heard the Opposition argue that case, and I do not believe that they will argue it. It is therefore not plausible for them to argue that public expenditure will be maintained at the level at which it would historically have been, if the tax burden is to fall. Savage cuts in public expenditure would no doubt be imposed, which would inevitably fall on the health service, as on other parts of the public expenditure budget.
  I listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the Opposition today. An alternative strategy is possible. Public expenditure on the health service could be reduced and private expenditure substituted for it, but that was not argued, either. It was argued that the official Opposition would match the increase that we proposed in the NHS through public spending, and in addition they would enlarge the private sector.
  Even if the taxation and the fiscal implications could be squared—which I doubt, for the reasons that I have given—and additional expenditure could be provided in times of downturn, it is extraordinary to argue that it would be possible both to expand the public sector to the extent that we are proposing—for example, 10,000 nurses—and simultaneously to expand the private sector.
  We know that at present there are insufficient trained medical workers capable of being employed in the health service. One is daunted by the amount of training that will have to be undertaken quickly if we are to spend the money wisely, without incurring a form of health service inflation. The required training can be provided, but a great deal of work needs to be done. To argue that the private sector will expand at the same time is not plausible.

  1039
  If a Government were committed to expanding the private sector, that would inevitably drain resources out of the NHS—the public sector—thereby bringing about what we have been alleging for some time: a de facto privatisation of the health service.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that the simultaneous expansion of both sectors could occur only if the Opposition abolished the provision of minor surgery and the like in the NHS, so that people were forced to take out private health insurance?
  Mr. Trickett: It is possible that that is being proposed. We have read press statements, which as far as I know have not been denied, suggesting that certain procedures—not necessarily minor ones—would be transferred to the private sector.
  If the NHS is to carry out fewer procedures but is to spend the amount of money to which the Government are committing themselves, and which the official Opposition said that they would support, the corollary is health service cost inflation. The cost of procedures will simply increase. If fewer procedures are undertaken but more money is spent on the health service, that is inevitable.
  I do not find the Opposition's position credible. I am not convinced, either, by the rosy picture that was painted of the health service under the previous Administration. In Wakefield, we had the greatest extent of fundholding opt-outs in the country. Fundholding GPs were given financial incentives to seek procedures for their patients outwith Wakefield health authority. That coincided with the lack of investment in the two hospitals in Wakefield. The GPs accepted the financial imperative and looked elsewhere.
  Neighbouring health authorities came in to provide health services, resulting in the diminution of health care by one hospital in particular in our area, Pontefract hospital. That, together with lack of investment as a result of inadequate funding through the resource allocation working party, led to a hospital at the east end of the district which provides services to my constituency becoming impoverished. We are living with the consequences to this day.
  The competitive regime was not effective in providing the strategic approach to health care in the district of Wakefield. A more strategic approach is developing as a consequence of the abolition of fundholding and the ending of the competitive regime.
  I shall deal briefly with the current position in Wakefield. We have two hospitals, as I mentioned, one of which has suffered as a result of fundholding. The other, Pinderfields, suffered as a result of lack of capital investment. The new Labour Government have made it clear that they are prepared to make available capital to invest in the district. The problem is that the district is dispersed, with two population centres, and to provide a new acute hospital for one area will result in a poorer service for the other.
  Agreement has now been reached on the provision of services in the district, although it has caused me much trouble and soul searching. Certain commitments were made about the level of health care, cancer care and accident and emergency services in my area, the eastern
  1040
  part. But that agreement was made before the Budget and the national beds inquiry, and I am concerned that, although the debate has moved on, with new, welcome commitments from the Government, Wakefield has been left stranded with a decision that was taken in all good faith just before Christmas.
  The district will be submitting a case for fresh investment, which I know the Government will ensure we receive, but I have reservations about our bid and I would like an assurance that we will have time to adjust it in the light of the Budget statement, the national beds inquiry and the on-going debate under the Prime Minister's leadership which he announced today. Without such an assurance, I would find it difficult to support the current bid, and it is only right and fair that I say so publicly.
  I want to highlight the situation facing two industries in my constituency. My constituency was almost exclusively based on the coal mining industry. Sadly, that industry was destroyed for reasons which most of us well understand and which I do not need to go into now, but, as a result, my constituents are now largely unemployed ex-coal miners.
  The Budget builds on previous Budgets in creating a stable macro-economic framework in which businesses can prosper. The corporation tax changes and others introduced yesterday were welcome in the private sector in my constituency as elsewhere. Hon. Members have already mentioned the strength of the pound and the problems that it is causing some industries, to which I shall refer in relation to the textile industry.
  The coal mining industry is now at a critical point. Decisions will have to be made within the next 10 to 14 days if we are not to see the end of the industry altogether, a matter on which I spoke recently in a European Standing Committee. Our colleagues in Europe invest huge subsidies in their mining industries, particularly Germany, France and Spain. In Germany, coal costs five times more to produce than in Britain, and other European partners are producing coal which is substantially more expensive than the coal mined in the United Kingdom; yet our coal is more expensive because, while other EU members subsidise their coal mining industries, Britain has not done so in recent years. I would argue strongly that it is in the national interests, as well as in the interests of the community that I represent, that state aid for the coal mining industry should be considered carefully. The UK Government's position that other European Governments should simply stop subsidising their industries is not entirely plausible. I do not for one moment think that they will.
  If Britain is to have stable economic growth in the years to come, we will need indigenous energy supplies to ensure that other energy suppliers do not take advantage of an increasingly monopolistic position. I hope that Ministers, and the Chancellor in particular, will have listened carefully to the voices of those in the coal industry, to me and to other hon. Members, and that the Chancellor will consider whether it is possible within his budgetary strategy to assist the mining industry.
  The position is slightly different in the textile industry. Many hon. Members will have excellent companies in their constituencies. Berwin and Berwin in South Kirkby in my constituency provides good employment and high-quality tailoring. I have persuaded many of my hon. Friends to buy its suits from the local factory shop, and I

  1041
  have often worn them myself, although, sadly, I am not doing so today. But, like the textile industry generally, it is being affected by the pound, and by other circumstances which hon. Members will know well.
  The Chancellor will want to ensure that indigenous industries, such as coal and textiles, are preserved for the future, and I hope that he, like the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, will consider carefully the recent report on the development of a strategy for the textile industry.
  The Chancellor often tells us proudly—rightly so, and I share his pride—that unemployment in Britain is much improved, with 800,000 jobs having been created and about 1 million jobs currently available. That is true in my region as elsewhere, but unemployment black spots still exist. Some communities are isolated and find it difficult to avoid becoming ghettos, certainly in inner cities, but in many pit villages as well. Regeneration requires attention at a macro-economic level, but we must not forget the local community and neighbourhood.
  Many people in communities that I represent lack the self-confidence to seek work elsewhere. The Government have created institutional structures, such as the regional development agencies and the learning and skills councils, to address local needs, but those structures are too far removed from the neighbourhoods where the problems lie. It is regrettable that the Government have decided to abolish the training and enterprise councils, of which I am not a great advocate but which at least had a presence at the district level, and to replace them with countywide bodies. That is a lamentable step. I hope that the Government will put something in place locally to tackle problems such as those in the former pit villages that I represent.
  Finally, with regard to the micro-economy, money has been set aside for transport in rural areas, and I hope that communities suffering from severe unemployment and crime black spots will be able to access that fund. South Kirkby, a rural community and former pit village which I represent, has a 100-acre pit site which could bring new and much-needed employment to the area, but the private sector will not provide such jobs without a road link to the A 1. It is important that the regenerative potential of such new highways or bypasses should be examined in detail.
  With those reflections, I am delighted to welcome the Chancellor's Budget.
  7.9 pm
  Mr. Michael Jack: I listened with care to the speech of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett). I have heard him wax lyrical about the coal industry in European Standing Committee C. The way he argues the case for that industry does his constituents no disservice.
  I was however intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's claim that he was sure his district would receive new investment because of the Chancellor's announcements and the subsequent remarks of the Secretary of State for Health about the amount of money available for the health service. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) pressed the Secretary of State about the precise way in which the allocation mechanism would work, the Government were short on detail. The exact way in which the money will be spread around the health authorities, trusts and primary care groups in the United Kingdom is not clear.
  1042
  When Alan Langlands, the chief executive of the health service, tendered his resignation, newspaper reports suggested that the Secretary of State was totally fed up with the way the health service was being run. They also commented that the Secretary of State would take over the running of the health service—that he would assemble a tightly knit group of super-advisers and run it. Perhaps today's statement is the first sign that the Secretary of State is in charge.
  We are still not clear about whether the money will be genuinely upfront to tackle current pressures or whether it will have to be earned through even harder work—from existing resources—to try to get the carrots that the Secretary of State has thinly sprinkled around. Someone on the Treasury Bench is nodding—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart)indicated dissent.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Jack: As when one attends an auction, body language must be kept under control; otherwise, perceptive Opposition Members will assume that a signal has been given of new Government policy. I see that the Whip on duty is now giving the appropriate instructions.
  Although the money is welcome, I add my voice to those of my hon. Friends who expressed the Conservative party's solid commitment to the health service. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe was in charge, he pointed out at a Conservative party conference that until we started reforming the national health service, it did not know how many people it employed, it had no idea of its capital, and so on. We started the process to ensure, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe said, that we had proper information on which to run the health service. We were gearing our reforms to improving patient care. Waiting lists were reduced under the last Conservative Government, especially for those who had waited a year or more for treatment.
  It is a travesty of the truth for the Government to claim that we are not committed to the national health service. My family has no private health care; I depend on the national health service for my family's health care needs. I therefore have a vested interest in the NHS and I shall continue to fight for it in every possible way.
  Mr. Ivan Lewis: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the credible solution to the problems in the structure of the health service is either its modernisation and progress or the massive expansion of private health care? Which of those options does the right hon. Gentleman believe constitutes the way forward for health care?
  Mr. Jack: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman asks that question, because a mixed economy of care exists under the health care system that the Government run. Health authorities already use public money to purchase surplus capacity in the private sector so that NHS patients may enjoy faster treatment. The Conservative party

  1043
  believes that there is a place for both. We recognise that the bulk of health care in this country will continue to be funded from public sources and that many companies—
  Mr. Love: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jack: Before I give way to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), I should like to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), who may be in danger of upsetting his Front Bench by attacking the private sector, which is being used under the current purchasing arrangements. Many companies, and indeed trade unions, have provided private health care for their employees or members. People can thus choose. There is nothing wrong with ensuring a diversity of opportunity for health care in this country while acknowledging that, for the majority of people, including me, the national health service remains the primary source of such care.
  Mr. Love: In the light of the Conservative party's commitment to its tax pledge, can the right hon. Gentleman understand why the public remain sceptical about any commitment by the Opposition to an increase in resources for the national health service?
  Mr. Jack: The public are naturally sceptical when any politician, even the current Chancellor or Secretary of State for Health, starts talking big numbers. It does not mean a great deal to them. However, they want to know whether the Chancellor's largesse means that, for example, the cardiothoracic unit at the Blackpool Victoria hospital will be safe. I receive letters from people who require triple bypass operations but have to wait a long time for them. Does the Chancellor's announcement mean that they will be treated sooner? That will be the acid test of whether the money will benefit people in a way they understand.
  I welcome the Secretary of State's comments on performance criteria for the health service. It is important that they deliver. I agreed with his analysis when he pointed out that there were considerable differences in performance between the best and the worst in the NHS. It is important that lean, mean machines such as the Blackpool Victoria hospital trust, whose output is high on lower funding than many other hospital trusts in the north-west enjoy, receive their just deserts. I will judge the Secretary of State's words when we receive details of the workings of the funding and allocation mechanism, and on whether good hospitals such as the Blackpool Victoria get extra money.
  I want to refer to other items in the Budget. The Chancellor gave the impression that he was tackling personal tax burdens. However, if we cost the burden out in standard rate income tax terms, we realise that it has increased by 9p but decreased yesterday by 1p. That is a net increase of 8p.
  Much has been said about the tax burden. Let us consider table C7, which shows total Government receipts, on page 200 of the Red Book. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe rightly spoke in global terms. The table shows that income tax in the current financial year is 10.6 per cent. of gross domestic
  1044
  product, and that, by the end of the Parliament, it will increase to 10.8 per cent. Corporation tax—the largest tax paid by business—will increase in the same period from 3.8 per cent. to 3.9 per cent. of GDP. Excise duties will also increase from 3.8 per cent. to 3.9 per cent. Current receipts, excluding the windfall tax, are set to increase from 39.6 per cent. to 39.9 per cent.
  An interesting feature of the Government's approach to taxation lies behind that. They hide the fact that a parallel development with the Chancellor's activity at the centre is the increases in charges and taxes that people pay locally. In Lancashire, the council tax will increase by approximately 6.5 per cent.—approximately three times the rate of inflation. That is because the Chancellor has decided to squeeze the amount of money that goes to local authorities and he expects the council taxpayer to pay more tax locally for services.
  That is not restricted to council taxpayers. One of the most interesting charts in a recent Audit Commission report on the cost of local authority social services showed the rate at which charges had increased. I continually receive letters from elderly people who complain about the rising cost of their home help services. It is a little known topic of debate, but it means that elderly people of modest means effectively have to pay an extra tax because they pay more for their home help services.
  On charging, one can go right through the whole piece. On the implementation of the integrated pollution and prevention control directive, for example, industrialists and farmers in England and Wales will pay double the rate of their Scottish counterparts. Why? Because the Environment Agency here has been squeezed by the Government as they pass their costs—taxes—back to another paying unit. That is another example of stealth at work and it is a great pity—
  Mr. Ivan Lewis rose—
  Mr. Jack: I should like to make a little progress, if I may. It is a great pity that the Chancellor, in his gabble, did not—
  Mr. Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jack: In a moment. It is a great pity that the Chancellor did not have the courage to outline his strategy. It seems to be, "I want to appear virtuous at the centre, but I shall continue to squeeze people out there in the sticks."
  Mr. Lewis: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he aware that under the standard spending assessment system introduced by the Conservative Government, it was assumed, and continues to be assumed, that the local authority would collect a particular percentage of its social services budget by charging for the use of services? In terms of the percentage of money going to local government from council tax payers as opposed to from central Government, is he also aware that his Government estimated that the amount taken from local taxpayers would increase and the contribution from the centre would diminish? Has the Conservative party suddenly changed its policy?
  Mr. Jack: I did not say that my party was wrong to recognise that some form of charging regime might be

  1045
  appropriate. Before the hon. Gentleman nods, thinking he has scored some great point, I recommend that he read the Audit Commission report and acquaint himself with the chart to which I referred. I have done so. With respect, I do not think that he has made such an exploration. I apologise if he has, but he would find it a great education.
  Mr. Robert Syms: The advance corporation tax changes in the Government's first Budget hit pension arrangements, particularly for local authorities. Many of them have to face up to paying more to their pension funds, which in turn is hitting services.
  Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend takes me to a point that I was coming to, and I shall alight here for a moment. People in local authorities are not the only ones affected; Tesco pensioners have to pay more into their pension funds because of the ACT changes. Putting the emphasis on the individual, not the centre, is another way of changing the tax relationship. The Chancellor made much of the help that he is giving to charities, but they will lose £400 million as a result of the ACT changes and, over a phased period, that money will come out of the charitable pot. There were some fiddly little changes on value added tax for charities, too. They have advocated an end to VAT, or a lower rate, on certain of their purchases, but there was no word from the Chancellor. My hon. Friend has triggered an interesting thought on the Budget's failure to address some important issues.
  I have mentioned pensions, which take me on to savings. Intriguingly, the Red Book says that the savings ratio continues to be very low. If individual saving is low, it looks to me as though the Chancellor, because of the high tax burden, is doing the saving on behalf of the individual. Is that good economically? I would say not. Individuals probably have a better idea of where to deploy private capital than the Chancellor, and he should reconsider his savings policy. We have heard nothing about his strategy, apart from individual savings accounts. The Economic Secretary says that ISAs are wonderful, but the industry points to their complexity and people's difficulties understanding them. A sad element of the Budget is that no effort whatever has been made to address the problems with ISAs to make them less complex, and the Government need to outline a long-term savings strategy.
  Another sadness is that the Chancellor made no mention whatever of the need to reform and simplify our tax system, although an Inland Revenue press release referred to the work of the tax law rewrite committee, of which I am a member. I was glad that it also mentioned the capital allowances Bill, which is being prepared, but I am blowed if I can see when there will be parliamentary time to present that important step in simplifying our tax system to the House of Commons. More importantly, the Chancellor made no mention either of the committee's work or of the number of extremely good ideas on reforming our tax system and on wider reform. He did not show himself to be a genuinely tax-reforming Chancellor. Were he such a Chancellor, he would have commissioned work to ensure that some of the good ideas coming out of the tax rewrite exercise are used to improve the overall simplicity of the tax system. I understand that the Finance Bill will run to more than 500 pages, and that is not a record of which the Government should be proud. For
  1046
  example, 1 know for a fact that the Inland Revenue would dearly love to get at some complex pay-as-you-earn rules and simplify them.
  The Budget mentioned the Government's environmental credentials and I want briefly to consider a number of the proposed measures. Changes in the climate change levy were discussed and I welcome two concessions—one on horticulture and the other on liquified petroleum gas, to stop fuel switching—but I challenge the Government to tell me why on earth they need the levy. I apologise to the hon. Member for Hemsworth for what I am about to say, but the Government's carbon dioxide targets could be met by adopting the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's suggestions on changing the gas moratorium, by increasing electricity generation from burning gas by 14 per cent. and by decreasing electricity generation from burning coal by 13 per cent. That would save the requisite 2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide at a stroke. That information has come from parliamentary answers. We could get rid of the climate change levy's complexity and still achieve our environmental objectives.
  I do not understand why the Government use the stick approach in their environmental activities—there is never a carrot. For example, why did not they introduce double corporation tax relief on the money added to a company's bottom line by the energy it has saved? That would have been a positive encouragement. Instead, they have introduced the incredible complexity of the climate change levy.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jack: For the last time, yes.
  Mr. Davies: The previous Conservative Government closed down 90 per cent. of British coal mines. Is the right hon. Gentleman proposing that the rest should be abolished on environmental grounds? That is what he seems to be saying.
  Mr. Jack: No. If the hon. Gentleman had done his homework, he would realise that my suggestion is the equivalent of diminishing the output—25 per cent.—of the Drax power station. That would still leave considerable coal-fired capacity for the United Kingdom. I make that point because the Government have taken a complicated view, as they have on the banded vehicle excise duty proposal, which is supposedly designed to encourage more environmentally friendly cars. If anyone wants to see an example of sheer complexity, I recommend to them page 147 of the Red Book. There are four VED bands, umpteen different recommendations for carbon dioxide emissions, and references to the petrol car, the diesel car and cars using cleaner fuels. The difference between the top and bottom rates in this great chart is between £90 and £160. Will that have any serious impact on what cars people purchase? The answer is absolutely and indisputably no. I support the objective of getting cleaner cars on our streets, but the work that car manufacturers are undertaking to improve the technology of their cars will have more impact.
  Why have not the Government given manufacturers a carrot for achieving environmental targets? Why do they continue to beat people with complicated sticks that will

  1047
  have no economic impact whatever? The aggregates tax—£370 million—is another example. What will happen? Lorries carrying reprocessed aggregates will tour the country simply to try to miss paying the tax. How much CO, and other pollutants will result from that? We do not know, because the Government have not told us.
  The Government's "fiddle me here and fiddle me there" approach to the economy goes on. One of the Chancellor's advisers must have been Martha Lane Fox, because part of the Budget was seriously dot.com. One of the measures was to provide tax relief for people who want to go online. If the Government had known anything about running business in this country, they would have realised that small businesses do not buy their computers, they lease them. Leasing does not come under the terms of that proposal, so it is just more meaningless gesture politics.
  The most successful company in the world of software, Microsoft, did not get where it is with barmy proposals such as the Government have introduced to stimulate small businesses. Small businesses want less bureaucracy, less red tape, less interference from government and continuing lower interest rates. Good ideas will find their way forward without the Government's interference.
  The other oddity in the Budget was work permits. It will be "open sesame" for any IT expert to come to the United Kingdom. The Financial Times tells me that the Chancellor is to undertake a recruitment exercise. As he is scouring the world for those people, what is he doing to the indigenous IT experts? Last year, innovative, one-person businesses were going to be taken to the cleaners because of tax changes as a result of IR35. I wrote to one of the major suppliers of IT personnel to the Department of Social Security and to BAe Systems in my constituency. It told me that it would lose these people, who were going abroad because it was easier for them to ply their trade in a better tax environment than that created by the Government. It is odd that the Chancellor is now trying to redress the balance of his own economic policy on IR35 by going on an overseas recruitment exercise. If that is not the politics of the madhouse, I do not know what is.
  Mr. Ottaway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Red Book shows that, as a result of IR35, the burden has this year leapt from £475 million to £900 million? That is one heck of a chunk to take from the self-employed.
  Mr. Jack: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for making that point. I had a meeting in my constituency with 60 people from all over the country who will be affected by IR35. They are the very entrepreneurs whom the Government want to encourage. The Government create a tax system whereby those people can reward themselves by a combination of salary and dividend, and then they decide that they do not like the dividend bit, so they clobber them. Those people are risk takers: they cover their own sickness, their own pensions, their own training and their own investment. What greater characteristic of a one-person business could there be? Yet the Government's answer to IR35 is to recruit from overseas. It is, as I say, the politics of the madhouse.
  In my constituency, manufacturing, agriculture and education have also been affected by the Budget. Manufacturers have not been helped one iota. I am
  1048
  old-fashioned enough to believe that manufacturing still has a part to play in this country. The Engineering Employers Federation said that the Chancellor had
  done nothing to reassure manufacturing industry.
  The Machine Tool Technologies Association said that the Budget had
  totally failed to address the serious problems faced by the industry.
  Mr. John Edmonds of the GMB said:
  The most serious problem for the British economy at the moment is the value of sterling and its impact on the manufacturing sector. The Government have loaded the manufacturing sector with the climate change levy, the working time directive, the minimum wage and a raft of other measures that have cost the sector dear. The Budget has done nothing for manufacturing.
  The most the agricultural industry got out of the Budget was a reference to the herd scheme of taxation in an Inland Revenue press release on capital allowances.
  On education, the big headline was £1 billion for education. Strip it out, and we find that it is £300 million for schools. That will not help the biggest comprehensive school in Lancashire. I welcome more money, but that school needs four or five more teachers to deliver the new A-level syllabus that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has outlined. If that school receives the maximum amount of £50,000, it will, at best, buy two teachers. The head teacher is still short of people to deliver the Government's education policy. There is no capital to expand the school's dining facilities: it can accommodate only one sixth of the pupils for school dinners. The school has grown like Topsy: there are lots more pupils, but no expansion of the infrastructure. The Budget was silent on that.
  Families facing a £16,000 bill to send their children to university received no help from the Budget. I suggest to the Government and to members of my Front-Bench team that we should get rid of student fees. We are supposed to be getting more doctors, but parents who want to put their children through medical school face a £5,000 bill. What an inducement! How will that give the Secretary of State his extra supply of doctors? The time has come to end student fees.
  Regional investment was trumpeted as the next great solution to economic disparity. When I got down to reading about that, I discovered that what was proclaimed as a £1 billion investment turned out to be discussions between the Government, the European investment bank and other regional development quangos on various priorities. It is not real money: it is targets that they would like to see spent in the regions. It is officialdom interfering and trying to pick industrial winners. The Government have gone full circle. They have shown what they want to do, which is to interfere with the wealth-creating process while lacking any understanding of the real way in which business works.
  The Budget was like one of those Chinese meals: quite a lot to digest, but rather quickly forgotten, except perhaps for one thing—the bill. The tax bill remains rather large. The Government have done nothing to rescue their reputation in that respect.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: The obvious question for a Back Bencher to ask about any Budget is, "What's in it for my constituency?" In doing so, we must recognise that the overall state of the national economy is the most

  1049
  important factor in influencing the fortunes of people in my constituency and elsewhere, in terms of the performance of the local economy, employment levels, and public expenditure on local services. What I found most impressive in what the Chancellor said yesterday was his sound management of the economy, because that underpins everything else the Government do. For too long, too many people thought that they had to put up with the Conservative party because the Labour party could not run the economy. We have now firmly set the record straight and will continue to do so.
  When we came to power, we were faced with a huge national debt that had doubled under the Tories and there was a £28 billion deficit in the public finances. That had built up over the years when Lord Howe and Lady Thatcher were, in their famous phrase, stretching the meaning of words beyond what was credible, and when the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and Norman Lamont were tearing each other to pieces over the Maastricht treaty and the exchange rate mechanism. While all that was going on, our economy was going down hill.
  To be fair to him, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) did his best to sort out the mess, and I thought that he made a reasonable job of it, but we were left with a £28 billion deficit when we came to power. We have turned that round and repaid debt, so we now have a surplus on the current account, and because inflation is under control we can rebuild the national health service and the education service, put more money into crime reduction and transport, and cut income tax by 1p.
  The key to all that has been the welfare to work policy. We have record numbers of people in employment and paying tax, unlike all those years under the previous Government when we had high levels of unemployment and huge social security bills. The Tories always said that they would cut social security: they cut the rates, but they never cut the overall bill.
  What history will remember about yesterday's Budget are the huge additional resources to rebuild the national health service and to put into education.
  I remember the days—I was a teacher then—when the increase in the education budget for a year was I per cent. It was not 1 per cent. above inflation; it was simply 1 per cent. We were asked to put up with that. There were years when the increase for the health service was not much more: when I led a local authority, we had to put up with years in which the increase was 0 per cent, and we were told that that was a virtue. Now, when Opposition Members complain that the increase is only 6 per cent.—or 7 per cent., or 5 per cent.—we ought to remember those dark days.
  It is because of those days that it is taking such a long time to rebuild our public services, but they are already being rebuilt in my constituency. Waiting lists at my local hospital are on course to meet their reduction target. The winter so-called crisis was not a crisis; it was managed extremely well. As I speak, £700,000 is being spent on upgrading the hospital's accident and emergency unit, and the first 20 nurses provided by the Government's new recruitment drive have gone into the hospital. Since May 1997, Lowestoft community hospital has been completely renovated. This year's health authority budget has been set at three times the rate of inflation—and all that was happening before yesterday's announcement.
  1050
  Nevertheless, people at my hospital—which always heads any league table that anyone might care to construct—have told me that, notwithstanding their gratitude and support for all that we have done, they feel that they need more money in their base budget because some health service costs are rising at a higher rate than that of inflation. We have heard about that, both yesterday and today. We heard today that the new money would go directly to trusts and primary care groups, and they will be very pleased. We are talking not just about the £2 billion for the immediate year, but about the four-year programme—a huge rise from £45 billion to £69 billion. We are on the way to reaching European levels, whatever they are. These are massive amounts. The real question is this: why is so much needed to take us to the level that we would like to reach? The answer is that the national health service was not funded properly for so long.
  As for education, I have lost count of the number of schools in my constituency that have received money from the buildings fund to repair leaking roofs, add classrooms and improve facilities generally. This year, both Kirkley and Sir John Leman high schools are receiving six-figure sums for capital works, and Lowestoft college received £900,000 to create a centre of excellence for training in maritime and offshore skills. That is real money—but what we shall see now is real and direct money going into our schools. I taught in schools for many years, and I cannot remember seeing an extra £30,000, £40,000 or £50,000 going straight to a school for a head teacher to spend on the things that mattered. That was unheard of, but now it is happening. Primary schools are also receiving good sums: up to £9,000.
  The other priority for my constituency is help for pensioners. It contains 21,000 of them, and they will be helped by the £150 winter fuel allowance. I am particularly pleased about the rise in capital allowances. Many pensioners with small savings have not yet been able to claim the minimum income guarantee, but they will now be able to do so. They will find the guarantee a great help, because it represents a significant weekly increase in what they can claim as a pension through income support. Pensioners will also be pleased that more of them are taken out of tax. The 10p tax rate will help, and that is on top of what we knew before about television licences and eye tests. It all adds up to more than 75p a week.
  Nevertheless, pensioners still ask me why the Government cannot simply spend the money on increasing pensions across the board. The answer is this: there are wealthy pensioners who, frankly, do not need the money, and, more important, the poorest pensioners would lose the money pound for pound as they lost their income support. If we adopted that course, we would not reach our target.
  I approve of the policy of increasing the pension by at least the rate of inflation, and then using the minimum income guarantee to help more and more people. However, I believe that we do or did—need to consider pensioners with a small second pension, who are not wealthy, who did not receive the minimum income guarantee and who, in their terms, were only receiving the 75p. I am delighted that the Government intend to introduce a pensions credit system enabling such people to obtain more money through a pension entitlement guarantee. I hope that the Government will act quickly, because those people are impatient.

  1051
  Given that we are raising pensions annually by at least the rate of inflation, I wonder whether we can improve the way in which we calculate the rate of inflation. It is quite hard to give an answer to a pensioner who says, "I have my 75p, but my council tax has gone up by this much, and my rent has gone up by that much". The problem is that the month in which we assessed this year's index gave us a figure of 1.1 per cent. Perhaps a way could be found of producing a figure reflecting the actual increases that such people experience.
  For many years, the main issue in my constituency has been the distress caused by unemployment coupled with low pay—and the two tend to go together. Since May 1997, unemployment has fallen by a third in my constituency, owing to a general improvement in the national economy along with the significant effect of the new deal. However, the unemployment rate is still 7 per cent., which is much higher than the rate in the rest of East Anglia and puts us pretty high up on the national league table. We have generally been in the top 20 travel-to-work areas in unemployment terms.
  I was pleased to hear yesterday that the Budget would extend the new deal, enabling it to focus in particular on unemployed people over 25. Many of my constituents who were made redundant from the traditional industries of shipbuilding, food processing and engineering, and have found it very difficult to find other jobs, have asked whether they can have a bit more of the new deal. They like it, but they feel that it is young people who are being helped. They ask, "Can you turn to us?". We have been turning to them, and now we are going to focus on them even more.
  The idea of spending £40 million on action teams to try to match the vacancies to the unemployed strikes me as very worthwhile. Notwithstanding the unemployment that I have described, in the last couple of weeks three employers in my constituency have said that they cannot obtain the labour that they want.
  People have come to my surgeries—and, I am sure, to those of other hon. Members—and said, "I think I have found a job, but I will struggle until I receive my first pay slip." I also like the idea of the £100 job grant to tide them over.
  During my early months as a Member of Parliament, after May 1997, many people came to see me, perhaps because I was a new Member or perhaps because they had problems that had built up over the years. The main issue was the number of people for whom work would not pay—who remained on benefits, and did not look for work as hard as they would have wished to if they had not known that they would be worse off as a result. The working families tax credit represents a major step forward in my constituency, and is very helpful to the 2,500 or so families receiving it. The increase of at least £4 a week in the child-related element will not only help people who want to get into work, but reduce poverty.
  What with the minimum wage, and the increase in child benefit to £15 a week—I think that about 12,500 families will benefit from that—the Budget has given people much more hope, and improved their lives. Those people, many of whom are traditional Labour supporters—core supporters—will also be pleased with the 1p reduction in income tax. However, if we are to have the jobs,
  1052
  businesses must succeed. Most employers in my constituency run small businesses, so they will appreciate some of yesterday's measures, including the reductions in capital gains tax. Despite what the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said, those businesses will appreciate the capital allowances on information technology equipment. Not everyone in my constituency leases the equipment; some buy it. The measure will encourage them to do that, which they have not always done before.
  When we talk about employment throughout the country, the big issue is disparity. There is not just a north-south divide, but an east-west divide and a coastal-inland divide. Coastal towns, particularly those on the east coast, have high unemployment. There is a disparity within the regions. My constituency is in the same region as Cambridge. Too often, Cambridge is seen to typify the region.
  Therefore, I welcome the regional venture capital fund. I hope that it will be used to support enterprise in places that can most benefit from it. I am sure that the regional development agency will have a role in that, but I am concerned about the East of England regional development agency budget, which is the same as it has been historically. When we put together all the money, it showed how little money the East of England received under the previous Government. I hope that the present Government will review the amount urgently, put that right and ensure that the money is directed to unemployment black spots. My constituency is called an unemployment black spot. It is not a pleasant name, but I hope that we will not have to put up with it for too much longer.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General is in the Chamber. I have spoken to her about the construction industry scheme. I was pleased with the Budget's measures to simplify the paperwork on the scheme and to make it easier for companies to get a CIS5 certificate.
  I am pleased that there will be an investigation into the system whereby people who run small businesses must travel around personally presenting a plastic card to people to obtain their money. We should use the information technology that we ask those small businesses to use. We need to clamp down on fraud, but some decent businesses in the construction industry are trying to get work in other parts of the country. They have been held back. I welcome yesterday's measure to tackle that.
  As energy policy has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett) and by the right hon. Member for Fylde, I should say a word about that. I admire what my hon. Friend is doing for the coal industry, but I remind him and Ministers that an awful lot of people are employed in the off-shore oil and gas industries, particularly the off-shore gas industry.
  Many fabrication yards are becoming more idle. Thousands of jobs are threatened. We will have the capacity to have off-shore gas and oil industries—although gas will last longer than oil—for about 30 years to come, if we get the taxation regime right.
  I know that oil costs $30 a barrel at the moment, so the idea of cutting tax is not politically acceptable, but we must look to the long term and ensure that we can sustain that industry, and not just in a fiscal sense. It becomes progressively more difficult to extract the oil and gas from the marginal fields. We do not want to lose the main infrastructure that supports that.

  1053
  There is no longer a case for a moratorium, or for stricter consents policies on gas-fired power stations. Many more jobs would be created through building those power stations than would be put at risk by reducing—not obliterating, but reducing—some of the coal use. It meets the Government's environmental policy on CO, emissions. Building those power stations could make an important contribution to meeting our Kyoto targets.
  Again, many of the places where the power stations would be built need to be regenerated. Such places around the coast suffer from unemployment. Such building would provide a big input to those communities, as well as sending a positive signal to the off-shore gas industry that this country is committed to the cleanest of the fossil fuels—it is second only to renewables, probably, in terms of environmental acceptability—and is going in that direction.
  My constituency is in East Anglia, which is characteristically rural—in fact, my constituency contains a large tract of rural north Suffolk. People have asked what the Budget contains for rural areas. What is in it for those areas? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nothing."]
  That is the response from members of the Conservative party in East Anglia. I find that puzzling. Their approach seems to suggest that people who live in rural areas are a different race, a different set of people, but they use the health service and send their children to state schools. Many are pensioners. They pay income tax and will benefit from the 1p off. They claim the working families tax credit and take up child benefit. People do all those things in rural areas, as they do in towns, so to try to pretend that there is some basic difference is ridiculous.
  In one particular respect, the Budget was good for rural areas: the measures regarding transport. Before the Budget, I felt that the Government had a choice. They could either continue with a small fuel tax escalator and hypothecate the money, as promised, into transport, or they could have no fuel escalator. We had both. There is no fuel tax escalator—I was pleased about that—but £280 million will go towards transport, so we have the best of both worlds.
  Mr. Syms: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of today's announcement that £250 million of that has gone into the Manchester Metrolink? Therefore, for the rest of the country, there is £30 million.
  Mr. Blizzard: The hon. Gentleman assumes that the £250 million is out of the £280 million. I am prepared to accept what the Chancellor said yesterday, which is that that £280 million will go towards road improvements and public transport. My plea to the Chancellor and to the Deputy Prime Minister is that a good deal of that money be spent to improve the road infrastructure in some parts of the country.
  Anyone who has been to East Anglia will know it still has inadequate roads. Regions in the far end of East Anglia, such as my constituency, which is based around Lowestoft, suffer from that. The economy suffers from it, too. Therefore, there are plenty of possibilities to use some of the transport fund in East Anglia. I hope that it will be used there.
  I hope that money will continue to be used for the rural bus initiative because many people in rural areas have no car. The initiative has helped them to gain some mobility.
  1054
  However, I ask that the terms of the funding be drawn fairly broadly, so that transport authorities, county councils or whatever, can use it in the best way for their communities.
  In Suffolk, we are told that the money can be used only for new bus routes. I would like the money to be used to protect existing bus routes. We could move more people for our money if we put it into community buses and taxi schemes. All too often, we have empty single-decker large buses rumbling around country lanes. We could do better for the money that we are putting in. However, we must recognise that a serious modal shift will not happen in rural areas. Thousands of buses would have to roam around the villages at regular intervals to offer access that is in any way comparable with that offered by a car. That is important when looking at future policy.
  I have already mentioned some of my constituency's employment problems. The Government are making efforts seriously to regenerate my area. We are in receipt of single regeneration budget money, and, in one particular area of Lowestoft, much good work is being done. We are, therefore, not at all pleased that the area's last bank—Barclays bank—is walking away. As the Government are putting in millions of pounds, Barclays is walking away—undermining confidence in the area and making life more difficult for shopkeepers, who have to take their money further to bank. We are also not pleased that Barclays seems to have an uncompromising attitude. However, I am very pleased that, yesterday, the Chancellor said that, in the Budget, he would take the banks to task in a number of ways.
  It seems to me that large companies, such as banks, should be working with Governments and for communities. When a programme such as the single regeneration budget is in progress, banks should stick in there and have some faith in that programme. Ultimately, they may reap the rewards of that.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously believe that Barclays will reopen its Lowestoft branch because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken it to task?
  Mr. Blizzard: The debate gives me a very good opportunity to put on the record, in Hansard, what I think of Barclays—so that, next week, when I meet people from Barclays, I will already have made my point.
  Yesterday's Budget was a good Budget for my constituency. I believe that it was a good Budget for most of the country. There were winners all round. Yesterday, I was asked on local radio who was a loser in the Budget. Although I can think of people who have to pay more stamp duty on a home worth more than £250,000, I do not think that that change will affect too many people in my constituency.
  I remember the days when Budgets were feared—when people braced themselves for two weeks before a Budget, wondering what dreadful things could happen. I remember when people prepared to wince on Budget day, and when Budgets were measured only by the degree of badness and pain that they inflicted. Yesterday's Budget was an occasion of joy, and an occasion when we could see that public services are being rebuilt. We are rebuilding the welfare system for our young and our old. We are rebuilding prosperity for hard-working people not only in my constituency but across the country, so that we end up with a country that we can be pleased to live in.
  8.2 pm
  Mr. Ian Taylor: The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), in his peroration, reached almost evangelical tones, and he did an extremely good job at defending his Chancellor's Budget. Indeed, there were times during yesterday's Budget speech when I was quite excited. There were several measures in there—which I shall return to later—that I rather liked the sound of; they sounded exactly like the sort of measures that would be welcomed by certain aspects of the business economy and by those of us who would like a lessening of dependency in our society.
  My suspicions were aroused, however, in casting an eye at the now healthy hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who was beginning to smile at the bits of the statement that I was smiling at. This is a very worrying state of affairs. It was clear to me that the hon. Gentleman had got the full feel of the Budget: it is capitalism with a socialist face. To that extent, the process of the Chancellor's speech led us to his own peroration, which was the huge growth in expenditure on the national health service.
  Conservative Members, including me, are not prepared to be categorised as anti-NHS. The NHS is a crucial part of the fabric of our society and has had a remarkable impact on the creation of the self-confidence within families and communities to face up to illnesses. In times of stress, it is very important to know that there is a health care service that can look after us. I hope that that is common ground between both parties. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), I resent the accusation that we are not prepared to defend a national health service.
  The problem is that, over many years, the national health service has not been delivering the quality of service on which people depend. Therefore, there are concerns in communities right across the country that, when they need it, the national health service—albeit funded by taxation—will not give the quality of service that their families require. It is a matter not of whether the NHS might ultimately be able to deliver the service, but whether it is able to deliver it when the family needs it. In my own constituency, the current situation has caused people who are certainly not wealthy to decide to opt for private practice—they would not normally have thought of doing so—because they want the security of knowing that they can quickly receive treatment for their particular illnesses.
  Mr. Ivan Lewis: Is the solution to that problem more money and the reform and modernisation of the delivery structures in the health service, or is it massive expansion of the private health care sector? Conservative Front Benchers repeatedly articulate the view that the solution to the problem that the hon. Gentleman has outlined is massive expansion of the private health care sector. Does he support that view?
  Mr. Taylor: Expansion of the private health care sector is not a matter of whether the Government or the Opposition support it. I believe that the sectors can co-exist and, in a moment, I shall come back to a point about how they might help each other. However, I tell the hon. Gentleman—who has made two interventions on this
  1056
  point—that one of the periods of fastest growth of the private health sector was under the previous Labour Government, in the latter part the 1970s, when care in the NHS had reached such an abysmal state that people, including trade unionists, were being driven to take out private health insurance policies. Currently, there is a danger that concern about the quality of care in the health service is again encouraging people to move across into the private sector. A week or two ago, I had a constituency case on precisely that issue.
  Therefore, I do not believe that any policy that seems to drive people out of the health service into the private sector is acceptable. I certainly do not support that. What I do say is that, in the long run, if the United Kingdom is ever to reach the types of health care levels achieved in other countries, more resources, both public and private, need to be devoted to health care.
  Mr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again on this point. The Government have a choice: they can either make tax relief available to stimulate use of the private sector, or they can use tax revenue and public expenditure to improve and expand the national health service. Which of those two choices does he believe a responsible Government would make?
  Mr. Taylor: I do not think that that is the dichotomy at all. In a free society, people are free to take out private health insurance. That is not something that we should be disputing. My point is that more resources have to go into the national health service. I welcome the Government's figures yesterday, and I am delighted that the economy is sufficiently healthy for those types of figures, over four years, to be committed. I also hope that the economy justifies that degree of confidence by the Chancellor. However, ultimately, whatever amount of money one puts into the health service, there will be problems.
  It was not that many years ago that I was parliamentary private secretary to the then Health Secretary, William Waldegrave, now Lord Waldegrave, and we were implementing the reforms that had been started by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), William Waldegrave's predecessor. There were a huge number of issues that we knew we had to tackle, because it was self-evident that the publicly funded, tax-based health care system was simply not capable of proper management. It did not have the management tools. We had the same problem that the Prime Minister mentioned today—disparity of treatment across the country.
  Reforms are necessary, and I welcome the Prime Minister's statement today—but with one big caveat. I wrote a speech for William Waldegrave that sounded very similar to that statement, but, as he was an intelligent man, he rejected it as waffle. I hope that the Prime Minister has understood that warm phrases and lots of concepts such as preventive care, partnership and performance are not themselves substitutes for the tough reforms that will have to be put into practice if the money that has been promised by the Chancellor is to deliver the improvement in outputs across the country that all of us require from a nationally funded health service.
  I also wonder whether the options that the Prime Minister is considering should not have additional to them the types of concepts that Lord Winston articulated only

  1057
  a few weeks ago. In my view, this is Lord Winston's Budget. I suspect that, if Lord Winston had not articulated those views, the Chancellor's generosity may have been slightly less in this Budget. However, I shall leave that aside as I cannot prove the point. Lord Winston clearly said that additional private sector resources will need to be brought into the health service for the benefit of all, and new ways of improving the management of the allocation of resources in the health sector will also be needed. I did not hear that from the Prime Minister today, and that was one of the great omissions from his statement. I hope that in the next four months he will learn the lesson that tough choices are not just about warm words. The health service has some difficult management issues that must be addressed if we are ever to have the quality of care that all our constituents expect.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend appreciate—because clearly Labour Members do not—that we are already seeing a large expansion in private health care? Is he aware that BUPA has announced that four times as many private operations were performed in the past 12 months as in 1997? That is because of the state of the NHS under the Labour Government.
  Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is correct to say that the current state of the health service after two and a half years of a Labour Government is worrying, and that that is forcing people into the private sector. However, I do not want to see a conflict between the two. The purchasing criteria in the health service may, from time to time, require the purchase of operations and procedures from the private sector. We need to see the totality of resources devoted to health care, rather than people in the private sector being regarded as renegades, or people being forced out of the NHS because it is not good enough.
  I received a letter from the Ember centre, in association with Age Concern Elmbridge, which covers my constituency, listing several people who have received worryingly poor treatment by the NHS. It states:
  It saddens us to have to make these representations to you but we hope that you will agree that these experiences show that conditions in our Area need to be vastly improved and what is hard to understand is why the Health Authority is not more vigilant and making inspections—or following up complaints—to ensure that this state of affairs does not continue or ever arise again.
  We do not point the finger and say that the health service is awful because there is a Labour Government, because I know that we faced the same problems when we were in government. What I do say to the Minister is that money alone will not cure the problem. Considerable reform is needed if health authorities are to perform their jobs and the trusts and the primary care groups are to be enabled to provide a proper quality of care. I welcome NHS Direct, for example, because it is a good initiative. However, all the changes must be carefully considered if, in four years' time, after vast amounts of money have gone into the health service, we are not still to have the problems that constituents have experienced with quality of care. That really would be a crisis, and the Government would have proved that money from the state was not sufficient to deliver the quality of service now expected by the public.
  During those four years, there will be terrific pressures on the drugs budgets, as new procedures arrive and people expect them. Only one drug, Relenza, has been held back
  1058
  by NICE, but in the future several drugs may be resisted on value grounds and the Government will get into difficulties, especially once the genome project has been realised and the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries start to produce treatments that arise from understanding our genetic structures.
  The welcome news on the NHS is almost a challenge to the Government. They have to prove that their approach will deliver better quality of care. Ultimately, the public worry less about where the money comes from and more, and increasingly, about the quality of care they receive. I would like the NHS to be a service that is broadly free at the point of need, but that service is no longer sufficient if it does not deliver the quality of care.
  I said earlier that I welcomed one or two points in the Budget, and that is true. The Chancellor is right to try to stimulate e-commerce, and I disagree with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) on that subject. On occasions, a stimulus in certain aspects of economic development is important. It might be temporary, but it could be crucial. The trouble is that more and more people are now aware of the dynamism of e-commerce and the importance of getting online, but very few have the strategies to do so or the investment plans to enable them to do so. We cannot afford to slip behind—and in internet time, one year is a very long time. Action this day is crucial if we are ever to meet the Government's target of making this country the best place in the world for e-commerce.
  Mr. Jack: One of the characteristics of many of the enterprises my hon. Friend describes is that they are yet to make a profit. Therefore, offering them a tax allowance is not perhaps the most relevant approach.
  Mr. Taylor: I agree, in terms of the newest dot.coms. Indeed, it is widely understood that their value will go down once they make a profit. At that point, they will be valued in more traditional terms, instead of the multiplication of the number of customers. I am less interested in the dot.coms, which will make a sensational impact for a while, than in companies that are more established moving into a position to offer their services online. The adaptation of offline companies into the online world is one of the biggest challenges we face. Numerically, that includes the bulk of companies in this country.
  If we are to achieve the real dynamism that anyone who goes to silicon valley on the west coast of the USA instantly observes, we will have to stimulate entrepreneurs. I do not know whether it is fashionable to say so, but the Chancellor is right to understand that entrepreneurs should not be ridiculed as rich people who, because they have made money, should be regarded as social pariahs. That was old Labour. If new Labour's attitude is that somebody who has generated ideas and made money should be held up as a virtuous example, because they have created wealth in society and the Chancellor has then been able to spend that wealth on other matters such as health, that is a dramatic change and I welcome it.
  The Government's moves to encourage wider share ownership and stock options for employees and to improve the treatment of capital gains tax are profoundly to be welcomed. My only caveat to the Minister is, "Don't let the Inland Revenue get at those proposals." I remember

  1059
  the brainwaves of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe and my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde that were designed to stimulate aspects of the economy, but once the tentacles of the Inland Revenue had got them, the details in the Finance Bill showed that the idea had been crucified—so I give the Minister a little bit of friendly advice to be alert. It is good to encourage stock options, but they should not be crucified by a continuing burden of national insurance charges. It is good to have lower capital gains tax, but Ministers should allow it to be exercised instead of wrapped up in red tape and exemptions. In many cases, it is the detail that frustrates businesses. The idea is good, but its application does not make sense.
  The new ability to reward up to 15 key people in a company with options is a good scheme and will be much welcomed. If I understood the proposal, and I have not yet read all the small print, the fact that the schemes are over a four-year period, instead of the much longer times that used to apply, indicates that the Government are up to speed with some of the aspects of the new economy. I welcome all those proposals.
  Some of the incentives for pensioners, especially those who have been thrifty, are overdue, and the Government have hit the nail on the head. I welcome those proposals. In my constituency of Esher and Walton, pensioners who are not blessed with generous multiple pensions have experienced difficulties and will welcome the incentive in the Budget.
  Let me take a slightly wider view of the macro-economic judgment and the fiscal balance. There is some confusion as to whether or not the Government are being virtuous and tightening the fiscal balance, as the Chancellor claimed to be doing. That judgment has yet to be made. There are genuine questions, particularly about public expenditure. They arise from the fact that the Chancellor locked in real annual growth in public expenditure of 2.75 per cent. against assumed economic growth of 2.25 per cent. There are worries about how generous the Chancellor has been. One headline in the Financial Times reads "Prudence or Profligacy?".
  I hope that the Monetary Policy Committee genuinely believes, as the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) said, that the Government have been responsible and maintained a fairly tight fiscal balance. If not, there may well have to be interest rate rises and that could create problems. If the Chancellor wants to give Britain the opportunity of joining the euro in the next Parliament, as is his professed aim, our interest rates will need to converge with those within the eurozone. I consider that to be a necessity for other reasons.
  It is not sustainable for our short-term interest rates to be at such variance with those on the continent. However, it is likely that short-term interest rates on the continent will rise as the German and French economies are growing at 3 per cent. and there appears to be a positive outlook. That is important for our export markets, given that approximately 50 per cent. of our exports go to the eurozone. The Chancellor must recognise that interest rates will have to converge, and that brings me to the real problem—fortunately, the Opposition do not have to face it now—that there will be more active adjustments to the fiscal balance.
  1060
  The Government do not control monetary policy and interest rates—they are set by an independent Bank of England and I approve of that. However, the Chancellor has to take that into account and give signals to the Monetary Policy Committee that if the economy does not perform as he expects, he will need to make upward as well as downward adjustments in taxation or spending or vary the savings ratio. That is why the debate about the tax burden has become so sterile. There will be occasions when it is virtuous in the wider economic interest to increase the burden of taxation so that the pressure of anti-inflationary policy does not impact only on monetary policy.
  I hope that no party—I cannot think which—pledges to reduce the burden of taxation over the lifetime of a Parliament without taking into account the fact that the Government will be unable to control certain elements in the equation. I direct that warning to Ministers and anyone else who cares to listen.
  We are still suffering from the high value of the pound, which is having a serious impact on UK manufacturing. Let us be quite clear that our failure to be part of the eurozone has political and economic costs. That is why I am keen for the Government to organise the economy so that we have at least the chance to join early in the next Parliament.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe said, it is no accident that one reason for BMW's decision on Rover is the high value of the pound and the lack of clarity about the time scale of the Government's policy for joining the euro. Ford and other car companies are making similar noises. My argument has always been not that we should join the euro today, as we are not in a position to do so, but that we should do our best to make that a possibility. We must also make it clear that such a timetable exists, as any indication that we were likely to remain outside for a protracted period would have considerable negative implications for investment decisions. Those are the key criteria.
  Our exclusion from the eurozone is impacting on jobs and unless the Government follow through their warm but vague words about entry, the problems will continue. They could prove to be one of the biggest risks to the Chancellor's confidence in the four-year view that is set out in the Red Book in respect of the way in which the economy will grow, the effect on unemployment and ultimately the balance of public expenditure.
  Although the Budget represents good news for the national health service, it is not good news for other Departments. One of the glummest people on the Government Front Bench yesterday was the Deputy Prime Minister, who got only £280 million for all his huffing and puffing. As the hon. Member for Waveney said, transport is a crucial factor in economic growth, as well as enabling individuals to get around. It is vital that the Government realise that, relatively speaking, this year's Budget has starved transport, and that the public will suddenly wake up to the fact that in order to give a Lord Winston settlement to the national health service, other Departments have not done so well. Unless there is a public expenditure review in the autumn, there will be some squealing in the shires and elsewhere—and certainly among business—about the settlement for transport.
  It would be intriguing if the Financial Secretary, in her reply to the debate, let us know what is happening to the £3 billion that has been raised so far through the auction

  1061
  of the third-generation Universal Mobile Telephone System—an auction that I devised back in 1996–97. It was in our election manifesto and the incoming Labour Government shrewdly picked it up. I am all in favour of the auction, but as the figure is £3 billion and rising, it would be interesting to know what the Government intend to do with it. Is it to go into e-commerce to stimulate further improvements in the allocation and utilisation of radio frequency? Is it to go into the national pot as a way of bailing out the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for the Deputy Prime Minister? I do not know, but I am sure that the Financial Secretary has it at her fingertips.
  Finally, as a south-east Member, I am concerned about property. The Government were absolutely right to phase out mortgage interest tax relief. I have always thought that it had long outstayed its welcome. Of course it will hit people, but it is the right thing to do. I also agree with increasing stamp duty. However, I should like to know how else the Government intend to take the steam out of the property market. Do they intend to increase stamp duty further? If I advocate that, I certainly will not be popular in my constituency, but property prices there have reached such a level that people who have not benefited from previous price increases are finding it difficult to buy. I am not looking for a property crash, but if interest rates come down further, there could be a further push to property prices as mortgages become cheaper.
  The Government will have to think of some way to take the steam out of the problem. Raising stamp duty may be one way to do that, but I had hoped that there would be some evidence in the Budget of a change in the value added tax rules on property refurbishment and extensions. New building is VAT exempt, but improving a home still attracts VAT at 17.5 per cent. I hope that the Government will offer more explanation of their true intentions for managing a property market in which there is a possibility that inflation will go off the rails.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Ivan Lewis: I have sat and listened to most of the debate this evening, and one thing has struck me above all—no political party can have a greater opportunity to change the nature of a country's economy and public services—indeed, its whole social and economic policy environment—than one that is afforded 18 successive years in power. The previous Conservative Government's legacy in public services, welfare reform and social exclusion is there for all to see.
  In recent weeks, we have been told that we spend much less than other European countries on our health service. What does that say about the underinvestment in health care over 18 years of Conservative Government? We have heard too that the previous Government tried to reform and modernise the health service and other public services, but that the outcome was unsuccessful. The present Government inherited a monumental task when it comes to the reform, modernisation and improvement of public services.
  I support the Budget. It is probably the most graphic illustration yet of the Government's belief that fairness and enterprise are inextricably linked in the attempt to create a truly successful and civilised nation. No longer are British people asked to believe that economic prosperity for the few will trickle down to benefit the
  1062
  many. No longer do the Government promote the false belief that individuals have to choose between personal ambition for themselves and their families, and their responsibilities towards each other and the society in which they live. No longer do we tolerate a Britain in which millions of families are excluded from the opportunities that many hon. Members take for granted.
  The Government's capacity to reverse the economic and social policy orthodoxies of the Tory years is clearly due to their economic management. One of the frustrations for the Opposition, now and in the medium and long-term, is that this Government have shattered the myth that Labour Governments are incapable of competent economic management.
  The facts bear examination. We have tackled the national debt. Inflation averages 2.5 per cent, and 800,000 new jobs have been created. More people are in work today than at any time in the history of our country. Direct inward investment has risen by more than 45 per cent. since the Government came to power.,lb/>
  Conservative Members have expressed two reservations about the Government's economic record so far. The first is connected to the strength of the pound—and there is no doubt that that is causing difficulties, especially for manufacturing industry. However, no Conservative Member has come up with a credible solution to the problem. No Conservative Member has seriously advocated devaluation, or a significant reduction in interest rates, or—unless something has changed radically overnight—that we should join the single European currency now.
  Although it is ironic that we should have to worry about it, hon. Members of all parties acknowledge that the strength of the pound is a problem, but no Conservative Member has advocated a credible alternative economic strategy to deal with it.
  Then there is the debate about the tax burden. Earlier, the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) referred to the Red Book. He seemed to imply that there was evidence that the tax burden was falling. That contradicts the suggestion by other Conservative Members that the tax burden under this Government is rising.
  The point that needs to be made is that the Government went into the last general election with a very clear commitment on taxation. That was that there would be no increase in the basic and top rates of tax, and that a fair regime would be created for the rest of the taxation system. Conservative Members may shake their heads at that, but that commitment was made crystal clear on the Labour party pledge cards and, as everyone can see, we have honoured it.
  Mr. Hammond: Perhaps our problem is that we remember the Prime Minister saying on radio that there were no plans at all to raise taxes.
  Mr. Lewis: The vast majority of British people who voted at the last general election understood the Government's clear and explicit commitment that there would be no increase in the basic or top rates of income tax. One of the frustrations for Conservative Members is that they can no longer credibly portray the Labour party as the party of high taxation. That is one of the reasons why opinion polls show that people continue to support

  1063
  the Government's policies. People recognise that we have achieved economic stability without at the same time increasing the tax burden on the average family. That is an important development in the Labour Government's relationship with the electorate.
  Competent economic management by itself is a hollow achievement. What matters is what a Government do with the resulting dividend. In that respect, the differences between the Conservative party and the Labour Government could not be starker.
  First, let us consider the health service. We usually judge political success and progress by outcomes, rather than inputs. At the last general election, the vast majority of British people made the judgment that the health service was underfunded, that there was low morale among staff, and that there were shortages of beds, doctors, nurses and essential equipment.
  Moreover, the Conservative Government had created a culture in the health service of competition, rather than co-operation and partnership. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke this afternoon about the reform of the health service. He put at the top of his list of priorities the creation of a partnership culture and the need to work together. I was somewhat amused when the Leader of Opposition scoffed at that. The right hon. Gentleman failed to understand that one of the major problems in changing the culture in the health service is that hospitals and doctors are not used to co-operating and collaborating. The health service culture engendered by the Conservatives was based on the internal market and competition.
  That is why the difficult task of changing the culture of the health service is important.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: It is a point of interest that, when the reforms were being put through by William Waldegrave, there were several comments to the effect that they were the sort of reforms that would bring people together. For the first time, hospital consultants were prepared to send Christmas cards to GPs. They needed to be friendly with one another.
  Mr. Lewis: General practitioner fundholding would certainly encourage consultants to send GPs Christmas cards. However, fundholding created a two-tier health service. It was an iniquitous service. If Members speak to professionals within the health service, and to trust board and health authority board members, they will hear them talk about a significant culture shift within the NHS since the general election: people work together, seek to make best use of resources and adopt a collaborative and partnership approach. We need to build on that. These people condemn what happened, certainly towards the end of the Tory years, when a culture of competition was introduced that was entirely inappropriate for a national health service.
  That was the health service that we inherited. It does not matter whether we have debates or arguments about whether some of the health reforms that the Conservatives introduced were positive; whether the internal market was a good thing; whether the perpetual ideological experimentation with the health service was helpful; or whether the then Government were embarking on right-wing ideological experiments. The judgment that we
  1064
  make on the success of political intervention is based on the outcome. The outcome was as I have described, and the health service was one of the major reasons why so many people voted for the Labour party at the general election.
  Dr. Brand: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the perception of outputs after almost three years of Labour Government is even worse, and that is why we are happily blessed with the Budget infusion of £2 billion?
  Mr. Lewis: No, I do not accept that. That may come as a major shock to the hon. Gentleman.
  We all have discussions with and work with professionals in the health service. They have said consistently that more money is going into the service and that modernisation is moving in the right direction. They have said also that more money is needed to deliver the modernisation that is required to take the service into the 21st century. That is why the Budget was so significant. The increases in spending year on year in the health service over the next four years will be 6.1 per cent.—the greatest ever sustained growth in its history. That is in response to the concerns that have been expressed and the desire of professionals and managers within the service to match the commitment and the energy of modernisation with additional resources.
  There is no commitment within the Liberal Democrat manifesto that ever demonstrated that that party was committed to putting the extra resources into the health service that the Government are now committed to investing.
  Dr. Brand: No doubt the hon. Gentleman is aware of our shadow Budget, which put extra funding for the NHS at £2 billion.
  Mr. Lewis: It may come as another tremendous shock to the hon. Gentleman, but I have not studied your shadow Budget too seriously. One of the benefits of being a Liberal Democrat is that there is never any prospect of you having to make these decisions or to take responsibility in government.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must use correct parliamentary language.
  Mr. Lewis: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I move on—
  Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman has told the House how well he communicates with local health service professionals. Perhaps he will answer my question, which the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) was unable to answer last night: by how much have out-patient waiting lists in Bury risen since the Government took office?
  Mr. Lewis: I do not have that information to hand. However, I am sure that I can make it available to the hon. Gentleman, if he will find it helpful. As a result of my discussions in Bury, I am aware of the welcome that has been given to the Budget by the health authority and the health trust. They will be able to demonstrate that it will make a significant difference to the quality of health care that is provided to the people of Bury.

  1065
  I move on to the Prime Minister's announcement today that there will be significant extra resources for the health service, and a strategic effort to modernise and reform it. There is no question but that there are tremendous disparities of performance in different parts of the country—whether they be in terms of best use of resources or of the number of patients treated.
  I shall give two tangible examples. By most accounts, the health care trust in Bury is one of the most efficiently managed in Britain. Health care trusts not a million miles away are considerably less efficient. That gives rise to the question why things are different in Bury. During the Christmas period I was fortunate enough to visit the Greater Manchester ambulance service. When I arrived, I found that there were senior officers from each of the health authorities in the Greater Manchester area at a meeting. I inquired what the meeting was all about and I found that a senior representative from each of the health authorities in Greater Manchester met each week to monitor the availability of beds across that geographical area. That is why health authorities in Greater Manchester did not have some of the difficulties experienced by authorities elsewhere.
  This is not simply a question of additional resources. Also important are quality of management, co-operation and collaboration, and spreading and sharing good practice within the national health service. We must also be willing, if necessary, to take on the vested interests in the health service that like to maintain and perpetuate the status quo. Self-regulation among doctors should be seen as a privilege, not a right. That is not a veiled threat. We need the professionals to work in partnership with us, but they have to be prepared to change their working practices if we are to develop the quality health care and patient care that people deserve.
  Education is also one of the Government's key priorities. We inherited a situation in which too many of our children were leaving school without the basic literacy and numeracy skills that we take for granted. Morale in the teaching profession was low and schools were crumbling. What sort of legacy is that from a Government who were in power for 18 years?
  Yesterday's announcement of an additional £1 billion will make a significant difference. It will give between £3,000 and £9,000 to head teachers of primary schools and between £30,000 and £50,000 to head teachers of secondary schools to spend on books and equipment. That will make a tangible, immediate difference to the quality of education that is available to children up and down the country. If, in the past 10 years, head teachers had been told that they would be given a lump sum to spend so directly, they would not have believed it. When it comes to the resources made available to schools, this is a cultural shift.
  We are already seeing an increase in the basic literacy and numeracy standards in our schools. Class sizes are coming down for five, six and seven-year-olds. By next September, we will have achieved our goal to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds to less than 30. Tangible and significant improvements are being seen in our education system through a combination of additional resources, modernisation, an improvement of the way in which teachers teach, improvements in the curriculum and the introduction of literacy and numeracy hours. Those factors are changing the way in which we provide public services.
  1066
  Today, the Deputy Prime Minister was in Manchester and announced a £280 million Government investment in the Metrolink system. That will make a massive difference to the transport infrastructure in Greater Manchester. It will expand the Metrolink system to most parts of the sub-region. It is important in reducing road congestion and is a demonstrable commitment to public transport. It is also vital to the economy of the Greater Manchester area, as it will attract businesses to the area and allow existing businesses to grow. Greater Manchester has the potential to be the first model in the country of an integrated public transport system, and the people there welcome that.
  We remember the days under the Conservative Government when 3 million people were out of work, even using fiddled figures. We were told that modern economics meant that that was the price we had to pay. We were told that it was impossible to create an economy with both low inflation and low unemployment. That was the conventional wisdom promoted by the Conservative party. We were told that 3 million people out of work—it was probably 4 or 5 million—was a price worth paying.
  Welfare dependency had become the norm in far too many communities. It was believed to be better for a family's quality of life if people chose not to work. At the time, Conservatives used the term "welfare dependency" in a derogatory way—saying that people were skiving and cheating, and abusing the system. There was never a serious strategy to provide people with choices—alternative attitudes or role models. In some families, three generations had never experienced what it was like to work. The conventional wisdom was that it had to be like that. There had to be communities and parts of the country where that was the cultural norm.
  Let us consider what has happened in only two and a half years. There is the new deal, which has now been extended to the over-25s, to lone parents and to disabled people. That gets hundreds of thousands of people off the dole and into work. This week, new action teams were announced; they will match the unemployed with vacancies in areas of high unemployment.
  That personal service is important, because one of the problems we face is that some of the bureaucracies in our Government agencies have not always provided such an individual, flexible service to support people who are struggling for some reason. Those action teams are another step forward—together with the personal advisers introduced under the new deal—to enable people to maximise their potential and to become a reconnected part of society.
  We have increased the working families tax credit. There will be a new employment tax credit that guarantees a minimum income to those without children. That is real welfare reform; it really will end welfare dependency—not by scapegoating those who, for years, have found themselves dependent on welfare, but by extending opportunities so that people see some light at the end of the tunnel.
  We must not forget that we inherited a situation in which, by any objective measure, one in three children were growing up living in poverty. That was a scandal, when this country was not poor—it was never a poor country during the 18 years of Conservative government. However, the Conservatives chose to cut the taxes of the

  1067
  very rich rather than to make institutional or structural changes to enable people to see that there was a way out of poverty.
  We have increased the children's tax credit and the under-16 child credit in the working families tax credit. The figures are significant. As a consequence of the measures taken over two and a half years, and the Budget statement this week, the poorest two-child family on income support will be £1,500 better off since the last general election. That is an important increase in the standard of living of families on low incomes.
  We have increased child benefit by 26 per cent. in real terms over the life of this Parliament. The rate for the eldest child is the highest ever in real terms. On average, families with children will be £850 a year better off as a consequence of the Budget.
  We are talking about different priorities. There were times when the Conservative Government could have been objectively judged to be managing the economy relatively successfully. However, during those years, they chose to cut taxes for the very rich rather than spend money for the overall good of society. They took political decisions on economic management that rescued them in the short term, but created the boom-and-bust instability that did so much damage to families and businesses.
  One of the scandals of our country was that too many pensioners ended up living in poverty. We do not have a proud record on our treatment of pensioners compared to that of most other civilised European countries. However, the Government have made a real start on raising the standard of living of pensioners—especially those on the lowest incomes. We cannot escape from the fact that there has been a change in the pensions system; certain people receive occupational or private pensions, while others do not. It is important to target help at the pensioners on the lowest incomes.
  We have increased the winter fuel allowance from £100 to £150, and we have introduced free television licences for those over 75. An important step forward in the Budget was the extension of the minimum income guarantee to those pensioners who have relatively small savings. We all accept that it is a challenge for the Government—a challenge that the previous Government failed to address—to target support at those pensioners who have just enough that they do not receive income support. They tend to be clobbered. They do not receive benefit and have all sorts of charges imposed on them. This Budget is the first step to targeting help at those pensioners.
  The Budget contains measures to support business, and there has been a cultural shift in people's perceptions. The business community no longer believes that the Conservative party has any credibility when it claims to be the party of business. That is another source of great frustration to Conservative Members. The business community not only believes that business is safe in this Labour Government's hands, but that we have modern policies that will enable businesses to develop, to thrive and to grow.
  The Budget contains further cuts in capital gains tax. That will create the most favourable environment that the United Kingdom has ever seen to encourage entrepreneurs and to reward risk-takers. My right hon. Friend the
  1068
  Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that he was permanently extending capital allowances to small and medium-sized firms to encourage investment. The new all employee share ownership plan is the most tax-advantaged employee share ownership scheme ever introduced in the United Kingdom. We will ensure that share ownership is available not just to the few in British society, but to the many.
  An announcement was made on capital allowances for small firms purchasing information technology equipment. That is significant. We know that many small businesses are not preparing for e-commerce and for the future by considering the implications of the internet and technology generally. The 100 per cent. capital allowance for purchasing IT equipment will be important in encouraging such businesses to prepare. A new lop starting rate of corporation tax will be introduced from April. Corporation tax generally is at its lowest ever rate.
  There are disparities within regions and some regions are doing less well than others. All the evidence supports that view. That is why the Government are determined to have an active regional policy. A new umbrella fund will help to finance enterprise across the regions and it will support venture capital. It is important that we target regional assistance in a way that reflects the issues that affect particular regions. An announcement was also made on the new clusters fund, which will enable regional development agencies to encourage innovation and support the growth stars of the future.
  In conclusion—I am sure that Conservative Members will be relieved to hear those words—this is not merely a competent Government. It is a Government who are on a crusade to build a new Britain on the foundations of social justice and economic prosperity. This Budget is another landmark on the journey to the achievement of that goal.
  8.58 pm
  Sir Richard Body: The hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) has covered a huge number of issues, and I am sure that he will understand if I do not follow up all his remarks.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the Budget proved that the Government had a record of economic competence. If the economy is in such a healthy state, I hope that he will accept that there is a two-year time lag between the date of a Budget and its effects fully coming through into the economy. Therefore, when he gives praise, I hope that he will not leave out my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) who left behind such a bountiful legacy.
  I heard the hon Gentleman make a comment to the effect that no Opposition Member had advanced any strategy as an alternative to moving towards a single currency. I think that that was the essence of what he said.
  Mr. Ivan Lewis: I said that no hon. Member had advocated a solution to the problem of the strength of the pound. I was not referring to the single European currency.
  Sir Richard Body: The pound is no stronger than it was previously compared with the dollar, the yen or any other currency. It is the weakness of the euro that is at fault. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we should have an alternative to the single currency, I should say that the alternative to committing suicide is simply not to commit

  1069
  suicide. There is not much point in committing suicide if one is having have a rather congenial life. If the hon. Gentleman is right in his praise of his Government and believes that we have such a healthy economy, surely it would be unwise to spoil it now.
  I want to home in on what the Chancellor would call a mere detail in his Budget—the beer duty. I am sorry to come down from the great expanse of canvas that the hon. Member for Bury, South has covered to deal with such a minor issue, but it is not a minor issue to those of us who have breweries in our constituencies. I have an extremely good brewery. It makes good real ale and I am glad that it is able to stand up to the competition that is now faced by so many people in the brewing industry.
  I noticed that the Chancellor decided that there need be no increase in the duty on spirits in the Budget because there was competition, but there is also competition for the brewers. It seems that the message has not come through yet to the Treasury about the vast quantity of beer that is now being smuggled into this country. Judges have famously said to young barristers that a good argument does not get any better by repetition, but I fear that it has to be repeated. The scale of smuggling is increasing year on year.
  It is dispiriting in a constituency such as mine to find not only members of the licensed trade, who are trying to be honest, but cafés, restaurants and other outlets where beer can lawfully be sold, buying smuggled beer at a price far below the equivalent for beer imported legally. The more the Chancellor fails to recognise the problem, the more he tempts cafés, restaurants and other outlets to do deals with smugglers. I am sure that the Paymaster General realises that many hundreds of lorries are coming in. I understand that we are to hear a statement about smuggling and that we shall hear that tough measures will be introduced. I hope that that is so because, unless it is, the loss of revenue will increase.
  I hope that the Paymaster General and the Chancellor have digested the memorandum that has been sent by the interested parties not once but several times. It sets out the hard facts about the scale of smuggling and the fact that millions upon millions of pounds are being lost to the Revenue. It seems only sensible that we should tighten up customs checks and recruit more customs officials. It is surely within the influence of the Chancellor to ensure that there is an increase in the number of officials. Their numbers have declined considerably in recent years. Might I add that if we had more customs officials searching lorries, we might not have so many illegal immigrants entering the country in them.
  I allude to illegal immigrants because the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), whose constituency experiences similar problems to mine, mentioned low pay in his constituency. I am pleased that the Government are making it easier for people to work than for them to be enticed on to state benefits, as happened in the past. However, far too many illegal immigrants are coming in to my constituency and working for as little as £1.90 an hour—far less than the minimum wage. The exploitation of such people in the black economy is an evil business, because it depresses wages for our own people. It is appallingly difficult to compete with such practices.
  That is an additional reason why the Paymaster General should announce tough new means of tackling smuggling. The evil has to be ended. Beer smuggling is bad enough,
  1070
  but the smuggling of illegal immigrants must be stopped. The Paymaster General must announce the toughest possible measures against both sorts of smuggling.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Geraint Davies: It is my great pleasure to join in the chorus of praise for the fourth new Labour Budget.
  I am aghast at the brass-necked cheek displayed by the Tories. When our spending on health and education was at the lower £19 billion and £21 billion levels, they told us that such spending was irresponsible and reckless. The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) said that there was a straight choice to be made between tax cuts and expenditure, but, after our announcements of record spending, he turned up on Radio 4 this morning saying that the Conservatives would match all our extra expenditure—the real-terms increases of 6 per cent. year on year. How would he do that?
  During this Parliament, the Government have introduced measures to get more people back to work—for example, the new deal, which the Opposition voted against. We made the Bank of England independent, to provide macro-economic stability and to promote investment and employment, but that, too, was opposed by the Opposition; and we have introduced the working families tax credit to make work pay. Every measure that we have introduced to provide the economic platform needed to fund good investment in health and education for the future has been opposed by the party of boom and bust, economic irresponsibility and social division. Now, the Tories turn around and say that they would match our spending. That is ridiculous. We know their real agenda: Trojan horse privatisation, especially in the health service.
  It was interesting to hear the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). He is very much an old Tory and he came out with some very old ideas. He harked back to the old days, when the exchange rate was DM2.50 to the pound, and he appeared to have the idea that the Conservatives would take back control of the Bank of England. He said that they would set interest rates at 6 per cent., as the remedy to high exchange rates and to revive manufacturing. What a load of codswallop—[Interruption.] If any hon. Member doubts that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that, he should read Hansard.
  Those with a rudimentary grasp of exchange rates realise that sterling is at an eight-month low against the dollar, and the yen is appreciating. The problem is the euro: it is not appreciating at the level one would expect, given the economic growth in the eurozone. My point is that only those living in cloud cuckoo land think that it is possible, in a global marketplace, to retake control of the Bank of England and artificially set interest rates at a level that will automatically bring about equilibrium for manufacturing. That was proved when a former Tory Chancellor said that he would hold down interest rates and, the next day, they were 15 per cent.—Black Wednesday, as I am sure the House remembers.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe said that it was all very well for the new Government when they came in, because global economic conditions were good. Does he not remember that a quarter of the world was in recession within a year of our coming to power, and forecasts of global growth rates were halved?

  1071
  Those were not good, harmonious conditions for economic success as a platform for investment in public services. They were difficult conditions, but we have an extra 800,000 people in jobs, contributing taxes, in sharp contrast to a Conservative Administration who oversaw two recessions when the global economic conditions were relatively benign.
  I am picking on the right hon. and learned Gentleman as a former Chancellor, and I am sorry that he is not present. He also said that debt is okay. The repayment on the debts that we inherited was more than we spent on education overall. He said that debt is all right, because it is deferred tax—in other words, someone else must put the tax up. Indeed, the Tories put up taxes 22 times.
  We inherited the problem, but we balanced the books, we rebuilt employment, and we provided a sound infrastructure on which to build the health service and other services. The health service is a tough challenge. The demography of Britain is changing. The population are getting older and health demands are increasing. Technology is increasing and expectations are rising.
  People expect a hip operation, a heart bypass or a cataract operation. Ten or 20 years ago, no one expected those things—they did not exist. Now, everyone demands such treatment, and if they do not get it, the health service has failed. That is why we are investing 6 per cent. per year in real terms, which the Tories could never have promised and will never deliver. We are introducing innovations and investing for reform. For example, we have introduced walk-in centres and NHS Direct.
  As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I am aware that there are regional variations in unit cost and performance delivery, which the Government intend to sort out. That is one of the reasons why we introduced the Commission for Health Improvement and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. The health service under the Tories, with the internal market system, became fragmented and heterogenous, with no coherence, no national standards, no benchmarking and no best value. All those have been introduced, with the support of first-class funding growth.
  That is the main focus of the Budget. In addition, to support the economic vibrancy in which those public investments are rooted, we have introduced yet more incentives for business to succeed. Capital gains tax is be reformed, and we had already brought down corporation tax to lop. As regards the consumer and incentives to work, we have the 10p rate, another reduction in income tax to the 22p rate, and the working families tax credit, which provides up to £214. There is a minimum income for working families, so working pays. We are providing jobs and pay, and that is why people are making a contribution.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) mentioned what we are doing for pensioners. That is a difficult issue. We are giving them an extra £50, in addition to the £150 that they are getting in fuel benefit. That alone adds £3 a week to their pension.
  Jackie Ballard: Does the hon. Gentleman think that most pensioners in his constituency would rather have £3 a week on their pensions to spend as they like, or have fuel vouchers?
  Mr. Davies: I shall not be distracted by that. I must draw my remarks to a conclusion.
  1072
  We are giving more money for all pensioners. We are giving various benefits in VAT reductions, in eye tests and in the investment in the health service—65 per cent. of beds are occupied by people over the age of 70. We are putting in investment. We are building a better Britain for pensioners and others. I am happy to commend this great Budget for Britain as we enter the new millennium. We should all be proud of it.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: I give full marks to the hon. Members for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) and for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) for coming up with every new Labour cliché in the book. It is pretty clear that both boys will go far. The hon. Member for Bury, South talked about social exclusion, but I remind him that the Rowntree Trust has said that the past two and a half years have seen a greater divide between rich and poor in Britain than ever occurred in the 18 years of Conservative Government. What price social exclusion?
  The Government have at least admitted, or some in the Government have admitted, that taxes have gone up during the past three years, and that is confirmed by the BBC website. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may not know this, but the BBC has a website where one can fill in one's personal details and be told in a flash how much one's tax has increased or decreased. I filled it in, lying only about my name, which I said was Mr. Jones, and I was told that my personal tax would rise by £10 a week as a result of the Budget—and I can believe it.
  What does the Budget offer? The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said that in rural areas its effect would be extensive, but I think not. It offers agriculture nothing. Dairy farmers receive lop a pint for milk at the farm gate, but it costs them 1 1p a pint to produce. Pig farmers get nothing either. We all know that people in rural areas depend on their cars. A gallon of petrol now costs £3.64 in Britain, compared with just £2.82 in Germany. Motorists will have to pay £274 more for their petrol this year than they did three years ago. That is not even counting workplace parking taxes and congestion charges. Those costs have gone up in rural areas, just as they have in urban areas.
  We have already heard about the tax on e-commerce, in the form of IR35, so given the lack of time I shall not go into that. However, I do have a question regarding profit-related share schemes, which I would ask the Minister to address when she replies; if she cannot do so, perhaps she will write to me. The Chancellor claimed that the profit-related share schemes would be extended. What will the position be regarding genuine, bona fide schemes such as that offered by the John Lewis partnership, which has 40,000 employees who, owing to the nature of the partnership, cannot buy shares? The Minister will know, however, that the partners have a fair system of sharing in the company's profits.
  Hon. Members have talked about private health care, but whether services are provided by the NHS or by private organisations is irrelevant as long as they are free at the point of delivery. That is the acid test. I simply make the point that private health care organisations have done particularly well in the past two or three years. We have seen a fourfold increase in the number of private operations during the past year compared with 1997, because people are just not prepared to wait as they have to at present under this Labour Administration.

  1073
  What about the great announcement on health? In the past few hours the NHS Confederation has warned that Ministers should not try to browbeat NHS workers. In answer to the Prime Minister's so-called statement this afternoon, Stephen Thornton, its chief executive, said:
  Each of the Prime Minister's five challenges relies on changing clinical practice, which will need a style of working which wins hearts and minds, not naming and shaming—
  which is precisely what the Government have tried to do.
  What of the marvellous £2 billion that the Government have announced? Of that, £200 million will have to pay for the unfunded pay award and £300 million will come from tobacco tax. That leaves just £600 million to £650 million out of the £2 billion to be released to NHS trusts and primary care practices.
  Where does that leave authorities such as the South Staffordshire health authority, which are badly in debt? Throughout the United Kingdom, area health authorities owe approximately £1 billion. That figure has accumulated in the past two and a half years; it will not be paid off.
  How are those problems reflected in the microcosm—South Staffordshire—that I represent? At Prime Minister's questions, I made the point that South Staffordshire health authority has announced that Hammerwich hospital and Barton hospital are to close and that services at the Lichfield Victoria hospital will be severely curtailed. The maternity wing and the dialysis unit at that hospital will close, while the services provided by the minor injuries unit will be greatly reduced.
  We also experience postcode differentiation in my area. Why do people in Lichfield have to wait three times as long as people in Birmingham for an operation at the Good Hope hospital? I wrote to a Health Minister about that more than a year ago. The Minister replied swiftly and said that it was unacceptable. I was pleased with that reply. The Minister promised to direct full attention to the matter. It now appears that nothing can be done. These dilemmas have occurred since the Labour Government were elected.
  The public have been unable to trust past spending announcements by the Government. We find that the £2 billion has been reduced to £650 million. The money will not reach patients; it will be swallowed up by ever-increasing NHS costs. In Staffordshire, we have 83 more police officers, but we have already lost 250. It has been claimed that the NHS will receive an extra £2 billion, but we will lose two and a half hospitals in Lichfield. Tax is down by 1p but has risen by 9p. The Budget is entirely characteristic of the Government's performance: they have taken three steps backward and only one step forward.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Robert Syms: We are considering the 9p up, 1p down Budget. To return to our position in 1997, the Government would have to reduce taxes by £15 billion. The tax ratio continues to increase; that is a burden on all parts of the community. We need only consider the allowances that have gone: the married couples allowance and mortgage tax relief have been abolished. IR35 makes a great difference to high-tech and engineering. The construction industry scheme has been messed up. It is good that the Government are reconsidering it, but it was ridiculous that people had to
  1074
  drive hundreds of miles around the country to show their certificates. The Government were warned about that; they received many letters. It caused great problems.
  The first Budget about which I spoke was in 1997. The Government then changed the advance corporation tax rules and took £5 billion a year off pensions. That is regrettable. We are starting to experience its effects. For example, Tesco announced that its employees would have to contribute more. There has been a big impact on local councils.
  Poole borough council in my constituency is suffering because it has to contribute hundreds of thousands of pounds more to pension funds. This year, the council tax increase is 12.3 per cent. Many pensioners tell me, "I had a 75p increase, yet I had to pay a 12.3 per cent. increase. That is not fair." I agree with them.
  Poole local authority receives the lowest level of support for education. Although I am sure that it welcomes the increase in the amount of money that will go to schools, that does not alter the fact that, year on year, far fewer resources go to schools in Poole than in many other areas.
  I regret that the savings ratio, which was 10.6 per cent. when we were in office is now down to 5.5 per cent., and, according to the Red Book, falling. That does not bode well for the future.
  The average British motorist pays £274 more than when the Labour party came to power. Overall, pre-Budget, the Government were taking £36 billion a year from road users, but spending only £6 billion on roads. In the Budget, they increased that amount by £715 million through tax and £60 million through vehicle excise duty; yet they have put only £280 million back. They announced today that they had spent £250 million on the Manchester metro.
  Although we pay a heavy price for road congestion—£20 billion a year, the Confederation of British Industry estimates—many road and important bypass schemes across the country have been cancelled. The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) mentioned problems with the condition of the roads that take people to his constituency, and many of us appreciate that without investment in roads we will not get the country moving and business will not be able to make a better job of employing people.
  The Government's record on transport is disgraceful, as they are milking the motorist and not putting the money back. People would feel a little happier if public transport were an alternative in most places. That may be a prospect in London, certainly in north London, but not in Dorset or Poole. The car is a necessity for most people and hitting motorists means hitting some of the poorest people with marginal incomes who need a car for the necessities of life. The Government must rethink what they are doing. The fact that they are not continuing with the escalator was trailed a great deal. There has been less of an increase this year, but the increase, on top of previous increases, has made the burden on the motorist heavy.
  I have a further point to make on advance corporation tax, which has hit charities to the tune of £400 million. People tend to consider charities as a group, but there are different sorts—those that can raise lots of money and those with lots of investments as a result of bequests. After making the ACT changes, the Government have tried to make the regime for giving a bit easier. I welcome that—it helps the newer, more fashionable charities—but

  1075
  some older charities with big investments, such as the most respected medical charities, have still been hit hard. Great disquiet has been caused among the charities and the Government need to reconsider.
  We are all pleased that the economy, which started to grow in 1992, has continued to expand, and the public sector surplus which is largely due to that continued growth, represents the difference between two large figures. Although we hope that that expansion will continue, we cannot be complacent. I welcome the fact that we shall continue to run a surplus, which is the right thing to do at this stage of the cycle, but I have worries.
  The Government were very meddlesome in yesterday's Budget. Simple taxes are best, but there was a great deal of fiddling about with capital gains tax and, when we look into that, we see that it will not give an awful lot back to businesses and will make the system more complicated. It would have been better if the Chancellor had gone for much simpler solutions that people could understand.
  I welcome the additional money for the health service, but there was a whiff of panic about the Government's announcement today. They have been in office for nearly three years, but what is happening in our hospitals is of great concern to us all. Our postbags inform us of constituents who are exasperated by the service they are receiving. It has deteriorated, but money is not the only factor; management and the way our hospitals are run have also to be considered.
  I make a special plea. Many of my constituents work at Poole hospital as technical staff—they are members of the Manufacturing, Science and Finance union—and they have not been treated as well as some other national health service staff. Patients see a doctor when they need a test, but those tests are carried out by the technical staff. They receive a great deal of criticism when they get a test for cancer wrong or some scandal blows up, and many are not paid terribly well, even though they have degrees. They need a better reward and a better career structure if we are to achieve the back-up in our hospitals that will allow doctors, nurses and consultants to do their jobs properly.
  Overall, I am glad that the economy has continued to grow, but it is a pity that the Government are still raising taxes, as many of my constituents will find them hard to pay. I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) has to say from the Front Bench.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: One needed to do no more than listen to today's opening speeches to get some feel for the contrasting approaches to the Budget. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) opened with flair and imagination. He repeated our party's full commitment to the national health service and said that we would match spending and expand the private sector. He drew attention to the scandalous report by Dame Rennie Fritchie, and he pointed out that the Government have said nothing on long-term care.
  In complete contrast, the Secretary of State for Health continued where the Prime Minister had left off, with nothing but waffle and spin. They tried to reinvent the wheel. The Secretary of State was completely floored by
  1076
  the intervention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who asked him about performance and how the extra funding would be reallocated to health authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) has just said, it is clear that this pledge has been introduced out of panic. The Secretary of State failed to recognise that it is not the amount that is being spent on the health service that is important, but how it is spent.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, in his excellent speech, said that this was the strangest Budget that he had ever known. Many of us agree with him on that. He rightly drew attention to the fact that the Budget emanated from the "Breakfast with Frost" programme, when the Prime Minister blurted out that he was going to increase expenditure on the national health service to take it up to the European Union average. From the figures that were announced yesterday, it is clear that that will not be achieved. My right hon. and learned Friend also drew attention to the spending parameters, and pointed out that this announcement covered three years, yet performance will be reviewed year by year.
  In the exchanges I had with the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice), he made it clear that he does not believe the Chancellor's figures showing that growth will continue year on year. By implication, he disagreed with the Chancellor about there being no more boom and bust. He is right to argue that the strong pound is hurting British trade.
  We agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) that NICE is taking too long in its assessment of new drugs. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett) said that the Government's position on the coal industry was not entirely plausible—he was right to criticise them for that. We also agree with him that their position on TECs is lamentable.
  In an excellent speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) emphasised our solid support for the NHS, and he was right to query whether his local hospital was safe. He asked when the tax rewrite plan would be debated. He rightly brought up the issue of the simplification of the tax system, which I would have addressed if I had had more time. This Budget is not is simple. My right hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the continuing problem of IR35.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) described this as Lord Winston's Budget, and that was aptly put. He also made constructive comments on the regulation of the housing market. The hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) admitted that there are problems with exchange rates. Curiously, he started his speech several feet further down the Bench and moved to the left during his contribution—he was almost over here by the time he had finished.
  In a delightful little cameo speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) could not resist a reference to the euro, but rightly drew attention to the problems of smuggling and beer duty. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) drew attention to the Rowntree report and the fact that the gap between rich and poor is greater than ever. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole rightly said that this was the 9p up, 1p down Budget.
  After the general election, the Government, with their huge majority, were confident, poised and ready to sweep all before them. They called their first Red Book

  1077
  "Equipping Britain for our long-term future". They set out clearly in black and white their long-term tax objectives. I shall begin by measuring this Budget and its predecessors against those objectives.
  The first thing the Government said was that they wanted to keep
  the overall burden of tax as low as possible.
  Well, that is out of the window. They went on to say that
  how and what is taxed sends clear signals about the economic activities which governments believe should be encouraged and discouraged.
  What signal does it send when they tax pension funds, so that Tesco says it cannot meet its pension obligations? Do they mean to discourage marriage when they eliminate the married couples allowance? What do they mean when they leave the typical working family £600 worse off as a result of their Budgets? Are these the values that they want to entrench in society?
  But the verbiage in that initial policy statement continues. The Government say that
  tax policy is based on clear principles. These are to encourage work, savings and investment and fairness … it must keep tax-payers compliance costs to a minimum … and attention must be paid to any implications for the United Kingdom's international competitiveness.
  They have not done very well on that lot either. How are we doing? Savings are down; we have slipped from fourth to eighth in the international competitiveness league, and it is not necessary to look far for the reason. Compliance costs are rocketing, which is having a damaging effect on small businesses. The Budget provides very little help, apart from £50, which is utterly inadequate, given reports to the Inland Revenue about the cost of compliance to small firms.
  One thing that this Budget is not—like its predecessors—is simple. Even The Sun says:
  The Sun has given a whole-hearted welcome to three Brown Budgets only to find there was hidden bad news on taxes.
  This time we're taking a leaf out of his book. We're being prudent.
  We're giving this Budget the seven-day test. It may look different next week.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde illustrated that point.
  Nor is the tax and benefit system simple. As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security, said the other day,
  Only a few experts can master the complexities of the elaborate tax and benefit schemes which the Treasury is designing. Social policy is becoming like nuclear physics.
  Personal taxes are paid by individuals on their annual income, but means-tested benefits are paid to households for their current needs. Trying to merge them in tax credits has absurd and unpopular effects.
  We already have the working families tax credit, which includes a child care credit. Next year we shall have a children's tax credit; after that we shall have an integrated child credit; and then we shall have an employment credit. Each will involve different rules of entitlement and different methods of means-testing.
  I think we can conclude from what I have said that the Budget has failed every long-term test that the Government have set themselves; but, as usual, it is more about what the Chancellor did not say than about what he
  1078
  said. It is about what he said he would do, and what he did not do. The list is becoming glaringly obvious. The Chancellor did not end his war on the motorist; he raised fuel prices yet again. Britain has far the highest petrol and diesel taxes in Europe. Why should it cost £50 to fill a Mondeo in the United Kingdom, and only £14 in the United States? With the 2p-a-litre rise producing £715 million, but with only £280 million extra for transport, hypothecation is clearly out of the window. It is not surprising that the Deputy Prime Minister looked so fed up during the Chancellor's statement.
  The Chancellor did not take the opportunity to end his assault on marriage. He is phasing out the married couples allowance, but we will get no child tax credit until next year. We have a new definition of the gap year. Not only is there no compensation for the phasing out of the married couples allowance; there is no recognition of marriage in the tax and benefit system, something that a future Conservative Government will recognise.
  The Government failed to deal with the collapse in savings. They could not resist tinkering with, and abolishing, personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings accounts, the most successful share-owning and savings schemes that the country has ever had. It is all very well for them to say they will extend the £7,000 for another year; PEPs and TESSAs combined would have allowed £11,000 per person. Given artificial caps of that kind, no wonder the savings ratio is collapsing.
  But it is on the new taxes that the Chancellor lives up to his reputation as the stealth Chancellor. Did we hear any mention in the Budget of the new aggregate levy, which will hit the construction industry hard, and will hit first-time house buyers especially hard? Did we hear about changes to double taxation relief for corporations? Did we hear about the extra taxes on insurance companies and Lloyd's? Did we hear anything about the abolition of the approved profit-sharing scheme which will affect the employees of many of Britain's old economy firms? We have heard from Tesco employees how they feel about the erosion of their pension scheme by the Government. How does the Chancellor think others will feel about the abolition of their profit-sharing schemes?
  Just when everyone is worrying about new stealth taxes, we have increases in the old stealth taxes on tobacco and stamp duty on share transactions. What is the Chancellor trying to achieve by increasing stamp duty on property? It will hit business. With house prices rising at 15 per cent. a year, a 0.5 per cent. increase in stamp duty will not make any difference to housing demand. It is a return to the old politics of envy: attacks on those who have made enough money to the benefit of the British economy but with no thanks from the Government.
  What is there for manufacturing in the regions? Not a lot. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe said, while the Chancellor is saying that exchange rates are a consequence of interest rates set by the Bank of England, and Eddie George is saying that they are a matter for the Chancellor, Rover is going bust in the midlands—and the Chancellor calls it a Budget for enterprise.
  There is nothing in the Budget to decrease the burden of £30 billion-worth of business tax over the Parliament. National insurance contributions are rocketing. Will the Paymaster General take the opportunity to explain why the costs of IR35 have been doubled by the Red Book:

  1079
  from £475 million in 1999 to £900 million this year? Nearly £1 billion out of the pockets of the self-employed is serious money. The brain drain could develop into a mass emigration.
  There was nothing to resolve the current crisis of employer national insurance contributions on the exercise of share options. The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce said in Committee that the Government would consult, so we had a novel situation: the first reannouncement, probably, of a consultation.
  Probably the stealthiest tax of all is the miserly increase in personal allowances and tax bands of approximately 1.2 per cent. They may meet statutory requirements, but, when the Chancellor says that inflation is running at 2.2 per cent., the man in the street expects his bands and allowances to go up by the same amount. With thresholds and allowances going up by 1.2 per cent. and with earnings rising at 5 per cent., the tax burden is bound to grow. If ever there were a breach of the Prime Minister's undertaking not to raise taxes, that is it. It is a 9p up, 1 p down Budget. It comes as no surprise that tonight's Evening Standard poll says that the Chancellor's Budget has received the worst reception of any of the four Budgets that he has delivered.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alan Johnson): The poll is pretty good.
  Mr. Ottaway: I suggest that the Minister looks at the figures in the poll.
  There is a certain irony in the Government's stealth taxes of the past three years. We all know that the Chancellor has increased total taxes by more than £40 billion over the lifetime of the Parliament. We know that taxes have gone up on pension funds, cars, petrol, diesel, charities, mortgages, marriage, medical insurance, house buying, cigarettes, alcohol, insurance policies, savings, betting, employer benefits in kind, the self-employed and on retirement: £1,500 extra taxes per taxpayer, a rise in the overall tax burden of almost 2.5 per cent.
  All that is now in the public domain, but how many people have noticed how regressive many of the taxes are for those on low incomes? Who would have thought that it would be a Labour Government who left the basic and higher rates untouched, but raised indirect taxes by such a level that they hurt most of all the people in their heartlands? The irony is that it should be a one-nation Conservative party that must articulate on behalf of and stand up for their people.
  When those people realise that it is a Labour Government who are imposing those burdens on them, and that it is a one-nation Conservative party that is coming to their defence—a party that believes in one nation of rich and poor and equal and fair treatment for all—it is the sign of a Labour Government who have lost touch with their core electorate and of a Conservative party that speaks for the nation as a whole.
  Dr. Fox: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the beginning of the debate, I pointed out that, in his statement, the Prime Minister had apparently unintentionally misled the House with one of the figures that he gave. Is not the convention that, when Ministers of the Crown mislead the House, they should return to the House and correct the matter as soon as possible? I have given Ministers several hours' notice of the matter, and the figure has been confirmed by the Library and by other independent sources. I am sure that it would be helpful to the House if the Paymaster General could confirm that the Prime Minister made a mistake and gave a misleading figure on the Government's health care expenditure for 2003–04.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was not in the Chair when those earlier exchanges occurred. However, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, figures can sometimes be a matter for debate. I have no doubt that Ministers have heard the point of order.
  Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to delay the Paymaster General's reply to the debate. You will know that a usual courtesy of the House is that Front Benchers who attend a debate's opening attend its conclusion. Have you received a message—no apology was made to the House—explaining why the Secretary of State for Health is not in the Chamber for the end of this debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have received no such notice. However, whether Ministers attend the conclusion of debates is entirely a matter for them.
  9.46 pm
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) concluded his speech by saying that the Conservative party is the one-nation party. However, as we have seen in our debates in the past two days, the Conservative party is incapable of speaking with one voice even in this Chamber. We have heard from Conservative Members some very interesting and varied, but contradictory, speeches on the Budget.
  In the short time that is left, I shall try to answer some of the questions that have been asked in the debate. I apologise to hon. Members who spoke in the debate, but whom I may not be able to mention because of the shortage of time.
  Yesterday's Budget was about building a stronger and fairer Britain. The Budget provides significant resources to improve key priority services, particularly for our schools and hospitals. It also takes further action to tackle child poverty, to support pensioners, to promote enterprise and work, and to protect the environment.
  Many of the speeches in today's debate—which has followed the statements by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health—were on the national health service. Nevertheless, it is worth reminding the House now of the reaction to the Budget.
  The Trades Union Congress described it as "a good Budget". It said:
  The strong economy meant the Chancellor could afford to be generous and he has been.

  1081
  The Confederation of British Industry said:
  This is a positive Budget
  for small and medium-sized enterprises.
  The Institute of Directors—that well-known socialist enclave that always supports Labour Governments—said:
  It is not just the tax measures which are significant—welcome though they are—it is confirmation of the Government's belief in creating an enterprise culture.
  Many hon. Members on both sides of the House made very thoughtful speeches today on the national health service. There was general agreement in the House in welcoming the extra resources for the NHS. Hon. Members concentrated also on the issue of improving quality, and particularly on the issue of the dramatic variations in cost and performance across the NHS. They spoke also about the action that needs to be taken, in partnership with those who plan and work in the NHS, to build success in the service. Opposition Members were surprised that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health should use the word "partnership". I remind Opposition Members that partnership is necessary because the health service over which they presided was divided through secrecy and competition, by the use of the internal market.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) made an interesting speech. I was especially interested when he said that health was always his priority as Chancellor, but that real spending on health fell during that time. I was pleased to hear him welcoming the statements made today.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I wish to react to a somewhat startling assertion. I do not think that real spending on the national health service has fallen at any time for the past quarter of a century. The last time that spending fell was in 1976.
  Dawn Primarolo: I would not wish to pick a fight directly with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I would ever so gently point out to him that the real terms annual growth in national health service expenditure in England in 1996–97 was minus 0.1 per cent. By 1998–99, that had risen to 2.3 per cent. He will find, on closer scrutiny of the figures, that his first assertion was right.
  The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and several others raised the issue of IR35 and service companies, and I shall put one or two facts clearly on the record. In the tax system, rules govern whether one may designate oneself as self-employed or whether one counts under the PAYE definitions. The category in which a worker falls dictates the reliefs and tax that need to be paid. No one—including consultants in service companies—is allowed to choose their category. People may wish to be self-employed, but that is determined by the terms and conditions of their contracts.
  IR35 deals with the massive avoidance of national insurance and a considerable amount of tax in which some of those service companies have engaged. It does not impose a new tax: it merely requires them to pay tax in the same way that millions of other taxpayers—companies, the self-employed and individuals on PAYE—pay tax. It is suggested that such consultants will form a mass exodus, but that does not bear scrutiny because other countries have similar mechanisms to those
  1082
  that we are introducing to the UK system. In fact, I have been amused by the postcards that I have been sent by rather silly consultants from the countries in which they claim they have settled because the tax regime is easier. I am disappointed that they do not give me a reply address, because then I could write back to them to explain how the tax system of Germany or the USA, for example, requires people to pay their fair level of tax.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) and several other hon. Members referred to the construction industry scheme. I think that the right hon. Member for Fylde will have some sympathy with me on that, although I do not wish to try to tie him in to any criticisms that have been made. The construction industry scheme was designed under the previous Government to deal with the specific problem of tax avoidance that was occurring in that industry. All of the consultation about what the new scheme should look like was conducted under the previous Government. Questions were raised about why the scheme did not work and some Opposition Members said that the Government had been warned. However, the Government were not warned until the scheme had been introduced. I am glad that hon. Members welcome the changes that we are making.
  There was considerable discussion of our transport policies and whether the Budget was sympathetic to motorists. By chance, this morning I met representatives of the Automobile Association who told me that they very much welcomed the Budget. In fact, they told my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that it was the first Budget in nearly 10 years that the AA had welcomed. That takes the shine off some of the more unreasonable points made by Opposition Members.
  The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) made an extremely thoughtful speech—I invite him to come and join us. He was quite right to say that we need confidence in our national health service and that people are entitled to know that they can get treatment when they need it. As he said, there have been difficulties in respect of NHS care and the quality of care declined under the previous Government. He said that there was a shift towards private medical insurance at the time because people lacked confidence in the national health service. I am sure that all my right hon. and hon. Friends agree that confidence in the national health service is also about the challenge of providing better quality care. I took particular note of the hon. Gentleman's cautionary tales about the Inland Revenue, which really is quite friendly. It only requires Ministers who know what they are driving through.
  In conclusion, let me turn to the points made by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) about smuggling. He concentrated on beer smuggling, but I am sure that he is aware that the problem is much wider. Smuggling systematically challenges our health policy and spreads criminal activity throughout our communities. Today the Government announced expenditure of an additional £209 million over three years on Customs and Excise, employing nearly 1,000 extra customs officers at ports and inland. That is in addition to our commitment to increase penalties, provide better equipment and X-ray machines and develop a strategy to disrupt inland activities. The hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that we can now employ extra staff to deliver on that commitment.

  1083
  The Budget that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor presented to the House yesterday was based on clear visions and basic sensible principles that Conservative Members seem unable to understand. Economic efficiency and success are central to our strategy. By building a platform of stability we also build a platform for social progress, as economic efficiency and social progress go hand in hand. Conservative Members never understood that and they have demonstrated that they still do not understand it.
  We continue in our aim to deal with unemployment and head towards our goal of full employment. In contrast, the Tories said that unemployment was a price worth paying. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe even said that he had had to provide figures on unemployment because of the problems that had occurred.
  We are dealing with child poverty and pensioner poverty and investing in the national health service. We have presented a Budget for all the people which is based on stability, public services, enterprise and investment to make sure that our economy grows and people have secure employment.
  Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Clelland.]
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

PETITIONS

  Benefit Payments
  10 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am pleased to present a petition signed by some 25,000 Cornish people—even more than threatened to march on behalf of my Cornish ancestor Bishop Trelawney. The signatures come from residents in my constituency of North Cornwall, and from residents of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George). My hon. Friend is a member of a parliamentary deputation to Canada and is unable to be here today.
  The petition states:
  The petition of residents of North Cornwall, and the petition of residents of the St. Ives constituency, declare that the proposed changes in the method of benefits payments will have a detrimental effect on the post office network in Cornwall and Devon.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Social Security to reconsider these proposals.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.
  10.1 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I am very pleased to present this petition from residents of Truro and St. Austell, expressing their concern about changes in the method of benefit payments. The changes will prevent people from collecting their pensions at post offices, with the result that the post office network in my constituency is under severe threat. The petitioners request the House of Commons to urge the Secretary of State for Social Security to reconsider the proposals.
  Some 12,000 of my constituents have signed the petition. It was collected across the breadth of my constituency, not by political activists but by ordinary people, and especially by those who run the post offices, who are extremely concerned about the loss of the service to the general public and, of course, about the potential loss of their own livelihoods.
  To lie upon the Table.

Motor Components Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
10.2 pm
Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am pleased to have the opportunity to hold this Adjournment debate on the Government's policy on the motor components industry, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) is able to attend. Although the normal conventions and the restricted time available mean that he will not speak in the debate, my hon. Friend is concerned about the principal issue—the redundancies earlier this month at TRW—that has caused me to raise the matter. I shall speak about TRW first, and then about the industry in general.
Although I am sorry to have dragged my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary here this evening, I am sure that on his desk there is a letter from Burnley borough council, asking him to meet a joint delegation to discuss the redundancies. The council is worried about the effect that those redundnacies will have, and about the loss of objective 2 status, in Burnley and in most of north-east Lancashire.
Most people in Burnley still know the firm now called TRW as Lucas. During the war, the Lucas firm was relocated to Burnley, which was a safe industrial area. In only a few years, it had become a major employer: it ran several different factories and employed several thousand people in the separate sections devoted to aerospace and to motor components. The name changed first to LucasVarity and then, in May last year, TRW Automotive Electronics, whose headquarters are in Farmington Hills, Michigan, acquired the factory.
I am sad to say that there is almost nothing left of what used to be a major local employer, as the last of the aerospace factories was sold last year. When I became the Member for Burnley, that company was the largest employer in the constituency, with several thousand employees working in the town.
Earlier this month I received a notification from TRW that it was making 450 redundancies. The notice was sent to my Burnley office by hand at the moment that the company was making the announcement on 2 March. It was faxed to my office at the House at the very moment when I was asking a question in the Chamber about the aerospace industry. Little did I know that I would rise a few minutes later during business questions to ask for an urgent debate on the issue. That intervention resulted in this debate.
TRW's press release on 2 March was accompanied by a letter to me saying that it had announced that it would reduce
the number of its employees by about 450 people as part of a major business change to make the plant at Burnley profitable.
The letter continues:
"Our intent is to build a solid and profitable foundation for the Burnley facility," said Gerd Kleinert, vice president and general manager, Body Control Systems, TRW Automotive Electronics. "Like our competitors, we are facing manufacturing overcapacity and feeling pressure from increasing customer demand for lower prices. We shall be transferring some products and processes to other plants to better utilize our total manufacturing capacity and lower costs at Burnley."
1086
It must be noted that work is available and that the company is transferring work from the order book elsewhere. The letter continues:
"We appreciate the efforts of our employees at Burnley," said Kleinert. "The reduction certainly is not a reflection on them. TRW will do what it can to help them with the transition."
That sounds very nice but the work force does not think too kindly of that comment.
I immediately arranged a meeting with TRW. Peter Bagshaw, the personnel manager, arranged it for the following morning, Friday 3 March. Brian Nadel, the director of operations, was present at the meeting, plus union and council representatives. We went through the situation and discussed several options.
The following day was the regional conference of the north-west regional Labour party. The GMB, my union, moved an emergency motion, which was carried unanimously. That was at Southport on Saturday 4 March. The conference condemned overseas firms buying United Kingdom plants and order books and transferring that work to other places. It urged similar protection for our manufacturing industrial base to that which is given in France and Germany.
It must be said that the unions on site, the GMB and the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, remain committed, understandably, to the principal objective, which I would also support, of trying to eliminate the need for the redundancies, or at worst reducing the number of redundancies and saving the maximum possible number of jobs.
A letter to me from Burnley council on 6 March reads:
As you know Burnley is heavily dependent on manufacturing and many of our largest employers are "branch plants" of multinational organisations. We have a number of employers manufacturing components for the motor industry. They are all reporting severe pressure due to the high value of sterling especially against other European currencies, high and growing levels of interest rates and intense price competition. Whilst we have worked hard to alleviate the consequences of previous job losses, by supporting the creation of new businesses and the expansion of others, redundancies on the scale announced by TRW have a major adverse effect on the entire town.
A press release was issued after the meeting that was held on the Friday. It reads:
Councillor Tony Harrison, Chair of the Council's Economic and Property Committee, said "It is clearly not the fault of a loyal and hard working work force, although some of them will have to pay the ultimate price."
TRW supplies a number of car manufacturers and assemblers both in the UK and in Europe. We need to have a meeting because commercial confidentiality means that it would not be possible or appropriate to debate some of the points at issue in an Adjournment debate.
The switch gear that TRW makes is highly sophisticated. Switch gears on cars now operate so many things. They are not simple systems; they are expensive and complex, and TRW, formerly Lucas, has considerable expertise in manufacturing them.
The value of the pound is a problem, as is the fact that we have not joined the euro. Companies can go to other manufacturers to source the components elsewhere. It is a highly competitive industry and there is overcapacity. All of us who watched television at the weekend following the announcement about Rover last week—Rover is one of TRW's customers—will know about its massive overcapacity and the stocks of cars to be sold.

1087
We have to remember that problems selling cars have ramifications further along the line for the manufacturers of the components.
Enterprise, a company formerly known as Lancashire Enterprise, which does a good job in the area and outside in helping to secure jobs, wrote to me on 21 March, saying:
It is essential to recognise and accept that the automotive market is now, most definitely, global with competitiveness as the number one priority … The strong pound and the United Kingdom being outside the "Eurozone" have been promoted by BMW as some of the reasons for pulling out of Rover. Other manufacturers in the automotive sector … also reflect these views.
This is not just about TRW, although that is the immediate problem. I have other car component manufacturers in my constituency. TRW has 949 employees, and 450 of them are under threat of redundancy. Michelin, which makes heavy vehicle tyres, has 545 workers. Tenneco Walker, which makes exhaust systems, has 210 employees and Viktor Achter has 600 workers. In a letter to me of 20 March, Burnley borough council said:
Despite doing everything possible for themselves, these firms face a difficult future. This is in the context of local wage levels being 83 per cent. of national levels.
That is an important, because a lot of people are employed in manufacturing in the area—the percentage is particularly high in Pendle, Burnley and Hyndburn. We are not a high wage area, however. Many of our people benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage, and TRW certainly paid wages above the national minimum wage. It paid very reasonable and respectable wages but, overall, we are not a high wage area so we are not pricing ourselves out of the market. The letter from Burnley borough council continues:
If employment is going abroad from this area, it is difficult to see the rest of the country competing successfully.
The only way we can compete more successfully is if interest rates were lowered to European levels, the pound's strength tackled to help exporters or Britain joins the Euro. Additionally, more assistance could possibly be given to support firms' investment in higher levels of automation and leading edge technologies to counter the attraction of moving work to areas of low labour costs.
I have to say that as things stand at present, it is very difficult to see a move away from the accelerating trend towards Britain exporting lower skilled employment to low wage areas.
That letter is signed by Hugh Simpson, head of economic development. So this is not a problem just for TRW but for industry in general, and the motor components industry in particular.
The East Lancashire chamber of commerce says in a letter of 21 March:
The news from Rover is plainly and simply bad for the area. We have companies entirely dependent now on supplying Rover cars and others whose major customers are Land Rover. After the split, some companies will presumably continue to supply those models being retained by BMW (until production moves overseas?), some being made on reduced scale by Alchemy and some in the Land Rover Ford compact. What supply chain assurances are there? Can the Government help obtain these?
Will the temptation be for supply chain networks to be compressed into the South Midlands and South given the reduced overall demand, and the logistical disadvantage?
The Minister will know that MPs representing north-west constituencies—indeed, people throughout the whole region—are extremely disappointed that investment in the synchrotron development went to Oxford instead of to Daresbury. That went down badly in the north-west.
1088
Discussions between unions and management are now under way at TRW about which lines are to go and when; and about comparative costs and labour rates. The company is already considering where much of the work will go—comparing the wage rates of more than £60 a week in the Czech Republic with those in Slovakia where they are slightly more than £45 a week. Slovakia is likely to be biggest gainer. Rates in Russia are even less.
Those matters worry people who work in the industry. They ask where the line should be drawn and how we are to save jobs in our industry. The workers and the unions contacted me when they knew that I would be initiating this debate. They asked me a series of simple but important questions.
Will the Government do more to ensure that sourcing is from within the UK wherever possible, within EU rules? Do the Government accept that the high exchange rate and our non-membership of the euro are severe problems for the manufacturing sector?
At times, France and Germany must be laughing all the way to the bank, because their euro rate is fixed, while most of our exporting companies have to fix their euro prices at the beginning of the year and take a risk about what will happen. Europe is our biggest market. In many cases, we are Europe's biggest market. European countries can sell cheaply to us, but we have to sell dear to them because of the present balance in exchange rates. The workers and the unions ask what can be done to remedy those problems as soon as possible.
The regional development agencies introduced regional supply offices to encourage large companies to source locally. Both Enterprise and the East Lancashire chamber of commerce already encourage that. The TRW workers ask why the RDAs cannot do more in that regard.
The workers at TRW have every sympathy with the Rover workers. The effect on individual workers at TRW is just the same—redundancy is redundancy whether it affects thousands or hundreds. The proportionate impact of 450 redundancies in Burnley and the ripple effect over a small area is not so different from the impact on the west midlands of the BMW-Rover decision. Will Burnley receive a proportionate response from the Government to repel that blow?
I hope that we receive some positive answers from my hon. Friend the Minister and that we shall do everything possible to assure those people that the Government are concerned about their position and about the motor components industry.
10.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alan Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on initiating the debate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) for being in the Chamber. I know that the issue is extremely important to their constituents—as it is to the Government.
I express my regret at the announcement of the job losses in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley and our concern for the men and women who face the prospect of redundancy. It is extremely difficult for the Government to intervene when a company has come to a final commercial decision.
Officials from the Government office of the north-west and the East Lancashire training and enterprise council are keen to discuss with TRW whether we can help in any

1089
way to enhance the future security of employment on the site, and what packages of assistance might be available to those who are made redundant. The Employment Service is liaising with the company to provide advice and to help employees who may be leaving. Burnley borough council has also been in close contact to offer whatever help it can. I shall say something more about that at the end of my speech.
Recent events have helped to remind us—if we needed reminding—just how important to the United Kingdom's economy the car and components manufacturing sectors of industry are. They employ more than 200,000 people and, in 1998, they accounted for more than 11 per cent. of total UK exports. Altogether, UK vehicle and component manufacturing has an estimated turnover of £40 billion—nearly 5.5 per cent. of gross domestic product.
As in all areas of manufacturing, the pace of innovation and technological change is quickening. Concerns over the environment and congestion require cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles and greater recyclability. New car models are being introduced more frequently and more quickly than ever before, and the industry is also at the forefront of much technological research. Lightweight materials, safety systems, telematics and fuel cells are but a few examples and the industry leads the manufacturing sector in developing and adopting lean manufacturing techniques, such as continuous improvement and just-in-sequence supply.
Clearly, in such a sector, companies have to be world class to survive. For the vehicle manufacturers, that has meant consolidation to take advantage of the economies of scale that can be achieved through having a global reach. It means having sufficient resources to develop and apply the new technologies of tomorrow and to introduce new models that will have a shorter lifespan in the marketplace than ever before. Last but not least, it means having a healthy and competitive supply chain.
The performance of any vehicle manufacturer is critically dependent on its suppliers. Some 70 per cent. of vehicle manufacturers' costs are accounted for by bought-in materials and parts. The efficiency of their assembly lines is dependent on having the parts delivered on time and to the right quality. That means that the same competitive pressures will be passed down to suppliers, too. Vehicle manufacturers are increasingly looking for suppliers that have global reach and are able to deliver whole sub-assemblies or systems with state-of-the-art technology, excellent production quality and competitive prices. In effect, they are looking for suppliers to take on some of the risks of developing new models.
As a result, vehicle manufacturers have been taking steps to reduce the number of suppliers that they deal with and to secure the economies of scale and technological innovation that can be offered by global suppliers. In turn, that presents the remainder of the supply base with greater challenges and burdens. I know that that process is resulting in difficult decisions. However, it also offers immense opportunities. Smaller suppliers may decide that their future lies in supplying larger global suppliers rather than continuing to supply direct themselves to vehicle manufacturers. Others may decide that their future lies as part of a larger global supplier. Many have chosen those routes already.
Any supplier—large or small, first or third tier—will have to be globally competitive if it is to have any chance in the future. Companies in the UK automotive chain have
1090
to be able to compete with the best. A lot has already been done, and much has been achieved. International comparisons on stock levels—a key measure of lean manufacturing—shows that the UK's automotive component industry compares well with the United States and very favourably with Europe. It is testimony to the increasing competitiveness of the UK supply base.
However, both we and the industry recognise that there is more to do, and we are helping to do it. We are actively supporting the industry's efforts to improve its competitiveness through the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders industry forum. It is a unique initiative that aims to develop and sustain world-leading competitiveness in the UK-based vehicle and components industry, through the development and adoption of world-class manufacturing improvement activity and training. Indeed, the initiative is being replicated in other manufacturing industries.
The Department of Trade and Industry has been closely involved with the project from the start and is providing more than £6.5 million of support. The results of that initiative are astonishing and have won praise from within the sector and outside. Right-first-time quality is up by two thirds, productivity has doubled and stock turns have more than trebled. However, that is just a beginning. The challenge is now to sustain and spread such improvements more widely.
We have also supported work by Cranfield university to improve the product development and introduction process among automotive suppliers and to help them design and manufacture new products more quickly and more cheaply.
The work is being reinforced by excellent initiatives at regional level. In the west midlands, the accelerate programme offers an integrated programme of training and support to small and medium-sized enterprises and direct suppliers in the automotive component sector to deliver measurable improvements in their manufacturing performance. The Longbridge taskforce will, as part of its work, consider what further assistance might be given to the automotive suppliers in that region to improve their competitiveness.
Competitiveness is also increasingly dependent on suppliers' ability to offer vehicle manufacturers leading-edge technology and innovation. That is why the Government are supporting the highly successful DTI-led foresight vehicle LINK programme, which has provided more than £12 million of public funds for strategic collaborative research between industry and the science base. That is helping UK-based companies to develop the materials and technologies for tomorrow's vehicles—vehicles that are clean, efficient and lightweight and that integrate information and communication systems fully into the road transport system.
The DTI has also been developing a programme to help suppliers locate new customers in the UK and abroad, taking a strategic approach to markets and responding to customer needs. In addition, the Department of Trade and Industry helps UK companies to participate in trade fairs and missions overseas. Most recently, we supported a large and highly successful contingent of UK companies at the US Society of Automotive Engineers show in Detroit and we will be supporting a group of UK companies at the Automechanika exhibition in Frankfurt in September.

1091
We are also supporting major export campaigns in Mexico and central Europe and have on-going initiatives in India and China. All this represents a significant investment by the Government in spreading best practice and in helping UK-based companies develop and exploit new technologies. One of the most significant ways in which we have been able to support the motor components industry is to ensure the continued development of the vehicle industry in the UK, which provides the customer base for much of the UK's production of components.
I shall set some of the understandable and eloquent remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley in context. There are seven major car manufacturers in the UK—more than any other country in Europe. The majority of suppliers to the UK-based car manufacturers are based here. Ford's European operations source £2 billion a year from the UK, while Vauxhall adds a further £900 million. The Japanese vehicle manufacturers are estimated to be worth more than £2 billion to the UK components industry.
Since 1997—since the general election—more than £2.4 billion of new, additional investment has been won by the vehicle manufacturers in the UK. That investment has created more than 8,750 new jobs. To take some examples, Honda announced a £500 million investment to add a third model at Swindon. Peugeot and Vauxhall both added third shifts at their plants in Ryton and Ellesmere Port. There were two developments last year at Nissan in relation to production of the Almera and the Primera. Car exports last year of 1.1 million are the highest ever. UK car sales in 1999 are the highest on record and UK car production is the highest since 1972.
This investment and job creation is not simply in vehicle production but in research, testing and development. In a globalising industry, as my hon. Friend rightly said, this sort of high-quality investment helps to underpin the presence of the manufacturing operations in Britain and provides opportunities for component suppliers to work with vehicle assemblers on new products involving new technology.
1092
Last year General Motors announced the establishment of its new light vehicle R and D centre at Millbrook with 100 new jobs. Ford has continued to invest in its R and D operations at Dunton and opened £80 million worth of new facilities in September 1999, on top of the £303 million invested in 1998.
Inward investment by automotive component companies has continued as well. Since April last year, 28 automotive component companies have decided to invest in the UK, with £128 million of capital expenditure bringing 1,700 new jobs and safeguarding a further 4,700.
My hon. Friend mentioned the euro. As we have made clear, we believe that that was not the primary cause of the events at BMW. What matters to businesses in this country is stability, and we believe that we are delivering that. Companies want sound public finances and low inflation. We understand the concerns of businesses, especially manufacturers trading with Europe, about the strength of the pound, but we are determined to take a long-term view. It would be wrong to let short-term pressures lead us back to the policies that have produced instability in the past.
I emphasise the importance that the Government attach to maintaining a strong automotive industry in the United Kingdom. We do not underestimate the challenges: global competition has never been stronger; vehicle manufacturers insist on the highest standards of performance from their suppliers; and the industry as a whole faces a challenging environmental and safety agenda.
My office is searching for a date early next week when I can meet my hon. Friend and his colleagues—I believe Tuesday is the preferred day, but we are checking that with my hon. Friend. At that meeting, we shall discuss all the ways we can help in Burnley, just as we are trying to help in the west midlands. We can also discuss fully the issues and concerns that he has eloquently raised on behalf of his constituents, especially those directly affected by the recent announcements at TRW.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

East Midlands Economy
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Touhig.]
9.30 am
Gillian Merron: I am delighted to have secured this Adjournment debate. It is about putting the east midlands on the map. I have the honour of chairing the east midlands group of Labour Members of Parliament, a group that is 30-strong and far from silent. Its voice comes from Back Benchers and Cabinet Ministers, and among its notable members are, on the Back Benches, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), and in the Cabinet, my right hon. Friends the Members for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon). The span of Government is well and truly covered.
I am delighted that those of my hon. Friends who represent seats in each of the five counties of the east midlands are here today. They all have a special contribution to make. The east midlands group of Labour MPs recognises the region's need for a clear, positive and memorable image. The east midlands should have a regional identity to help persuade firms to remain in the area and to promote the region to outside investors, and we believe that it is important to secure parliamentary time to help us achieve that aim.
The day after the Budget is an opportune day for such a debate. The east midlands has much to celebrate; 11,000 families can welcome the increase in the working families tax credit; 480,000 families will receive the record increase in child benefit; 580,000 pensioner households will see the winter fuel payment increased to £150; and 9,000 of the poorest pensioners in the east midlands who have worked hard and have modest savings, will now be able to claim more money to support their daily lives. The 50,000 businesses in the east midlands will welcome the tax cuts that will encourage long-term investment. Another positive announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was the £70 million of funding for early stage investment through the creation of regional capital funds.
The location and form of our diverse region remains a well-hidden secret and, as I said, this debate is part of our attempt to change that. Lest there be any doubt, the east midlands comprises Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire. It is in the centre of the country, which adds spice to the debate on the north-south divide. Indeed, that debate can rage quite happily within our region, because it contains so many comparisons and contrasts. For example, the east midlands runs from High Peak to Northampton; and it stretches from the north-west at one extreme to the south-east at the other.
By and large, people who live and work in the east midlands do not have a strong regional identity. That situation is further confused by the range of television
190WH
stations that serve the region. For instance, in my constituency we can watch BBC East Midlands, Look North, Central and Yorkshire television stations—in that sense, we can face in many directions at the same time.
There is no doubt that the diversity of the east midlands is not simply its character; it is also its strength. It has a diversity of landscape, population and economic activity, which offers tremendous potential and a positive future in Britain's heartland. The Labour Members in the east midlands are determined that the region should be on course to becoming one of Europe's top 20 regions by the end of the decade. It is one of the few regions in Britain with a growing working population.
The diversity of the east midlands is entrenched in not only the contrast between large-scale agricultural production in areas such as Lincolnshire and industrially based cities such as Derby, but in the nature of the economy from coalfield areas in the north to Formula 1 motor sport specialism in the south. The growth areas are information technology, finance, insurance and distribution. In addition, call centres are finding the east midlands an ever-attractive location. My constituency will welcome British Telecom when it locates its new call centre in Lincoln, bringing 900 jobs to the city.
In the past 20 years, the east midlands economy has grown faster than the United Kingdom average. Interestingly, we can look forward to an above average growth in employment which, unusually in this country, is predominantly in full-time jobs. However, there is significant deprivation within areas of prosperity. We need to be able to fine-tune the targeting of financial support and resources, whether that is single regeneration budget moneys, objective 2 status or any other means of support, to areas that need it.
The 1998 index of deprivation draws attention to some of the issues by ranking the most deprived local authority districts in England. It takes into account a number of factors—crime, housing, unemployment and health. It is important to understand that deprivation cannot be judged on just one factor. In the east midlands, Nottingham ranks 16th, Leicester is 32nd and Lincoln is 46th. The picture will be chequered in any local authority. The problem is being able to get the support to where it is needed, no matter where that may be. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to that.
The report "Sharing the Nation's Prosperity", which was compiled for the Prime Minister at the end of last year, said:
some parts of the UK continue to suffer from the economic problems of the decline in traditional employment, most notably in mining, steel and manufacturing.
The east midlands can lay claim to all those industries, and that is one of our many concerns. Rural areas, which are a fundamental part of our region, form the backdrop to those industries. Almost half the population in the east midlands live in rural areas, which is well above the national average. Average earnings of those who live and work in the region's rural areas are lower than the regional and national averages. We know that poor public transport and inadequate road and rail links are major problems and a significant disadvantage.

191WH
We look forward to the east midlands receiving its share of the £280 million, pledged by my right hon. Friend in the Budget yesterday, which is earmarked to remove some of the disadvantage experienced in rural areas. My county of Lincolnshire is an interesting case in point. The disadvantaged areas are concentrated on the coast, in parts of Lincoln and in isolated rural areas. They are brought together by the need for investment in transport and other infrastructure that will support business and communities. We find that problem in all our counties.
What are the main features of the east midlands? Let me give some of the main headlines: gross domestic product is just below the national average; levels of manufacturing productivity are lower, but there are signs of improvement; relatively low earnings—
Mr. Andrew Robathan: On the GDP, the hon. Lady may know that the East Midlands development agency's economic strategy document stated:
There is a wide diversity of GDP patterns within the region.
She has plucked out the figure for the region as a whole, which is listed in Government documents, but we do not recognise that figure in Leicestershire.
Gillian Merron: I said that the region is diverse; indeed, that is the point I am trying to make.
Let me return to the headlines. I am sure that the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) will be interested in the immense local variation in earnings. For example, average earnings are greater in Northamptonshire, south Derbyshire and Leicestershire, while Lincolnshire and north Nottinghamshire have seen the strongest growth in earnings. You will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why Labour Members acknowledge the value of the national minimum wage in regions such as the east midlands. It enables the range of earnings in our region to be brought closer together.
The east midlands region is increasingly able to create jobs. Interestingly, one third of all new jobs are in manufacturing, and half of those involve chemicals and man-made fibres. The regional picture on decreasing unemployment is very good: it is 2 per cent. better than the national average. Between 1997 and 1999, the number of unemployed people in our region decreased by 23,000. In the same two-year period, an extra 36,000 were finding work. The picture is looking good in the east midlands, but it is important to unpick those figures. For example, the January 2000 figures for our parliamentary constituencies show that, while the average unemployment rate in the region was 3.9 per cent., it ranged from 1.7 per cent. in Daventry to 10.8 per cent. in Nottingham, North.
Such variations must be attended to, but we also have regional achievements of which to be proud. Since 1997, the east midlands has seen a reduction of 65 per cent. in long-term unemployment and a reduction of 72 per cent. in the number of young unemployed people. The new deal has been a raging success and some 43,000 people have benefited from it. My constituency has seen a 9 per cent. decrease in unemployment in the past year, which is well ahead of the regional figure. Diversity and variation are key characteristics within the east midlands and we want to level up the situation.
192WH
There are many key players in the east midlands region. The east midlands group of Labour MPs has worked to develop positive relationships, as we believe that that is the best way to achieve the best for our constituencies. I shall mention a few examples. The Government office of the east midlands works tirelessly on behalf of the region. I am pleased that it is currently working closely with the engineering industry to examine the strengths and weaknesses of engineering in the region. It has identified high-growth areas such as Toyota, the aerospace industry, Rolls-Royce energy equipment, ABB Alstom in Lincoln and railway equipment as provided by Adtranz in Derby. The Government office of the east midlands is making a good attempt to find the strengths and weaknesses of one of the key industries within our region, as well as working to promote the link between engineering and education. Those are all positive ways forward.
In May last year, the East Midlands Assembly was formally recognised by the Deputy Prime Minister in a statement made in Parliament. That recognition came before it was given to most other English regions. The regional assembly is a vehicle that brings together a range of partners who believe in and are actively prepared to work to improve the quality of life in our region. They bring a fresh perspective, commitment and a willingness to think in new ways and to find innovative solutions to some deeply entrenched problems. The regional assembly is a key body for assisting in regional thinking. It provides guidance and support as well as democratic scrutiny for the regional development agency.
The regional assembly should be particularly complimented on producing the interim regional transport strategy for the east midlands. Transport is a matter of concern in the whole area. Connections to and within the eastern sub-area and to the east coast ports in particular are poor. The main north-south road routes are increasingly congested. We have some very good public transport links, but those are particularly good at peak hours in urban areas. In rural areas or when trying to cross the region, life is more difficult. East Midlands airport provides an excellent international link and recently obtained approval for a runway extension that will open it to longer-distance flights. Many people find day-to-day travel in the east midlands extremely difficult, which is also problematic for economic development.
I pay tribute to the East Midlands development agency, which has clearly set out its strategy in the document "Prosperity through people". My Labour colleagues and I welcome and support the document, but what really matters is what it produces. It correctly states that there is a need in the east midlands for people to have the right skills and knowledge, and for businesses to be equipped to compete in the increasingly competitive global marketplace. Also, the region needs to be positioned to make the most of opportunities coming from the information and communications technology revolution. We need, too, the right climate for investment as well as strong local communities. No one could disagree with any of that and I hope that there will be support to make it happen.
We should particularly welcome some of the practical steps taken by the regional development agency—notably the east midlands planning charter, which is

193WH
practical and honest in acknowledging difficulties. As we know, planning permission is an important stage in any job-generating development and delays and misunderstandings from any source can cost jobs. That is a cost we cannot afford. The charter recognises that an efficient planning process is a major factor in improving the economic competitiveness of the east midlands. It states:
Quick but good-quality decisions demand a two-way process. Developers need to understand what information the local authority needs and why. If developers provide that information, they are entitled to expect a prompt, efficient and transparent response.
That is the basis of the charter and I hope that it will be welcomed as an example of the ways in which the regional development agency will be able to make progress.
I pay tribute also to the midlands Trades Union Congress, which is the voice of the working people in the region. People are our key resource. The TUC is very much a partner with the other relevant groups, although I wondered if it was taking partnership a little too far when I read an article that stated that
Christine Wood, emda board member for cities, who is regional TUC secretary, was hoisted to the top of a former knitwear factory in Leicester as a tradition dating back to medieval times was performed by a vicar.
"Topping-out" ceremonies on buildings were designed to ward of evil spirits hundreds of years ago.
In a throw-back to a time when people worried about ghosts, ghouls and witches, the Reverend Philip Watson blessed a jumping cat weathervane at the Benjamin Russell building, which has been turned into a student residence, shops and pub.
The serious point is that a major regeneration project has brought together private and public partners to the benefit of the local community.
The Confederation of British Industry is also an important partner in the east midlands and it makes interesting points in its regional trends survey. It says that business confidence has risen, although there is a marginal decline in manufacturers' optimism about export prospects. Clearly, we must attend to that. It also talks about stability and the deterioration in plant and machinery investment. I hope that the CBI and all businesses will welcome measures announced in yesterday's Budget, such as the extension of first-year capital allowances. I hope that that will assist in putting right some of the difficulties raised by the CBI.
Credit must also go to local authorities in the east midlands and to the east midlands regional local government association—their commitment to public services is always to the fore, serving our region well. The training and enterprise councils, schools, colleges and universities provide education and training, which means that our economy can move into the future with confidence, skill and stability.
Where do we go next as a region? We have several needs that must be addressed and we can do that by working with partners and the Government. We must have improved access to investment finance. We must keep up with technical innovation. We must ensure an adequate transport and communication system, especially in a county such as Lincolnshire. We must have an adequate skills supply—there is a great need for continued training due to replacement demand in declining employment sectors, such as engineering and
194WH
textiles. We must keep highly skilled individuals in our region. We must address the inadequate supply of land for new developments and further develop an inward investment strategy to attract new firms.
There is a great need to target support on sectors with potential. The region has comparative advantages, notably in advance manufacturing, high-value engineering and aerospace, distribution, technology and research and development, especially in biotechnology, computer software and services. We must recognise that, although employment in sectors such as textiles and clothing is forecast to decline, there are still high-performing firms with real growth prospects that also need support and services.
As I said in my opening comments, we must develop a positive and memorable image and regional identity to help retain existing firms and to promote the region among outside investors. We may do that only by working in partnership and by being honest about the strengths and weaknesses of our region and the diversity within it. The east midlands has much going for it. It has a positive future and a tremendous strength in its diversity. It is important that we play to those strengths.
9.53 am
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I took part in a debate in the Chamber last week and was much reminded of 1 Corinthians 13, which refers to a sounding brass, tinkling cymbal and talking shop. For the benefit of those not well read in the Bible, the chapter also includes the bit about "through a glass darkly" and "childish things"—the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) will know that. I am afraid that debates in this Chamber are a talking shop. That is shown by the fact that Ministers occasionally fail to turn up.
Nevertheless, I congratulate the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on securing the debate and on her speech. She made a good fist of defending the east midlands as an entity. I suspect that the genesis of the debate might not be a million miles from the Government Whips office—many Labour Members are here to support the debate.
Mr. Andrew Reed: For information, those of us here have a genuine interest in the east midlands economy and in promoting the region to ensure future prosperity. That is why many Labour Members but, unfortunately, not many Conservative Members, who represent east midlands constituencies have attended the debate.
Mr. Robathan: I am delighted by that intervention because I notice that the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) did not deny that the Labour Whips might have had a hand initiating the debate.
What is the east midlands? It is an artificial creation for administrative convenience. I have no problem with that, but in travelling around my constituency—I have been a Member of Parliament for eight years, which is not as long as one or two people in the Chamber have been Members but longer than many—no one has ever said to me, "I am an east midlander and I am really looking forward to there being an east midlands

195WH
regional assembly." My constituents say that they come from Blaby, Lutterworth, Croft or from Leicestershire in England—admittedly, that is in the eastern bit of the midlands, but the people of Blaby do not look to Brackley in Northamptonshire, Boston in Lincolnshire or Buxton in Derbyshire. People in Lutterworth will be delighted to hear from the hon. Member for Lincoln about job creation and investment in Lincoln, but they will not feel personally concerned because they do not see themselves as east midlanders.
As I have said, the east midlands is an artificial creation, as is the East Midlands development agency. The hon. Lady mentioned the regional assembly, but has anyone other than those who are closely involved with it ever told her that they are in favour of a regional assembly or that an assembly would have democratic legitimacy or accountability?
Gillian Merron: The hon. Gentleman seems to be somewhat confused about the means and the end. The purpose of the debate, initiated by the east midlands group of Labour MPs, is to promote the east midlands and to further employment prospects and prosperity in the area. We will achieve those ends by working with groups such as the regional assembly, the regional development agency, the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress and others. I hope that the hon. Gentleman supports our aims.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is making an intervention, not a second speech.
Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to the hon. Lady because she did not say that lots of people were flocking to her surgery to say how much they want an East Midlands development agency or an East Midlands regional assembly, because they do not. Indeed, only six or nine months ago, the Leicester Mercury carried out a survey of businesses in Leicestershire, which found that more than 50 per cent. of businesses had never heard of the East Midlands development agency—so it is obviously doing a good job.
What is the purpose of the debate? Where should the region go next? Of course, I want the whole region to flourish. I hope that Lincolnshire, Derbyshire, Northamptonshire and Nottinghamshire do well, as I hope that the rest of England does well. I hope that Birmingham, Longbridge, Leicestershire and Herefordshire also do well, but that does not detract from the fact that the east midlands, the East Midlands development agency and the East Midlands regional assembly are entirely artificial creations. The east midlands may be used for administrative convenience but for nothing more.
Mr. John Heppell: Every region is an artificial creation in some respect. People in the north-east do not say, "I come from the north-east"; they say, "I come from Newcastle" or "I come from Sunderland." People in the north-west do not say, "I come from the north-west"; they say, "I come from
196WH
Liverpool" or "I come from Manchester", so the hon. Gentleman's arguments about regional identity are spurious.
Mr. Robathan: I am not the one who is arguing for undemocratically formed regional development agencies, such as the East Midlands regional assembly, a Liverpool regional assembly or a north-east regional assembly. It is the Government who are arguing that, so the hon. Gentleman has made my point for me.
There are many concerns in my constituency about the economy, but my constituents look to Birmingham and to the west midlands. Indeed, the East Midlands development agency—that great standard bearer of this regional government that we must apparently have—said, that the key regional characteristic was diversity, something that the hon. Member for Lincoln noticed. However, when the agency's representatives go abroad to attract inward investment, they find that people do not respond to the term "east midlands". The economic strategy document—
Mr. Reed rose—
Mr. Robathan: I will let the hon. Gentleman speak in a minute.
The agency's representatives team up with the west midlands, because people understand about the west midlands but have never heard of the east midlands. They understand that there is a country with lands in the middle, and so the areas are put together and sold as "the midlands". That is eminently sensible, but torpedoes the idea of having an artificially created east midlands region.
Mr. Reed: The hon. Gentleman is making the same point as Labour Members. The east midlands does not have an identity, which is why it has been held back for years in terms of inward investment. The point of a regional development agency for the east midlands is to create an identity so that we can build a strong and prosperous future for all the people of the region. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that?
Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman again makes my point. I want to see a strong economy and prosperity for the whole of England and the United Kingdom, not for only some narrow region of the east midlands. My constituency is on the border of the east midlands, between Northamptonshire and Leicestershire. I live four or five miles from Warwickshire. People in Warwickshire should do as well as people in Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Surely the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) misses the point. The east midlands has been successful at attracting inward investment. Under the previous Government, it attracted the largest single investment ever made in this country, which was a Toyota plant. Inward investment is not confined to what the regional development agency can do.
Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend makes an argument to which I would have come. Governments should create

197WH
frameworks and economic conditions in which investment can flourish, as I think that even new Labour now believes. Investment has flourished, which is why unemployment in Leicestershire has decreased rapidly since about 1993. I am delighted that it continued to fall until last month, when it went up slightly. I shall not blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government for that. I blame the Chancellor for economic trends and conditions that he may create, but he is not responsible for slight dips or rises in unemployment, any more than he is responsible and should take the praise for the descending unemployment figures since 1993. They have come down because the economic conditions that he inherited were put in place by his Conservative predecessor.
Unemployment in my constituency fluctuates around 2 per cent. That was the case before the general election; it might have been about 2.5 per cent. in 1997. That is excellent for my constituents. I am delighted that we have inward investment in Lincoln, Derbyshire and elsewhere, but my constituents are more concerned about the economy of the whole United Kingdom. Their area is not confined to the Leicestershire boundary a mile from where many of them live.
The economy is diverse, as the hon. Member for Lincoln said, so why is she trying to place the east midlands into the straitjacket of a regional development agency and—for heaven's sake—a regional assembly? She talked about wanting a memorable image and regional identity for the east midlands, because it is a well-hidden secret. That is not true for the people who live there, although they may not say, "We are east midlanders." I wonder how many hon. Members in the Chamber would stand up and proudly say that. They know what happens in their region, their county and their country—[Interruption.] I am afraid that I missed that sedentary intervention. Perhaps the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) wanted to say that he was an east midlander. The east midlands exists as an administratively convenient region, and its people do not want artificial boundaries foisted on them, as a survey in the Leicester Mercury pointed out last year.
About a week ago, there was a piece in the Leicester Mercury by the chief executive of the Leicestershire chamber of commerce and industry. I notice that two of my colleagues who represent Leicestershire constituencies are present. It states that the
Euro would only add to the burden on business … I believe that the business community faces too many government-imposed burdens at the present time.
It goes on to discuss the single currency further.
Mr. Reed: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robathan: I am always happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Reed: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the writer of that column supports the East Midlands regional development agency?
Mr. Robathan: Well—
Mr. Reed: Yes will do.
Mr. Robathan: As it happens, I have no idea, but I doubt it, because the members—
Mr. Reed: Yes.
Mr. Robathan: I have never asked. The hon. Gentleman may say "yes", but I doubt it, because the members of the Leicestershire chamber of commerce and industry whom I meet every week in my constituency do not, and the gentleman in question is their paid representative.
Deloitte and Touche in Leicester asked companies in Leicestershire whether they though that the Government were pro-business. The company maintains a sceptical stance. It said:
Last year 29 per cent. of respondents said Yes. This year the percentage is down to 26 per cent.
I am sure that someone will leap up in a moment and say, "But after the Budget, my goodness, they will all say that the Government have changed." I doubt it.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Lincoln on having made a good fist of the subject, but few people in the east midlands regard themselves as east midlanders or see a connection between the economies of Derbyshire and Leicestershire. The area is an artificial creation, and we should look to enhancing the economy and prosperity of the entire United Kingdom, including England and our counties and constituencies, rather than buy the Government line of important regions with undemocratic regional assemblies.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. I must advise the Chamber that I have quite a list of hon. Members who want to speak. Hon. Members will realise from the number of Members standing how many are involved. Our time is limited. The convention is to hand over to the Front-Bench speakers at 10.30 am. Thanks to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, we shall have a couple of minutes more, but I appeal to the hon. Member to make their contributions concise, clear, to the point and less repetitive than they have been until now.
10.7 am
Mr. David Taylor: Following my brief contribution, I must leave to attend a Standing Committee, for which I apologise.
I draw to my hon. Friend the Minister's attention the need for considerable work to be done on the regional infrastructure in the east midlands to enable continued, sustainable economic growth. Our transport systems are inadequate and impede the movement of people and goods, and our problems have an adverse impact on the quality of life of scores of communities that lie close to the pressure points. One example is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) said, that the main north-south routes are congested. Plans to widen the M1 and Al are, quite rightly, on hold to allow analysis of more multi-modal solutions. The economic boom that the so-called M1 corridor is experiencing is generating considerable increases in road freight movement and private car usage, despite the great potential for public transport links, which are currently starved of investment.
The east midlands lies in the centre of the country, as the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) reminded us with such insight. Right at the centre of the east

199WH
midlands is north-west Leicestershire, straddling the main transport infrastructure—the M1, the midlands main line and East Midlands airport, to the north of the area. The area's problems are typical of the region. North-west Leicestershire has no connections to the main rail network, which is a major obstacle to the creation of the multi-modal transport system that is so urgently needed.
The return of passenger services to the Ivanhoe railway line is crucial. I was astonished by the recent decision of the Liberal Democrat and Conservative group that controls Leicestershire county council to abandon the planned route of the Ivanhoe line in favour of linking Loughborough to Leicester and to Nuneaton in the west midlands.
The original route from Leicester through north-west Leicestershire to Burton and beyond has considerable economic and tourism potential. It would serve most of the National Forest towns and give people, particularly those without cars and those in rural areas, access to employment and training opportunities. It could be the first step towards an integrated transport plan being developed for a wider section of the east midlands.
I shall move on swiftly from the need for an improved rail network to the need for an improved road network. The recently announced bypass around my home town of Ashby-de-la-Zouch is most welcome, but one key project remains outstanding. There are real problems around junction 24 of the M1 because of serious, chronic congestion. I cannot overstress the urgency of completing the Government's multi-modal strategy in that area. Until the matter is dealt with, the local area will remain in a vacuum, awaiting urgently needed road investment such as the A6 bypass around the village of Kegworth.
Mr. Phil Sawford: Given that my hon. Friend is referring to bypasses, it would be remiss of me not to mention the Rothwell-Desborough A6 bypass. It is scheduled for the year 2001–02, but does he agree that an early announcement about a definite start date on such projects, which we welcome, would be an advantage to the local economy?
Mr. Taylor: I certainly agree. It is on the A6 trunk road, 35 miles to the south, that similar problems are being experienced in my hon. Friend's constituency. One way in which to control the growth in transport in the interests of the environment, but without damaging the economy, is to encourage more appropriate employment to be generated in, or close to, important towns in the region, such as Ashby and Coalville in my constituency. Such towns fall through so many funding nets, even though they often have similar problems to the major cities.
I welcome the East Midlands development agency placing more emphasis on market towns and their rural hinterland. Its initial approval of the SRB6 bid for Ashby, Swadlincote in south Derbyshire and Coalville is the first step towards redressing the imbalance, but more is needed. We need encouragement of new direct economic activity and we need to ease the flow of workers into and out of the existing centres of employment.
200WH
As for other aspects of the infrastructure, more support is needed for micro businesses and business innovation. Yesterday's Budget was excellent in that respect. [Interruption.] I am pleased that the hon. Member for Blaby echoes that sentiment. The Government's new enterprise grant, for which significant parts of my constituency will be eligible, is welcomed most warmly. Greater support for and investment in the National Forest is required if the organisation is to realise its full potential as a provider of economic opportunity. There has already been substantial growth attached to the forestry and land use aspect of the forest, but more needs to be done if the tourism potential is to be fully developed. The benefits that we have reaped so far in the former Leicestershire and south Derbyshire coalfields from the restoration of land, the revival of dozens of communities and the regeneration of the economy has been most significant. I emphasise to the Minister that the main constraint in north-west Leicestershire and in the east midlands to current and future economic growth is infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure.
10.14 am
Liz Blackman: It will come as no surprise that I am about to speak about my constituency because there are lessons to be learnt in regard to the east midlands. Erewash is between Derby and Nottingham. Significantly, it does not have the critical mass of some of the major towns in the east midlands. Ilkeston and Long Eaton are two principal towns, with smaller settlements in between. Like many areas in the east midlands, Erewash was founded on traditional industries such as coal mining—of which none remains engineering and textiles, essentially lace. Employment is below the national average and has been for a very long time and there are significant pockets of high unemployment. A few years ago, the local enterprise agency, Erewash Partnerships, did a skills audit of the constituency and found that a high percentage of the work force were skilled or semiskilled. Very few fell into the managerial and professional classes. Wages were lower than in the surrounding urban areas. The audit concluded that the area needed a learning community because education and improved skills were essential for sustainable growth and prosperity.
On the education agenda—I am an ex-teacher—there has been significant progress in my constituency over the past couple of years, with class sizes being brought right down. Derbyshire had some of the largest classes when we took control in 1997. Literacy and numeracy are progressing well. Local alliances have done some superb work, targeting areas with significant deprivation and concentrating on the early years and parental learning, which they see as critical to creating the virtuous cycle. The single regeneration budget in one area concentrates on training, and the local further education college has been innovative in expanding education, particularly for adult learners. The new deal has cut youth unemployment by 65 per cent. and long-term unemployment by the same amount. The learning and skills councils should, when up and running, provide a coherent framework for the provision of skills and training.

201WH
My constituency is characterised by small and medium enterprises, many of which are incredibly enterprising. Drawing on the traditional skills that they acquired when working for the traditional firms of the area, such as Rolls-Royce, they have branched out into specialist areas to cover a niche in the market. Atlas Composites in Ilkestone is such a firm, which specialises in carbon fibre components for the aerospace industry and Formula 1. I shall give a brief potted history of the firm—we have much to learn about SMEs in the region and beyond. Two men with traditional engineering backgrounds and skills saw a niche, bought secondhand machinery, found a suitable building, invested everything that they had earned back into the business, outsourced the design element, recruited locally and linked with the local college to develop the appropriate NVQ to support the business. They designed their own course and had it verified by the college and the training board.
There are many examples of such businesses in my constituency, which have taken advantage of the capital allowances and lower corporation tax offered by the Government. We need to understand much more about what makes a successful business. What are its roots, what are its ingredients, what develops it? The RDA and the small business service have the strategic task of continuing to develop that understanding and strategies to support businesses with so much potential.
I also see a role for venture capital and for banks. I am pleased that banking services to the SMEs have been referred to the Competition Commission.
Ms Sally Keeble: My county of Northamptonshire, which is also represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Sawford), is similar to Erewash in having many SMEs. Does my hon. Friend agree that development agencies are vital engineers of growth, precisely because of the need to foster the innovation to which she referred? Such firms are the engine room of the economy; they do not somehow float about by themselves, but need an appropriate level of government?
Liz Blackman: I could not put it any better than that. My hon. Friend sums up my point succinctly. The traditional sector that is not doing well is the textile industry, although even that industry has its exceptions. Firms that have invested, found a niche in the market and kept their skill base up to speed have done extremely well. I welcome the Government's textile strategy, which is currently out for consultation. The RDAs could have a strategic role in the industry to ensure that firms receive the support that they need in training, marketing and exporting.
I will talk briefly about transport and communication, which echo the theme taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor). Transport links in the area are not good. There is significant scope for improvement, especially in Ilkeston, which is land-locked and has waited many years for a final link to the Ml. The absence of such a link has caused congestion, which is constricting development. The town has no railway station, and it used to have four, although we are making progress on that. The integrated transport strategy must move ahead more quickly than it has done.
202WH
Nevertheless, the skill base, the education base and the potential for growth have all improved. I have used the debate merely to highlight further developments that could take place.
10.22 am
Mr. Vernon Coaker: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on securing the debate, which is important to us all. I will make a couple of key points about problems that affect the region and my constituency.
The east midlands is sharing the boom in economic prosperity that the Government have brought about since the 1997 election. Problems in the region should not disguise the fact that unemployment has plummeted. Long-term unemployment has been halved, and youth unemployment has been cut by two thirds. A measure of the success of an economic policy is whether it can move people who are out of work back into work. If we are to tackle poverty and social exclusion, people must be in work. All over the east midlands, the Government are trying to meet problems head on; they are not ignoring them. That is especially true in parts of Nottingham where there are some of the worst unemployment black spots and the greatest difficulties in getting people back into work. The Government are giving people hope, the desire to work, and opportunities. That sets the scene for my next remarks.
Some areas have high unemployment. The Minister knows—I have written and spoken to her several times—that there are small pockets of deprivation in areas of general affluence. Could she give further thought to the problem faced by Netherfield, which has tried for years to obtain help so that it can support people who need retraining, better housing and education? It has never received that help because it does not fit in with the way in which Government statistics—or perhaps regional or European statistics—are calculated. All hon. Members who represent parts of the east midlands can pick out small pockets in their constituencies in which the general policy does not apply.
Clearly, difficult restructuring is taking place in the east midlands. The textiles industry is affected—Courtaulds recently announced the loss of many jobs in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell). The coal industry continues to decline, and we should make no mistake about the fact that in the east midlands, and especially parts of Nottinghamshire, that industry has gone. In Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, communities that depended on the coal industry are still trying to come to term with its collapse. We must remember that problems have been caused by the closure of coal mines not only now, but five, 10 and 15 years ago. At last, an attempt is being made to deal with those problems. The Government's retraining packages and the new deal for communities are important, because they try to support restructuring and ensure that new growth industries are located so as to be accessible to those communities.
I disagree profoundly with the hon. Member for the east midlands—[Interruption.]—I mean the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). I wish that I had meant that joke. I disagree with him, because those

203WH
problems cannot be considered in isolation. The areas are interdependent, so the Government are right to focus on the whole region. To tackle the problems, it is no good treating a small village in Leicestershire, or even Leicester itself, in isolation. It is important to support people by retraining them and helping to restructure their industries and communities.
I have some quick points to make on transport. My hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Liz Blackman) and for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) raised some serious issues, and I do not want to repeat what was said about the access problems between Nottingham and the M1. However, they did not mention the fact that, although the east coast line and the west coast line are electrified, the midlands main line to St. Pancras, which serves Nottingham, is not. It should be electrified, and the track should be improved. In a couple of weeks' time, some hon. Members and I will meet representatives from Railtrack, and I will suggest those improvements. New services have been introduced, but the track needs to be improved so that the trains run faster and provide speedier connections between the region and London.
We also need to preserve existing pit lines and improve the local rail network so that it interconnects more easily with other transport systems. The greater Nottingham area rail development strategy coordinates the lines coming into Nottingham from all over Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, and also, I believe, from Leicestershire, yet we do not relate that scheme to other transport schemes. Roads can block up, and they often have railway lines next to them. If we could have more local rail services on those lines, connected to the existing pit lines, we would make more progress.
10.29 am
Mr. Andrew Reed: I will keep my remarks brief, although I have several points to make. I wish that the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) was still here to listen to the arguments about the need for a regional identity, and that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) was here, because he talked about inward investment. The east midlands has always attracted proportionally lower inward investment than other regions, partly because it has no regional identity.
One of the reasons for the debate, which I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) secured, is to ensure that parts of the region work together to promote the area not only in the UK, but in Europe and other parts of the world. Most inward investment comes from places such as Japan and the United States and it is difficult to sell the east midlands because it does not have an identity. We can do that only by working together.
I will deal with the Leicestershire part of the east midlands economy because I recognise that there are sub-regions within the region, which do not always naturally match county boundaries. We use travel-to-work area statistics for a good reason: not all workplaces and travel-to-work patterns match county boundaries. People travel from Leicestershire to the
204WH
west midlands and vice versa. Therefore, it is important that we have a regional perspective, while recognising those sub-regions. We must also build on points made by hon. Members this morning by recognising the difficulties and differences that exist even within constituencies.
I have always been interested in economic development and I want to ensure that my constituency benefits from the great advances made since 1997. I accept that unemployment was falling before the general election. Since December 1996, unemployment in my constituency has fallen by more than 30 per cent., while youth unemployment has been reduced by 76 per cent. and long-term unemployment by 65 per cent. I have always felt passionately that getting people back to work is a key priority, so we have a good story to tell.
Over the past six months, I have been really annoyed by the so-called great north-south divide debate. We in the east midlands and in the midlands as a whole are extremely frustrated that the concentration seems to be on the debate between the north and the south. We exist and we experience many of the problems found in the north. Leicestershire also has many of the problems suffered by the south. For example, there are development problems and pressure from population movements. Leicestershire is an attractive place for people to relocate to; it is a great place to be. That is why we suffer and seem to get missed out of the debate. One reason for raising the east midlands's profile is to make sure that we have a proper voice in the debate so that it is not only the north and the south who are involved in the argument.
In some ways, Leicestershire, particularly the Loughborough constituency, is a microcosm of not only the region, but the whole country. I will skip over the history of my constituency and the rest of Leicestershire, but there are factors that make them unique.
First, there is the dependence on the manufacturing sector, of which textiles form a large part. In Leicestershire, 29 per cent. of GDP is still based on manufacturing, which, as hon. Members know, is far higher than in other parts of the region. However, there are difficulties, especially in the textiles sector. In Leicestershire alone, 26,500 jobs depend on textiles, and all the forecasts that we have seen from Leicestershire TEC and the other bodies that work in the county show that that number is likely to decline for the next 10 years at least. We need to make sure that we tackle that problem together.
Judy Mallaber: Will my hon. Friend accept that, although there are continuing problems in the textiles industry, it is important not to write it off as an industry in inevitable final decline: Will he also welcome the report recently produced by both sides of the industry with help from the Department of Trade and Industry? It considers how the textile industry can develop, based on innovation and new lines, so that it can compete in the world market.
Mr. Reed: I agree entirely with that sentiment, and I will deal with that issue when I speak about the five or six things that we need from the Government to ensure that areas in difficulty start to prosper. That will be achieved through innovation, technology and using our expertise.

205WH
Leicestershire is also unique in that it has three universities—Loughborough, Leicester and De Montfort. I declare an interest as a former student of De Montfort and a big fan of the other two. Most counties of Leicestershire's size would not have such expertise on their doorstep, and innovation and technology are crucial to the future of places such as Loughborough and Leicestershire. The Loughborough advanced technology initiative is a key example of what we can do by bringing companies together and working with the East Midlands regional development agency to create a technology cluster. Loughborough university is world famous for its links with Ford, British Aerospace and others, as well as for its sporting prowess. It is imporant to build on that. Many local companies that I have visited and to which I have spoken, such as Deltanet, I2R and Datalink, came out of Loughborough university several years ago. They are engineering companies of the highest order, which are growing in Europe, despite the high value of the pound, and creating jobs in the town. As I said, we have suffered from the decline in the traditional manufacturing sector and in textiles. Brush, which is one of our greatest manufacturers of locomotives, suffered a great decline during the early 1990s. It used to employ 6,500 people, but now appears, with only 900 staff, on lists of the biggest employers in Leicestershire. Such large numbers of job losses during that period represent a great decline, which we need to tackle.
I will skip over many of the things that I wanted to say. However, there are five key things that we need from my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that we move forward in Leicestershire and the rest of the east midlands.
We need to consider the strength of the pound and interest rates. They have a large impact on manufacturing—I think that all hon. Members accept that. The single regeneration budget needs to be targeted at local areas, and I hope that Loughborough's bid will be successful. The local plan needs to be completed as quickly as possible to allow development of brownfield sites, particularly in the town. Innovation and technology grants need to come through as quickly as possible because future growth will come from them. Training and lifelong learning are key elements, which will ensure that we meet our skill shortages.
In conclusion, things are looking extremely rosy in Loughborough. There are still problems that we need to tackle, and I have described five elements that I think will make a big difference. I hope that the Minister will respond to what I have said.
10.35 am
Mr. Paul Keetch: This has been a useful and entertaining debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on securing it. She mentioned the diversity and disadvantages of the east midlands. In one way, the region is indeed disadvantaged in the House: sadly, it is the only region that does not have a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament, but I assure the House that that will change soon. From the other side of the midlands, I say to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), "Ich bin ein Midlander."
The hon. Member for Lincoln mentioned several issues, and I will contrast what she said with what the Chancellor said—or did not say—in his Budget speech
206WH
yesterday. I will deal with two specific matters, and I hope that the Minister will respond. First, the hon. Lady said that rural areas were fundamental, and she is right. Rural areas in the east and west midlands and across the United Kingdom are fundamental, and the crisis in agriculture that is affecting them is deep and real. It affects not only those directly employed in the industry, but the wider rural economy. However, in his speech yesterday, the Chancellor did not mention the word "agriculture" once. He totally ignored the issue, as if it did not exist. The Chancellor and Labour Back Benchers may deny it, but the Government consistently ignore rural areas. There are pigs sitting in Parliament square, and dairy farmers have to pour their milk away, but the Government consistently ignore such issues. I hope that the Minister will tell us what the Government intend to do about those matters. Why will they not match the agriculture compensation funds from Europe and put more money into our rural areas? As the hon. Member for Lincoln rightly says, that is fundamental.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the manufacturing industry, as did the hon. Members for Gelding—[Laughter.] I apologise. I should have said the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), but I was still thinking about agriculture—and for Loughborough (Mr. Reed).
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is customary to address the Chair, not some nebulous audience.
Mr. Keetch: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Manufacturing industry is vital to the economies of the east and west midlands. What did the Chancellor say about manufacturing yesterday? He said nothing and mentioned the word only once. There was no mention of the strength of the pound or, incredibly, of Rover and the effect that that crisis will have on the economy of the entire midlands. I hope that the Minister will deal with those matters when she replies to the debate.
Agriculture and manufacturing are vital to the east and west midlands and to other rural economies across our nation. I am surprised that we do not have a Treasury Minister here today. However, we have a very capable Minister from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and I hope that she will tell us what the Government will do about the crisis in agriculture and the strength of the pound.
10.39 am
Mr. Tim Loughton: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on securing the debate, and on the presence of so many of her colleagues, who have made interesting contributions. As the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) said, the most curious aspect of this debate is that a Minister from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is responding, not a Treasury Minister. In a debate on the economy, we would normally expect a response from a Treasury Minister. The fact that the Minister's colleagues from the Treasury are nowhere to be seen is perhaps due to the complete lack of support for east midlands's manufacturing industry in yesterday's Budget speech. Is it because of the view of the regions held by those at the DETR? The hon. Member for Lincoln mentioned the

207WH
role of the RDAs, which featured low down on the priorities list. They certainly featured below regional assemblies and the Government office. As she said, this debate has shown the lack of cohesion within the east midlands. It is a region that, like many others, is in search of an identity.
Mr. Bob Laxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Loughton: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way—I have little time in which to speak.
As the hon. Member for Lincoln suggested, having a television station that covers the region is one panacea for the problem of regional identity. The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) made the extraordinary suggestion that inward investment is somehow dependent on a strong regional identity. He cannot possibly be suggesting that Toyota came to Derbyshire because people from that company thought, "Ah, the east midlands has strong regional cohesion, let's go there." Similarly, people at Daewoo, one of the largest employers in my constituency, certainly did not say to one another, "Let's go to the south-east because it has a strong regional identity and regional development agency, and it may have a strong regional chamber as well." It is complete nonsense to suggest that.
The hon. Member for Lincoln began by emphasising the diversity of the regions and it is the diversity within regions that makes the east midlands, in particular, a wholly artificial creation. In the five counties of the east midlands the size of the rural economy is above average, but nothing was done for that economy in yesterday's Budget. The gross domestic product per head is below average for the United Kingdom, as are the skills level and manufacturing productivity. The region features 40th out of the 77 regions of Europe, and there are big disparities in its GDP patterns. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) asked, what have Brackley, Boston and Buxton got in common? That same question was raised by Derek Mapp, the chairman of the East Midlands development agency. He was quoted last year as saying that the region had a reputation as one of the most divided in the United Kingdom.
The regional development strategy is laid out by the EMDA in the "Pathfinders to Prosperity" document. The document alludes to groups that were formed to identify solutions to business problems and which consisted of "energetic business leaders". Various sectors were mentioned in that context, including communications, construction and development, fashion and design, financial and professional services, the food chain, health care, high-growth engineering, the learning industry, retail and tourism, and cultural and creative industries. That is what the RDA, or part of it, has to say. Notable by its omission, however, is the textiles industry, which is the biggest sector in the east midlands and the one with the most problems. Is the EMDA abandoning that industry, which provides so many jobs? The Minister may like to comment on that. Is textiles manufacturing simply not new Labour enough? Similarly, the farming sector is completely ignored in the document, despite the high profile of agriculture in the region.
208WH
The EMDA trumpets its success before it has even started by saying that the integrated approach to strategic planning, based on a very close working relationship between the regional assembly and the EMDA, gives the east midlands a competitive advantage. Exactly how does that give the east midlands an advantage? Perhaps the Minister can elaborate. The strategy in the document contains 27 100—day targets which involve producing or checking eight plans, establishing six partnerships, commissioning four pieces of research, setting four targets and setting up an office in the USA. The targets include identifying a piece of land for redevelopment.
It is notable that hon. Members who have talked about the RDA—particularly the hon. Member for Lincoln—did not mention practical solutions or specific projects. The hon. Lady mentioned a document called "Prosperity through people" and a planning charter. There was an awful lot of talking, an awful lot about meetings and discussions, but no practical action.
The textiles industry in Leicester has specific problems. Figures produced in the Leicester Mercury show that unemployment rose in Leicester last month, bucking the downward national trend, with 8,226 people claiming benefit. The figure for the east midlands showed that unemployment had risen from 118,000 to 121,000, which is 5.5 per cent. of the population, again bucking the national trend. Nationally, the number of people claiming benefit fell. In the three months to January, the number of jobs in the manufacturing sector in the east midlands fell by 122,000 to just over four million, which is the lowest total since December 1994. Manufacturing employment has suffered disproportionately; the biggest falls have been in the textile and leather industries, which have lost 34,000 jobs in the past year—10 per cent. of the total. We have heard precious little about that this morning.
A survey on business in the region, which PricewaterhouseCoopers conducted last summer, makes for worrying reading, particularly for those in the manufacturing industry. The preceding six months were described as bad overall, especially for textiles. There is a general belief among business leaders that things will get worse over the next six months. Greater European integration is not seen as a factor that would make a substantial difference to business in the region. Thirty-two per cent. of businesses reported decreasing sales, and textile companies had a very bad six months, with 41 per cent. reporting a fall in sales of more than 5 per cent.
Only last week, Coats Viyella, a firm based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), closed with the loss of 200 jobs. What was there in yesterday's Budget to help the textiles industry, and manufacturing in general? We heard an awful lot about high-tech industries, and there were an awful lot of tax incentives to help internet millionaires, but there was precious little to help traditional businesses, such as textiles and chemicals, which feature heavily in the region. There was also nothing to help agriculture.
The energy tax, another feature of yesterday's Budget, will hit the chemicals industry in particular. Even an 80 per cent. rebate, targeted on industry groups that come under the integrated pollution prevention and control directive, will not help the electricity-intensive

209WH
industries in the region compete against Europe and the far east. Many jobs will suffer because of the Government's blind insistence on going ahead with an energy tax despite the fact that the Environmental Audit Committee described it as a damp squib.
The west midlands has been getting the headlines because of Rover, but there will be a big spill-over into the east midlands because jobs there depend on that company, too. The big job losses in textiles will continue, but they do not make the headlines. We have heard that a textile industry study is looming—to use a pun—and we have heard about Coats Viyella, but what in yesterday's Budget will help the industry in the region? Absolutely nothing. It is a shame that no Treasury Minister is here to respond to that question. Over the past few years, stealth taxes have affected the east midlands as much as they have affected any place. It has been calculated that stealth tax rises imposed in the three Budgets before yesterday have cost the region £2.7 billion.
It is difficult to see how regional development agencies will help. Will the Minister confirm that 85 per cent. of the RDA budget in the east midlands has already been allocated to projects that existed before RDAs were created? Will she confirm, too, that more than £1 million is spent on unelected regional politicians—RDA board members, in other words—most of whom are expected to work only two days a month? What is the added value that RDAs will supposedly bring to regions such as the east midlands? What will they do cost effectively that was not previously done by Government regional offices, or could not be done by county councils or unitary authorities? What accountability will there be on the part of the EDMA and the regional assembly, and what interaction will there be between those two bodies?
I congratulate the hon. Member for Lincoln again, because she rightly raises many of the problems in her region. There are two real problems. First, nothing that the RDAs have to offer seems to address the difficulties that I have mentioned. Secondly, even if a sense of identity united the five counties, it would have no greater impact on attracting investment from outside than what could be achieved by counties individually, or by unitary authorities working in partnership with one another or with the Government.
The hon. Member for Lincoln may want to create a regional identity—I congratulate her on her wish to do that—but is this the right way to go about it? She said that one of the strengths of the west midlands was diversity. Long live diversity, but let us not stifle it, or stifle enterprise, by imposing a costly and bureaucratic regional development agency that has produced no solutions, so far, to many of the problems of the east midlands region that have been mentioned today. Yesterday's Budget merely compounded the problems of manufacturing in the east midlands and the rest of the country.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on securing what has been an interesting and important debate. We have had the
210WH
opportunity to challenge the rhetoric of Opposition Members and to make clear to the people of the east midlands, who are at the core of the debate, what their local Members—their local Labour Members, at any rate—and the Government are doing to secure their future prosperity and ensure that they share in rising national prosperity.
We have had an interesting and illuminating debate, including some very knowledgeable and analytical contributions, for which I thank my hon. Friends. I commend their efforts to put the east midlands on the map: representing their region is a legitimate and important role for Members of Parliament. Obviously, the Opposition did not consider that to be a task worth undertaking. Labour Members' contributions were in stark contrast to the sole contribution by a Conservative Member from the region, the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). He feels so little concern about the issue that he could not stay in the Chamber for the full debate.
Mr. Robathan: The Minister, of course, does not come from the east midlands. As she is aware, this is just a talking-shop debate, the purpose of which is to get coverage in the local newspapers. It is a load of nonsense. I care very much about my constituency, my county and my country, but not about some artificial creation such as the east midlands.
Ms Hughes: The hon. Member for Blaby quoted the Bible. As I listened to him then—and again now—it was a quotation from Shakespeare that came to my mind:
… full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
His contribution showed little concern for the east midlands economy. He referred to the narrow region of the east midlands. People in the east midlands will be very interested in that, and in the fact that the only Opposition representative of the region who spoke had nothing to say about the local economy.
Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Hughes: No, I shall not give way again. I want to make progress.
I want to draw hon. Members' attention to the obvious difficulty that Opposition Members had in understanding the Government's strategy, which my hon. Friends supported, for addressing—
Mr. Robathan: Regional assemblies.
Ms Hughes: No—economic development.
We take a dual approach. As yesterday's Budget showed, we are exercised about the issue of raising general levels of prosperity throughout the United Kingdom. We also want to assist the regions to deal with inequalities between them, and diversity and inequality within them. Those two political objectives are not mutually exclusive, as the Opposition seem to think. The Opposition have difficulty understanding that broader concept, and how those important political objectives for the national and regional economies can be—indeed, must be—fused. It is the Government's job to put in place the mechanism to achieve that.

211WH
As the speeches by the two Conservative Members clearly demonstrated, the debate has been about regional economies and regional economics and regional economic development, with a focus on the east midlands. That is why I am here, speaking for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We will not have any nonsense about needing a Treasury Minister. Hon. Members should be perfectly satisfied with me—I am very competent, and I will speak strongly on the subject.
It is important that the contributions made by my hon. Friends acknowledged that the east midlands has a great deal going for it. The region has a varied and resilient industrial base and a strong tradition in many manufacturing industries, and there is growth in many high-tech industries. There is a great deal of potential. There are centres of excellence in learning and research, and the region is an important part of the total United Kingdom economy.
As my hon. Friends said, however, there are wide disparities in prosperity between different parts of the region, with some areas suffering from deprivation and decline, including parts of the four main cities, and the former coalfields. There are signs that business confidence is increasing; high value added manufacturing is performing well, as are services and construction. However, some of the sectors that have fared less well nationally, such as textiles, clothing and footwear, are heavily represented in the region. That is having an impact on the economy, as is the fact that industries that are doing well nationally are less well represented. My hon. Friends the Members for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) and for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) emphasised the need for infrastructure, and I accept the analysis by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough of the issues that should be addressed.
A core issue in the debate was our focus on the regions, in the context of economic development, and in particular the role of regional development agencies in helping regions to drive up their performance, and in targeting resources and solutions on the areas in which they are needed most. We had a clear demonstration of
212WH
the corner into which the Conservative party has put itself. The Opposition have been hung by their own petard. Their knee-jerk reaction at the start of the Parliament, when they said that they would abolish the regional development agencies if they ever had the chance—which, of course, they will not means that they have to defend that position in the face of the obvious success of the agencies and the associated chambers of commerce in beginning to mobilise the regional partnerships that are so essential to the achievement of the economic development that we want to see.
Contributions were made by my hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Liz Blackman) and for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble)—[Interruption.] I apologise for mispronouncing Erewash; it must by my north-west dialect. As the hon. Member for Blaby has said, I am not from the east midlands. My two hon. Friends made it clear how important it is to have a mechanism at regional level for delivering the means and resources to those who need them, particularly the small and medium enterprises, enabling them to drive up their performance and contribute to economic activity. That cannot be done at national level. It is surprising that the party that claimed for so many years that it had exclusive expertise in business and was the friend of business, should show itself to be completely unable to understand the important role that business-led organisations will play in developing enterprises, especially small and medium enterprises in the regions. That says much about the Conservative party's complete lack of understanding of the needs of businesses in the east midlands.
In conclusion, I draw hon. Members' attention to the subject of our debate. [Laughter.] We can all use technical terms such as economic development, gross domestic product and RDAs, but, as my hon. Friends have demonstrated, what really matters is the people of the east midlands. My hon. Friends' interests are clearly different from those of Conservative Members—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We now move on to our next debate, which is about the future of the Commonwealth. Will hon. Members who want to leave the Chamber please do so quickly and quietly?

The Commonwealth
11 am
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: It is a pleasure to speak in this Chamber, whose layout I saw for the first time today. I am glad that adversarial politics is not dead, despite the hemicycle layout of the Chamber. I also welcome the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) back to the Palace—it is a great pleasure to see him here.
It is a pleasure and a privilege to introduce this brief debate on the future of the Commonwealth, which played an important part in most of our lives while we were growing up. It was created 50 years ago, in 1949, and it is currently in a period of transition. The current Secretary-General, Chief Anyaoku, is about to retire, to acclaim from everyone who worked with him, and the new Secretary-General will take over on 1 April. Our debate could not be more timely.
It is only a couple of weeks since Commonwealth day, which falls on the second Tuesday of March. It would be interesting to take a straw poll of the number of people who knew that 13 March was Commonwealth day. [Interruption.] I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) knew that. Although the Commonwealth has been part of our lives for more than 50 years, few of us knew that 13 March was Commonwealth day.
The Commonwealth is widely known and respected and it is regarded with great affection, but its history and purpose are not as well known as they should be. I spent several years as a governor of Archbishop Tenison's school, which is located just over the river opposite the Oval cricket ground. Although 90 per cent. of its boys had west African or West Indian backgrounds, I wonder how much of their curriculum was devoted to the Commonwealth's history. Are we bringing up a generation who do not share our knowledge of the way in which, uniquely, the United Kingdom gave up its empire relatively peacefully and created the Commonwealth? If so, we should fear for its future as an organisation that serves anyone other than Heads of Government.
I welcome the fact that last November's Heads of Government meeting agreed to set up a working party to review the Commonwealth's future. Although our country is a member of that review team, it is sad that our Prime Minister left the Heads of Government meeting early. I hope that that does not reveal the importance that the Government place on the Commonweatlth. One of its strengths is its sheer variety—the number of countries that belong to it means that in world councils it punches above its weight.
Mr. Stephen Day: Is it not encouraging for the Commonwealth—and, therefore, for the world—that a former Portuguese and a former French colony have seen fit to join what had been a gathering of ex-British colonies? That is reassuring for the cohesion of the world and for the success of the existing Commonwealth.
Mrs. Lait: Indeed. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is good that countries from different traditions of empire feel strongly enough to join the Commonwealth.
214WH
The strength of the Commonwealth, and the subtle relationships between the countries concerned, were probably helpful during the recent floods in Mozambique. Those countries were able quickly to help a nation in deep distress that was, hearteningly, returning to democracy and improving its economic structure. That development has been affected by the floods, and we hope that the people of Mozambique will not lose heart in relation to that regeneration. The Commonwealth has a role to play in ensuring that Mozambique recovers as quickly as possible, both democractically and economically.
The Commonwealth is not an economic grouping. However, the Commonwealth Business Council has a major role to play in developing its lobbying to help developing countries to benefit from global trading. I understand that the council was actively lobbying at the World Trade Organisation conference in Seattle. Perhaps if it had been allowed to get on with that, undisturbed by people who thought that they had a greater interest in the economic development of developing countries, something more postitive might have emerged from Seattle. We hope that the business council will build its lobbying power to improve global trading to a greater extent than it has done so far.
The Commonwealth is, if anything, a political grouping of countries held together by the experience of empire. It is impressive that those countries still wish to work together. However, if the Commonwealth is to increase in strength and power over the years, it must ensure that it has the internal strength to do so. I shall outline some of the problems that it has faced, and continues to face. It would be helpful if the review group were to take them into account when considering the future development of the Commonwealth.
In the early 1990s, I chaired the Conservative west Africa committee, in which people with an interest in Nigeria played a substantial part. At meeting after meeting, we watched Nigeria descend into endemic corruption. Despite the elections, we are only now witnessing some control over foreign bank accounts being taken back, and some of the knock-on effects of the corruption being remedied. The Commonwealth was active at that time: Nigeria was excluded from the councils of the Commonwealth for some time. However, it could have been more proactive in trying to get Nigeria back on the straight and narrow earlier.
Zimbabwe is a current case that represents the need for the Commonwealth to be much more proactive in trying to impose common discipline on its members. Those of us who have watched the development of Africa since many of its countries have become independent recognise that what is happening in Zimbabwe is similar to what has happened in many other African states—that is, the emergence of a tyrant or dictator and the impoverishment of the people. Africa often provides wonderful examples of the positive force that democracy can represent in the world, but unfortunately Zimbabwe appears to be experiencing the last throes of the African dictators.
However, Zimbabwe is still part of the Commonwealth. Given the arguments—which I shall not go into today—about the role of the white farmers, the evidence that Mugabe is raping the country of most of its income and the general poverty to which the country has been reduced, the Commonwealth has been

215WH
very slow in taking positive action to try to enforce the rule of law and democracy in Zimbabwe. I hope that it will soon consider explusion. After all, it acted quickly on Pakistan.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that, despite Zimbabwe's serious difficulties—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. The convention is to address the Chair, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, as a senior Chairman, is well aware.
Mr. Wells: I am aware of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I apologise. On the other hand, I do not like to turn my back on a lady, and shall therefore have to stand half way between the two positions.
I was asking my hon. Friend to consider the point that, despite the fact that Zimbabwe has serious difficulties because of the leadership of President Mugabe, an organised Opposition is acting democratically to try to bring to the attention of Zimbabweans—and the world—the need for proper, accountable democracy to be established once more.
Mrs. Lait: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have no objections to looking at his back; it is a very attractive back. I accept his point about the Opposition in Zimbabwe, and we must hope that it wins the forthcoming election. My point was that it has been clear for some time that President Mugabe is debasing Zimbabwe's democracy, and the Commonwealth has not been as proactive as it could have been in imposing collective discipline.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I am afraid that I have no compunctions about my back.
Does my hon. Friend agree that some disturbing developments have taken place since the court's judgment on Friday about the eviction of squatters from farms that have been occupied? There is every indication that the authorities in Zimbabwe are ignoring the judgment, and that the number of properties that are being invaded is increasing as we speak.
Mrs. Lait: I entirely agree. The sooner that the election takes place, the better. Without wishing to interfere in Zimbabwe's internal affairs, we must hope that the Opposition win. The Commonwealth should have been much more proactive at a much earlier stage in trying to ensure that President Mugabe could not behave as he has.
Before my hon. Friends kindly gave me more information, I was about to move on to the speed with which the Commonwealth reacted to the military takeover in Pakistan. Many of us would not wish to see a military dictatorship in that or any other country, and instant action—in so far as any international action can be instant—was taken. I wonder whether, in excluding Pakistan, we may have undermined influence that we might otherwise have had over the current conflict in Kashmir between India and Pakistan. By expelling
216WH
Pakistan, the Commonwealth's good offices may have been lessened. Can the Minister give some reassurance on that?
Events in Kashmir may well reflect what was known in Victorian times as the great game, although the players may no longer be Britain and Russia, as they were in Kipling's day, but America and China. As I understand it, the stated intention of President Clinton, who is currently visiting India, is to try to improve the situation in Kashmir. India and Pakistan were both members of the Commonwealth, but now only one is, and the Commonwealth could perhaps have played a more helpful role had Pakistan not been excluded. I am grateful that Pakistan appears to want to rejoin as soon as possible.
I am also concerned about the Commonwealth's potential role in the fight against drugs, as, I expect, are all hon. Members. Unfortunately, many farmers in a number of Commonwealth countries are involved in the drugs trade. One of the bases of reducing the worldwide supply of addictive drugs such as heroin and cocaine is the replacement of the poppy and coca plant with a more productive crop. The Commonwealth Development Corporation appears now to be managed properly and will be under the discipline of a decent capital return. Various attempts have been made throughout the world to find such a crop, and it is perhaps fanciful to say that the CDC should become involved in finding alternative crops for farmers.
However, fair trade goods have proved successful and are increasingly to be found in shops. Indeed, a constitutent of mine lobbied me, saying, "Why can't we have fair trade coffee and tea in the House of Commons?" I was initially informed that those brands did not have the same back-up as their more commercial counterparts, but was subsequently told that the House does indeed now stock fair trade coffee and tea. In the light of the increasingly commerciality of fair trade goods, the Commonwealth could do a great deal more to promote replacing the very profitable crops of poppies and coca—I do not blame the farmers, who must make a living—with crops that are profitable but considerably less damaging to health.
Mrs. Gillan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should investigate the use of pyrethrum, which grows in similar conditions and is much in demand as a natural herbal pesticide? It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether pyrethrum could replace the poppy.
Mrs. Lait: Indeed. However, although I accept my hon. Friend's point, I do not want to divert hon. Members down the horticultural route; one could speculate on the use of willow and yew in cancer drugs, and so on.
In summing up this brief overview, I should say that the evolution of the British empire into a Commonwealth that is attractive to countries with different heritages is a huge achievement. I am sure that there is no desire for the Commonwealth to break up and I recommend that the review group works more towards developing links and becoming more effective in world councils, so that the basic philsophy behind the Commonwealth becomes more deeply entrenched throughout the world.

217WH
The high-level group that has been set up to examine the Commonwealth should set out long-term objectives, one of which must be that the Commonwealth's own back yard is fully open to the scrutiny and standards demanded of others. Whether I believe in the Government's foreign policy philosophy is immaterial, but if the Government believe in it, they should participate wholeheartedly in discussions on the development of the Commonwealth's future role. The Prime Minister should be as deeply involved in those discussions as befits our role in the Commonwealth and I hope that he will not again leave them early, as he did a few months ago.
11.21 am
Mr. Stephen Day: It is a great joy to be able to participate in this debate on the future of the Commonwealth. I have enjoyed and am proud of my links with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
The Commonwealth is a gathering of friends and many believe that it is not politically effective, but it is successful because it is not primarily a political or economic alliance. It is a gathering of friends from many different cultures throughout the world. They speak many different tongues, some of which are spoken in only one country, but, to Britain's advantage, it is still essentially an English-speaking union. English is the language of government in many Commonwealth countries without a common national language.
There is much for Britain to be proud of in the concept of the Commonwealth and other members can take great pride in the fact that all of them have shaped the Commonwealth as we know it today. It is a very different animal from the one that was created when it was based on what were known as the white dominions. It has been changed into a multicultural, multinational organisation. Countries such as Cameroon and Mozambique, which, tragically, has been much in the news recently, can be proud of their part in the development of the Commonwealth because they introduced a new dimension that is a key to its future. It is, yet again, going through a transitional stage. It may become a more effective group of friends, crossing even more cultural barriers, and may even become more effective than the United Nations often is.
The United Nations is based on great ideals, but, tragically—hopefully, only for the time being—is not always as effective as we all want it to be. Mozambique has benefited during its tragic current circumstances from its links and friendship with the Commonwealth. It is a genuine friendship because Mozambique has a different historical tradition. I am proud, and I am sure that the Commonwealth is proud, that such a country should wish to be among our number. It shows that the Commonwealth has a great future.
On the future direction of the Commonwealth, we need to consider the standards employed within it. In almost every case, its members are either fully fledged democracies or, in Africa and other parts of the world, struggling towards a more open and democratic society. Many are not perfect, but which democracy is? Although our democracy is long-standing—of which we are most proud—none of us would claim that it is perfect. No democratic system can be perfect, as it relies
218WH
on human beings, who, as we all know, are far from perfect. Democracy is imperfect by nature. Many countries in the Commonwealth are slowly developing towards the kind of democracy that is understood in this country and throughout western Europe. We must tolerate countries whose circumstances sometimes do not permit them, for practical reasons, to base their system of democratic parliamentary government on exactly the model that we understand. That is part of the strength of the Commonwealth, and I hope that it will continue.
However, certain Commonwealth members do not in any way live up to the expectations of fellow members, at whatever stage they have reached in the development of their democracy. The Commonwealth was right to take action against Pakistan at the time of the military coup. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that, in the case of Pakistan, the Commonwealth was able to take action because of the military nature of the takeover. Zimbabwe has suffered massively from the misrule of Mr. Mugabe, who has milked the country for his and his cronies' benefit. The people of that country have suffered hugely at the hands of a former terrorist, who is essentially still a terrorist in government. The Commonwealth should be able to take action in such cases. The Government of Zimbabwe should not be allowed to behave in such a manner, especially when its own people, whom they are supposed to protect and succour, are the victims. I hope that the British Government will take a lead within the Commonwealth on that.
Britain has a strong connection with many African countries and Commonwealth members, which still regard Britain with great affection. I have had the privilege of visiting a number of African Commonwealth countries. It is out duty to take action. We hear a great deal about the moral dimension of Government policy; I would like to see it in relation to Zimbabwe.
11.28 am
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) on securing the debate, and join her in welcoming the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) back to this Chamber. I believe that this will be his first debate since he returned, and it is good to see him back.
I also welcome the Minister, although I am disappointed that once again he has been lumbered with a debate that is not strictly in his area. His hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who describes himself as a son of Africa and who should be fielding this debate, is out of the country. It is sad to see that there is not one Labour Member in this Chamber to support the Minister. It is a crying shame that, in a debate on the Commonwealth, only one Liberal Democrat Member is present, but at least a good group of Conservative Members is present.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): I should like to put it on the record that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, whose responsibilities cover Africa, is at an international

219WH
conference in Geneva working on human rights. He is representing the Government and ensuring that our voice is heard on the matters that the hon. Lady and her colleagues are raising.
Mrs. Gillan: I am delighted to hear that robust response but, nevertheless, the poor Minister is lumbered again, for which he has my sympathy. I hope that he will convey the Opposition's strong message to his hon. Friend.
In the early 1960s, Sundays were special days in my house. My family regularly entertained a group of guests who would bring to our home in Norfolk a wealth of tradition, experience and friendship. Sunday was the day that we were visited by members of the Victoria League who, as citizens of Commonwealth countries, were in this country to help it. They included many of the nurses who put their efforts into our health service. That was my first experience of the Commonwealth. There was always a riot of colourful costumes and a true wealth of talent and friendship. It created a special impression, and the bond between this country and other countries has left its mark on me. Those early days formed my deep affection and respect for the Commonwealth.
When I came into the House, I was proud to be a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and I am delighted to have the opportunity to serve on its executive. I want to put on record my thanks, and those of other Opposition Members, to the staff who serve in our branch offices and the CPA headquarters, which is based in London. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham in paying tribute to the outgoing Commonwealth Secretary-General, his excellency Chief Anyaoku. I am looking forward to attending Madam Speaker's special reception for him this evening. He has served the Commonwealth in that role for 10 years, following 34 years of sterling Commonwealth service.
Don McKinnon will take office on 1 April. As New Zealand's Foreign Minister, he will make a fine Secretary-General. I am sure that he will draw on his undoubted skills to guide the Commonwealth through an increasingly challenging period. I have seen Don in action, and we all look forward to working with him, not least at the annual CPA conference, which this year will take place in London and Edinburgh. We will welcome to this country representatives of more than 50 countries to take part in our proceedings in Westminster and Scotland.
When I first became a Member of Parliament, I turned to the CPA for education on foreign affairs and contact with other countries. Those people who argue that the Commonwealth is on the downturn should consider the countries that are interested in joining it. They include countries that one would not connect with the Commonwealth, such as Yemen, Jordan and Rwanda, which have occasionally murmured an interest, although they have not made a formal approach.
The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association offers practical help to democracies. Unlike many organisations, its training and seminars are low on
220WH
ideology and high on good sense, which should not be underestimated. Also, it is exceedingly cheap to run. If the UK branch received the same money as the dome, it would be funded for 1,000 years. The CPA creates good will. It helps members to learn about colleague countries and allows politicians to network.
Although I would like to speak about many Commonwealth issues, such as the tensions between India and Pakistan and Her Majesty the Queen's visit to Australia, time is short and I shall confine myself to two matters. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide decent answers if his mind is concentrated on a small rather than large set of issues. He has often called himself a master of joined-up thinking; I hope that he will do us the credit of giving us some joined-up answering instead.
The British Council is a key player in the Commonwealth. I am sure that the Minister is more than grateful for its expertise and for the high regard in which it is held. That strengthens his Department's efforts in advance of Commonwealth events. However, the Government's policy is hampering and frustrating the British Council. What will the Minister do about that? He will know that, in the developing countries that are Commonwealth members, the British Council has suffered from the decision taken by the Department for International Development to stop using its services and to concentrate on bilateral giving to other Governments. As a result, in Africa alone, overall British Council programme funds are down by more than 50 per cent. The Government boast of their funding of the British Council, but the Minister should note that for each year of the current comprehensive spending review, its funding will be lower than in any year of the previous Parliament. He will know that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has found that the British Council is severely underfunded. What assurances can he offer, particularly on Commonwealth needs that can be met by the British Council?
The second issue concerns ethical and moral foreign policy and the situation in Zimbabwe, to which other Conservative Members referred. Pakistan has been suspended from the Commonwealth councils as a direct and clear-cut response to the violation of the Harare principles. How can we then sit back and ignore what is going on in Zimbabwe? The argument may be that there is no mechanism for suspending Zimbabwe, but I think that that should be altered.
The Commonwealth principles contain some simple statements, including
We believe in the liberty of the individual … We recognise prejudice as a dangerous sickness,
and
We oppose all forms of colonial domination.
When the Harare declaration was established, we set up a group to examine the way in which Commonwealth members met those principles. Zimbabwe was represented on the Commonwealth Ministers Action Group—the body that was to sit in judgment on the way in which countries adhered to the principles. Indeed, Zimbabwe was in the chair and was only replaced in that role in November. However, the country was transferred on to the high-level group of countries that is also considering the Commonwealth's future and the way in which Commonwealth countries adhere to the

221WH
principles. I have called for the Ministers to suspend Zimbabwe from the high-level group, but there has been no reply. I have called for a suspension of EU aid to the Zimbabwe Government, which is required not least after the Court of Auditors report showed that aid was being diverted to other ends and was not reaching the people most in need. The Government have not responded.
Zimbabwe is not even observing the basics of the Harare declaration. It is sending money and support to a war in the Congo rather than feeding its own citizens; it prevented opposition parties from gaining access to the media during the referendum; it is about to give presidential consent to a Bill allowing interception of electronic mail and other communications; it arrests journalists because they write the truth—the reports of the torture of journalists last year are horrific—instead of Government propaganda; it condones the illegal grabbing of farms and instructs squatters to stay put; it raids diplomatic bags and gets away with it.
Mr. Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend is giving us an impressive list of the horrors of the Mugabe regime. Is she aware that last Friday, Mugabe threatened that his political opponents would face death?
Mrs. Gillan: Nothing that comes out of that regime surprises me after the catalogue of misery that I am recounting.
This morning I received an e-mail that I think will interest hon. Members. It stated:
Here in Kwekwe there had been considerable land invasion of productive commercial farms with the use of city council police and Government transport. Drunken unemployed crowds are rented for the occasion. There is evidence that they have been armed. They have been predominantly arriving at night, ramming down security gates with heavy vehicles, breaking entry to property, taking over homes with contents and expelling the occupants into the night with abuse and beatings. Farmers, in the interests of protecting their families and their lives, have had no alternatives than to be passive. The police are rendering no assistance whatsoever.
I shall make the e-mail available to the Minister afterwards. It ends:
Mrs. Gillan, please do all you can. There are a lot of people depending on the likes of you to do something. Please make a fuss in the House of Commons. It has to be known.
I am making a fuss in the House of Commons. I called for EU aid to the Zimbabwean Government to be suspended when it became obvious that it was not being used to help the poor. I called for Zimbabwe's suspension from the high-level group, because it has lost the right to sit in judgment on others until it sorts out its own affairs. I now call on the United Kingdom Government to call for Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth. The Government cannot operate an ethical and moral foreign policy only when it suits them. It is about time that the Government stood up and were counted. They should show backbone and set an example by saying no to what is going on in Zimbabwe.
The Commonwealth is a proud association with much to offer the world and an opportunity to continue to set a great example in democracy and human rights. Let us ensure that the Government do not let the Commonwealth down. Nothing less than the Minister's full suport for my requests will do.
11.41 am
Mr. Owen Paterson: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), for Cheadle (Mr. Day) and for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). I heartily congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham on landing this important debate. Given the number of Labour Members, it is lamentable that the only Labour Members who have found time to come are the Minister and his Parliamentary Private Secretary. That is pathetic and shows how important the Commonwealth is in the scale of Labour priorities.
The Commonwealth faces a crisis today with problems in Zimbabwe. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle spoke eloquently about the success of the Commonwealth. Britain can be congratulated on the peaceful way in which we slipped away from our empire and handed power and responsibility to a kaleidoscopic variety of peoples. Some would say that that might have been precipitate. When the original plans for Indian independence were discussed it was suggested that African states should take independence as late as the 1980s. Decisions were made by the Macmillan Government and I still feel that we have responsibility for many of the countries from which we stood back.
We have been much less directly involved than the French and there have been successes on both sides, but I fear that we cannot stand back any further from Zimbabwe. What is happening there is appalling and is down to one man who is, in simple terms, a thief. Zimbabwe faced prosperity. My brother worked in racing stables there for some years and commented on how much better the race relations between its small white minority and the various black populations were than in, for example, neighbouring South Africa. It is an extraordinarily rich country with wonderful potential for prosperity across the board at every level.
What Mugabe has managed to do is tragic. With 60 per cent. inflation he has achieved what the Beira patrols never did. He has created extraordinary fuel shortages, mostly because he is an ex-communist and does not understand sums. The devaluation of the Zimbabwe dollar meant that fuel had to go up, but the national oil company, Noczim, held the price of fuel. It now has a $9 million deficit. The state-owned power company Zesa has run up a debt of $20 billion. The shortage of hard currency is so chronic that the Zimbabwe Standard reported on 30 January that the Cambridge examination board had refused to clear examination results because it was owed £2.6 million by the Zimbabwean Government. That is the level to which this wonderful and potentially prosperous country has been reduced.
It is obvious to anyone who takes an interest in Zimbabwe where the money has gone. As a kleptocrat who has visited 150 countries since he took power, Mugabe's foreign travel bill has been a staggering $260 million. On 23 January, the Panafrican News Agency reported that he takes $50,000 in cash with him on each trip and that the first lady takes $10,000. It was also reported that Mugabe
does not have to account for the use of that money. Who would have the gall to ask him for the change?
Those around him also are on the gravy train. Government officials are paid an average of $250 a day on foreign trips. Ministers take an average of $15,000

223WH
and senior Government officials are paid $12,500 a day. Compare that disgusting behaviour with the state of the average Zimbabwe citizen. One in four adults between the ages of 19 and 49 has HIV or AIDS, and 2,500 people a week die of the disease. Mugabe is a truly revolting dictator.
The result of the referendum was a potential breakthrough; 55 per cent. of the population voted against giving Mugabe unacceptable powers. However, the country now faces rigging during the next general election campaign; it will be rigged with straightforward violence. A strong case can be made for postponing the general election. Indeed, that was proposed by the Justice Minister, Emmerson Mnangagwa, as a result of an independent survey, which showed that a quarter of those on the electoral roll were dead or fictitious or had multiple entries. Mugabe has ignored that, and insisted that the election go ahead.
The circumstances are not propitious. The attempt to blame the 4,500 white farmers for all Zimbabwe's ills is nothing less than a disgrace. Critically, those farmers dominate the tobacco industry. Some 40 per cent. of Zimbabwe's export earnings have been hit and, on 11 March, The Economist estimated that the total loss was about 400 million Zimbabwe dollars. It is nothing less than ethnic cleansing. We went to war last year to stop ethnic cleansing in a country with which we have no cultural or historical links, virtually no commercial links and a questionable strategic link. In Zimbabwe, we have links going back to days when British settlers first arrived and the capital was named after a British Prime Minister. We have a real responsibility to look into what is happening there.
Mrs. Gillan: Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the forthcoming election? The register of voters is hopelessly obsolete, there is no independent electoral commission and the President appoints one fifth of the Members of Parliament. Does my hon. Friend agree that that bodes badly for a fair and free election?
Mr. Paterson: My hon. Friend is correct. We have a critical role, and the Government and the Commonwealth could take beneficial action to try to ensure that the election is as fair as possible. The electoral roll is totally distorted and Commonwealth observers are needed now.
Mrs. Gillan: Is my hon. Friend aware that observers have overseen no elections in Zimbabwe since the early 1990s, and perhaps even before then? Does he share my concern that Commonwealth observers have not been invited to Zimbabwe during the past decade?
Mr. Paterson: My hon. Friend is right. I was not aware that no observers had been in. Given the circumstances, it was remarkable that the referendum result went the way of sensible, right people. There are good people in Zimbabwe, if only we could support them. The new Movement for Democratic Change, led by Morgan Tsvangirai, and the Zimbabwe Union of Democrats, led by Margaret Dongo, could win 75 seats if encouraged and if the election went fairly.
224WH
Our first problem is the horrific persecution of the press. In an appalling case last year, Mark Chavunduka, the editor of the independent Standard, and his reporter, Ray Choto, were arrested after publishing a report on an alleged military coup in which 23 members of the Zimbabwe national army had been detained for plotting to overthrow the Government. The authorities failed to comply with the several high court orders calling for the immediate release of Chavunduka. The military stated:
The judge cannot direct us…anyone who meddles with military matters is subject to military matters.
When the two were released, they had hideous signs of torture on their bodies—of cigarette burns, of electric shocks and of having been submersed in drums of water.
Those who perpetrated that torture are also involved in the extraordinary and outrageous invasion of white farms. Those who turn up are not just squatters and poor peasants looking for land, as the Government describe them. They turn up in Government-registered vehicles, have food and supplies and are directed by men in flashy suits and sunglasses who spend most of their time on mobile phones to Harare asking for instructions for what to do next. Mugabe is clearly driving the operation.
An appalling case featured in one of the broadsheets yesterday concerning an attack on some people whose family had been farmers since 1820. Mr. Smith of Nyarenda farm in Mashonaland was knocked to the ground with an axe; one of the mob shouted:
You white dog. Our President, our God Mugabe, has ordered us to kill you.
The Government must begin to address the situation or there will be no hope of prosperity in the Zimbabwean economy. No one will invest further and there might be a wholesale exodus of the highly skilled farmers who provide 40 per cent. of foreign earnings through tobacco exports.
A high court order taken out last week compelling the squatters to leave was put through by Judge Paddington Garwe. However, the police commissioner, Mr. Augustine Chihuri, ignored the directions—the police have done nothing and the 72 hours have elapsed. He was under clear instructions from the Government. Up to 650 farms have been invaded.
Some think that there might be justice in the matter. They argue that the white farmers constitute only 1 per cent. of the population and that it would be fairer if there were even land distribution. I cannot endorse that view. Of the 2,000 farms that have been acquired by the state since 1980, 462 have been distributed among Mugabe's cronies.
Death threats were announced last week on opponents of the Mugabe regime. African News Online reported calls to clamp down on the broadcasting of songs critical to the Government. Officials cannot speak in public under clause 20 of the public service regulations.
I shall end with a most sinister quotation from police commissioner Augustine Chihuri. He said:
The police force will not hesitate to arrest members of the opposition for fear of being labelled brutal.
The Commonwealth has a real moment of truth. I call on the Government to ensure that Commonwealth monitors go in this week, before the election campaign

225WH
descends into total chaos, and that Zimbabwe is suspended from the high-level group. Further, I call on them to make it clear that Zimbabwe will be suspended from the Commonwealth and that all aid will be ceased if the policy of ethnic cleansing is continued.
11.55 am
Mr. Bowen Wells: I regard myself as a Commonwealth man because I have found the Commonwealth to be a great teacher and a great friend. My first association with the Commonwealth was in 1955, when I had the misfortune to experience an aircraft breakdown in Karachi, Pakistan. There, for the first time in my life, I witnessed the most abject poverty, and Pakistan is still among the poorest countries in the world. People were living in cardboard boxes alongside the Sindhu river, which runs through Karachi, and had been living in that condition since the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947. That poverty was created by human beings and by badly administered government. The enmity between people within the Indian subcontinent engraved itself on my mind, and we can all do something to eradicate it. Much is being achieved through the efforts of the Commonwealth, both in the sub-continent and throughout the Commonwealth, and that sets an example to the rest of the world.
I have had the good fortune to be close friends with two Commonwealth Secretary-Generals, one of whom is Sir Shridath Subindrinath Rhamphal of Guyana, where I served for seven years. He led the way in considering the political aspects of the Commonwealth and in enhancing the pursuit of democracy, fairness and the rule of law, because he is a lawyer. Above all people, he values the Commonwealth and has enhanced its ability to provide help. My other friend is the retiring Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, Chief Emeka Anyaoku of Obosi, Nigeria. He and I have something in common in that we both joined the Commonwealth Development Corporation as management trainees—he in Nigeria a few years before I joined the corporation in London. Throughout the time that he has led the Commonwealth as Secretary-General, he has been true to the Commonwealth Development Corporation's concept of economic development. One of his enduring marks will be his promotion of the Commonwealth private investment initiative, which is administered by the Commonwealth Development Corporation in three regions of the Commonwealth. Through the gathering of private sector money to invest in small and medium businesses in Africa, the Caribbean, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, economic development in those countries is being encouraged. The project has been very successful.
Although I had not realised it, the chief and I came to a similar conclusion about the effect of democracy in Africa. I was asked to give a speech to an African conference last year, in which I put it to the assembled Africans that democracy was a natural form of government for Africa. The speech came to the attention of the chief, who sent me a copy of the speech that he made when he was asked to address the newly opened South African Parliament following the first election after the end of the apartheid regime. He spoke on exactly the same theme as I did, and I want to quote two passages from his speech. He mentioned the Harare declaration in October 1991 and said:
226WH
it was agreed that whatever the national variations, a true democracy would be judged by the resence of a number of essential universal ingredients. These included the right of a people to choose freely the men and women who would govern them and to cashier them; the primacy of the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary; freedom of expression and association; and the continuing transparency and accountability of government.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) explained that, sadly, those factors are absent in Zimbabwe. I have not doubt that the situation would bring about the disapprobation of the chief, because the rule of law is not being respected or complied with. In fact, it is being undermined by President Mugabe. I remind the Chamber that Zimbabwe has a tradition, through the Commonwealth, of democracy and, if supported by the British Government, it will triumph.
Chief Emeka Anyaoku continued:
What Commonwealth leaders identified as the essential ingredients defining every genuine democracy hold good for Africa.
Mr. Battle: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I greatly respect his comments, given his record and interest in such matters over many years. I assume that he believes that we are strong enough to support Zimbabwe and that he does not align himself with the comments of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who was asking for a full blockade and boycott.
Mr. Wells: The Government must consider carefully what action to take in Zimbabwe, so that they support those who support democracy and are interested in re-establishing the rule of law and enabling the people of Zimbabwe to decide freely who should govern them and how they should be governed. I hope that the Government will support that. I am sure that they disapprove of the illegal invasion of other people's property. There are 20,000 acres of land in Zimbabwe in the ownership of the Government that could easily be used to satisfy the legitimate desires of the people of Zimbabwe to own and farm more of their land.
Mrs. Gillan: I have called for Government to Government aid and for EU to Zimbabwean Government aid to be blocked. Does my hon. Friend agree that that would be the way forward? Aid to non-governmental organisations and aid that can reach the people directly should, of course, continue to go into Zimbabwe. I must make it clear that we have called for a block on Government to Government aid to Zimbabwe and I do not want the Minister to misinterpret that objective.
Mr. Wells: My hon. Friend is right. We should be careful what aid to Zimbabwe we block. In the light of current events, it would clearly be inappropriate to continue dealing with those who support the Government. Much of the aid budget in Zimbabwe is going to the people of that country for the fight against AIDS, for the education of women and the health of the children and their mothers. I hope that that assistance will not be stopped.
What the chief said in his speech makes good sense in relation to Zimbabwe. He said:

227WH
What Commonwealth leaders identified as the essential ingredients defining every genuine democracy hold good for Africa. Democracy in Africa will differ in its detailed arrangements from country to country, but if it is a genuine democracy, it will have to incorporate these essential ingredients.
Why these particular features? At the heart of any genuine democracy lies accountability…And accountability can only be enforced if the governed have the power to make or unmake governments.
It is essential for the Commonwealth to recognise that such elements must be in place, but they are sadly lacking in Zimbabwe, as they are in Pakistan and were in Nigeria. However, Nigeria should be welcomed back because it has returned to democracy after a series of military dictatorships. The instinct of the African people is to go back to a form of government that rests on the consent of the people of that country to be governed.
Why am I referring to a particularly African form of government? As Chief Ameka said in his speech,
A study of traditional government in any part of Africa would disclose one fact—a healthy hostility against the concentration of power without accompanying checks and balances to control it, beginning with the position of the Chief.
No chief was a chief except by the will of his people. In many African societies this maxim was impressed upon the chief in the process of his installation and was in addition to the various mechanisms in place to ensure that the chief marched in step with the wishes of his people.
That cannot be said of President Mugabe in Zimbabwe at present.
Democracy lies at the heart of how Africa and other parts of the world have traditionally been ruled. We now have to build a modern society based on those traditions. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is fostering and helping democracies emerge and take their rightful place for all the peoples of Africa, the Caribbean, the Indian sub-continent, Malaysia and even Australia and New Zealand. We are speaking in this Chamber today partly because the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons visited Australia and thought that this ancient House could experiment with an equivalent to that country's alternative Chamber.
The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association allows us to learn from each other, possibly to advance democracy, to make it more accountable and to fulfil the amibtions of chief Emeka Anyaoku, who has led the Commonwealth so well. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham said, London will host the association's conference in August and September. The conference will be a great opportunity to enhance the association and the concept of the Commonwealth, which is based fundamentally on democracy. The conference embraces the ambitions that we all cherish of seeing the economic as well as the political development of the Commonwealth enhanced through talking to each other.
In the same speech, the chief said:
Sir Winston Churchill once said that the best way of governing states is by talking. Indeed, government by talking is one of the many definintions of democracy on offer. So it was in traditional Africa.
I hope that the people of Zimbabwe, whether they oppose or support Mugabe, will honour that African tradition, with the help of the Commonwealth
228WH
Parliamentary Association. It has held post-electoral seminars to improve the knowledge of parties in government or opposition in the legislature of Zimbabwe, so that they know what to do in a traditional constitutional manner.
As we pointed out in the March 1996 report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Britain hugely benefits from its membership of the Commonwealth. Countries throughout the world are jealous of the relationships of Britain, Australia and Canada with the Commonwealth. Our common language, traditions of law and forms of government, and our deep understanding of the Commonwealth are huge bonds to very different countries with different cultures and religions. In international forums such as the World Bank, the United Nations and the World Trade Organisation, the British can talk with and receive support from many Commonwealth countries because of those bonds. Britain must value and cherish those traditions even more than it has done before. It is through those friendships and traditions that we learn from each other, and that real peace, economic development, justice and the rule of law can be obtained. Britain should enhance the Commonwealth in every way that it can.
12.9 pm
Mr. Nigel Jones: I congratulate the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) on securing the debate. I thank her for her kind words to me, and I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), an old—I should say not old, but former—pupil of Cheltenham ladies college. It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who is the chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, on which I have the privilege of sitting. He and I share a strong interest in the Commonwealth, which I believe is a great force for good in the world. It enables big and small countries to meet as equals in an atmosphere of mutual respect and generosity and in which countries whose economies are not major can be noticed.
I shall talk about countries where the population lives on an average of less than a dollar a day, particularly countries in sub-Saharan Africa. I have a great interest in Africa. Last year, through the wonderful job that we do, I had the privilege of visiting three Commonwealth countries in Africa: South Africa, as a UN observer of fair elections during its second election; Botswana, as a member of a CPA delegation; and Mozambique, as an Inter-Parliamentary Union observer of its second democratic election, where I had the privilege of meeting former United States President, Jimmy Carter. One thing that the Commonwealth does well and needs to do more of—with which the Government should perhaps help—is the monitoring of elections that bring democracy to Commonwealth countries. I am not sure what we do about Zimbabwe; I certainly do not volunteer as an observer of its elections, but I am sure that one or two hon. Members would be prepared to do so.
The Commonwealth can act as a powerful unit in a crisis, as we saw in the recent disaster in Mozambique. I visited Mozambique last December and was shown some of the damage that the el Nino rains caused a couple of years ago. People said that it could happen

229WH
again and, sure enough, it did. They had the most appalling floods, as well all saw on our television screens. The Commonwealth responded extremely well to that crisis. South Africa stepped in and gave enormous help, and the UK also did a huge amount. Having sat on the International Development Committee, I believe that the Department for International Development did its best to get resources there as fast as it could, from wherever it could find them. Last week, we grilled the Secretaries of State for International Development and for Defence, and they did their best. There is a debate on whether we need regional emergency centres; we should think about that within the Commonwealth, and, more broadly, the United Nations.
The Government of Malawi have only two helicopters but sent one to help during the floods. I had the privilege of meeting the President of Malawi, Dr. Bakili Muluzi, two or three years ago. Malawi, formerly Nyasaland, is one of the poorest countries in the world and we need to give it more help. I was pleased that the Government doubled assistance to Malawi in the comprehensive spending review, but the country has severe problems: it has half a million AIDS orphans, out of a population of 12 million, and more than 60 per cent. of the population is malnourished. As a Commonwealth friend, we need to work to help it, particularly with the products that it exports. Its biggest foreign currency earner is tobacco, not the best product on which to base an economy. The lake, which provides much protein for the people, is over-fished. We also support health clinics there. Health is a real problem for the whole of Africa, particularly with the scourge of AIDS.
In Kenya, which has 30 million people, the infrastructure is crumbling, roads are deteriorating, and health is also a problem. Tanzania, which has continuing internal tensions between the mainland and Zanzibar, also has health care problems. I do not understand why it moved its capital from Dar-es-Salaam to Dodoma; for one of the poorest countries in the world to move its capital, at great expense, was perhaps not the best use of money—particularly a country as heavily indebted as Tanzania.
I met John Cheyo, a Tanzanian politician, who explained that the local hospital in his constituency was closing because the roof was falling in. With pain in his eyes, he told me that women were dying in childbirth.
Africa has some bright spots: Botswana, which we visited last summer, was a real surprise. I expected it to be another poor African Commonwealth country, up to its ears in debt, but it is not like that at all. It is more than twice as big as the UK, and as big as France, with fewer than 1.5 million people. It has been an extraordinary success. I understand that a previous Government decided in 1965 that there was no strategic reason to keep Bechuanaland, as it used to be called, so it became independent—as Botswana—in 1966, and discovered diamonds in 1967. We jokingly suggested to the President, Mr. Festus Mogae, that we had come to renegotiate the independence settlement, and he told us that we could not.
We visited the Jwaneng diamond fields, an extraordinary, huge hole in the ground with incredibly large digging equipment, and we met the manager, who told us that he had just received a report on a saliva test of his staff, whose participation was voluntary and
230WH
anonymous. The company had discovered that 30 per cent. of its staff were HIV positive, right across the pay grades. I simply cannot understand how to build into a business plan the replacement of those staff, many of whom have many years of experience and training. The Commonwealth needs to put pressure on the United Nations and medical researchers to try to find a cheap solution to the AIDS problem, because countries in sub-Saharan Africa cannot afford the enormous cost of drugs, such as those used in this country to cope with AIDS.
The same is true in the north of the country, which has the most wonderful wildlife, as do many countries in the Commonwealth. I do not suggest that she is wildlife, but we had the privilege of meeting Miss Universe, Miss Botswana, who is not only extraordinarily beautiful, but is making AIDS awareness here campaign during her year as Miss Universe.
Sierra Leone is another country with which I have links, as a patron of the Kambia hospital appeal. Kambia is a town north-east of the capital, Freetown, and my local hospital, Cheltenham general hospital, has a link with Kambia. Last year, during the civil war, the rebels looted, set fire to and destroyed part of the hospital, and as a result, the area had no health care. In a debate on Sierra Leone last year, when I told the Foreign Secretary about that, he confirmed that the hospital had been badly damaged and promised that the United Kingdom would provide some cash for reconstruction, although not specifically for that hospital. I am not pressing for an answer today, but perhaps the Minister would consider whether funding might be provided to enable that hospital to be rebuilt so that the people of Kambia have health care.
There are tensions in the Commonwealth. A fifth—indeed, perhaps almost a quarter—of the world's population lives in the Commonwealth, especially in the Indian subcontinent, and there are big tensions between India and Pakistan. The CPA, which several hon. Members mentioned, is a force for good. To have Members of Parliament from Pakistan and India in the same room, talking one-to-one, can only be beneficial. We shall have to think long and hard about allowing countries such as Rwanda to join, but it might be the solution for that war-torn country. I pay tribute to the staff of the CPA—of which I am an executive member—in London and in other countries. On CPA visits, staff have been magnificent in organising sometimes difficult and strenuous tours.
The CPA is an extraordinary organisation and it is cheap to run. We must ensure that it continues. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the CPA will indeed continue and that some funding will be provided for my hospital in Sierra Leone.
12.20 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): In the remaining 10 minutes, I shall attempt to answer questions relating to two debates. The first is about the future of the Commonwealth, and I thank the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) for the tone in which she introduced it. Within that wide-ranging debate, we have had another on the crisis in Zimbabwe, which we all take seriously. I shall do my best to blend my answers to

231WH
those two debates. I, too, welcome the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones): we are glad to see him back with his customary style, courtesy and consideration. We hope that recent events are behind him and will never be repeated—for any of us, I am tempted to say.
The Commonwealth celebrated its 50th birthday in 1999. It has come a long way in those 50 years. It is now in a process of transformation. It is a dynamic, loose association, originally of half a dozen countries, but now with 54 members. I agree with the hon. Member for Beckenham that it is important that its history and purpose should be spelt out often and in public. She is right that it is not as well known as it should be.
A week after we took office, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spelt out our commitment as a Government—
to strengthen the Commonwealth and to improve the prosperity of its members.
That has been the basis of our approach in our many dealings with the Commonwealth secretariat and with individual members of the Commonwealth.
I shall not rehearse at length—I do not have the time—the characteristics that set the Commonwealth apart from other international organisations, but it is important to remember that it is a different sort of organisation. It is not the United Nations, the World Bank or the World Trade Organisation. It operates through consensus at all levels, so majorities can never overrule minorities. As one member, we are equal with the other 53 nations that comprise the organisation. It is not treaty-based, but developed for itself a set of guiding principles—most famously, the Harare declaration of 1991—to which member states are expected to adhere. It is an informal, genuine family of nations that have much in common.
The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), who has apologised for leaving, pointed out that Mozambique had benefited from a relationship of friendship, which is why the Commonwealth is different from other organisations. As I said, it is a genuine family with much in common, such as the English language, and legal, judicial and parliamentary systems. Some Members of Parliament are also members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. They know from experience about the Commonwealth's administration systems, contacts, education and so forth, which go back through many years of history.
At the heart of the Commonwealth are commitments to good governance, the rule of law and the protection of human rights. The Commonwealth has invented a mechanism to ensure that those principles are translated into practice—the Commonwealth ministerial action group of eight Foreign Ministers whose responsibility is to investigate serious and persistent violations of the principles enshrined in the Harare declaration. It is relevant to the issues that were raised about Zimbabwe.
The Commonwealth ministerial action group was established in 1995 by Heads of Government at the Auckland Commonwealth Heads of Government conference as part of the Millbrook Commonwealth action programme. The eight Ministers were given a mandate to deal with
232WH
serious or persistent violations of the principles contained in the declaration.
They are about promoting democracy and good governance, respect for human rights and the rule of law, and sustainable economic and social development. It was established to ensure that those principles were implemented. The UK plays an active part in the Commonwealth ministerial action group, but the other seven members do not, as some Members thought, include Zimbabwe. They are Australia, Bangladesh, Barbados, Botswana, Canada, Malaysia and Nigeria. Zimbabwe is no longer a member of CMAG.
Mrs. Gillan: In November, Zimbabwe left CMAG, but it is still on the high-level group that is considering the future of the Commonwealth and what we might call the CMAG-ing of countries such as Pakistan. Will the Minister join me in calling for Zimbabwe to be suspended from the Commonwealth?
Mr. Battle: No we will not, because it is not our role to do so. We have led action in response to the situation in Zimbabwe. I should be grateful to receive the hon. Lady's e-mail—I assure her that we shall take its contents seriously. However, she must accept that we led EU action and raised concerns directly with the Zimbabwean Government, bilaterally and multilaterally. We also moved the resolution that was passed by the EU to toughen up our approach and to spell out the situation in public, and we let the Zimbabwean Government know in no uncertain terms that the international community was not happy with the situation.
Mrs. Gillan: The Minister has clearly spoken out, but the Government have done nothing. Has 1p of EU aid that goes directly to the Zimbabwean Government, or 1 p of Government-to-Government aid from this country to Zimbabwe, been stopped?
Mr. Battle: I am more than happy to discuss Zimbabwe, rather than the wider issues that are associated with the Commonwealth. The hon. Lady has changed her ground. Did we take action? Yes. The Government initiated discussions with our EU partners, which led to the EU demarche and the declaration, and we have continued to put diplomatic pressure on Zimbabwe in an attempt to resolve the situation peacefully. I hope that the hon. Lady will not go down the road that was suggested by a Conservative Member, who appeared to argue that we should resolve the situation by going in with a pair of jackboots. That position was not adopted by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, who has for many years taken a great interest in the Commonwealth. I agree with him—we seek to ensure that aid programmes focus on reducing poverty and that they benefit the people who need them rather than the Government. That is our programme's purpose. Funding is going to AIDS and women's projects on the ground, and to health and education programmes. Our aim is not to cut off aid or block resources, which would hit the poorest.
Mr. Paterson: I do not know which Conservative Member the Minister accuses of advocating the use of jackboots, but I regard that as a pejorative term. I asked

233WH
for Commonwealth monitors to be sent in immediately to ensure, in an atmosphere of intimidation and violence that is getting worse every day, that the general election is fair. I also called for aid to be suspended and for Zimbabwe to be suspended from the high-level group and from the Commonwealth if ethnic cleansing continues.
Mr. Battle: I thought that I had spelled out the situation. The hon. Gentleman is a superb unilateralist—he thinks that he runs the world, let alone the Commonwealth. How would he implement his policy in relation to an organisation that operates through consensus? We have to achieve consensus before taking action. That is why we believe that it is important to engage in conversations when seeking to introduce change.
The land issue is important. The commissioner of police was ordered by a court to remove squatters from farms and to tolerate no governmental interference. Despite the fact that the court's deadline had passed, no action was taken. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), said that that was another twist in the sad spiral of bad governance that grips Zimbabwe. We made it clear that one of the few redeeming features of Zimbabwe's current crisis was the existence of an independent judiciary. Our aims are to ensure that the President and Ministers do not put themselves above the law and that we support the rule of law in Zimbabwe where we can.
In the minute that remains, I must respond to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham that we were not serious about British Council funding. Under this Government, the grant in aid for the British Council increased by 2 per cent. in real terms, which is in line with the settlement of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Our increase in commitments is above the rate of inflation. I visited the British Council, which does a superb job establishing bilateral educational links between countries—it encourages people from overseas to visit this country and vice versa. We support its works in the Commonwealth and in the rest of the world.
I shall respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham. It was agreed at the Heads of Government conference in 1999 that the scourge of HIV and AIDS is a global emergency, and that that issue would be a high priority. We committed more than £22 million at that conference to fight the HIV-AIDS challenge. We are devoting resources to it, and will continue to do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): I call Mr. Nigel Evans on the next debate.

Education (Ribble Valley)
12.30 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I first say what a tremendous fan I am of yours? That is always a good note on which to start.
However, I am not a great fan of this Chamber, and I hope that what I have to say here will not be sidelined. It is vital to my constituents: the parents, pupils and teaching staff in the Ribble valley, and will, no doubt, also have implications for the rest of the country. I am delighted to have this opportunity to express my concerns about the Government's impact on education in the Ribble valley. I am also delighted to be able to do so on the day after the Budget—"Gordon's grim and tonic"—which headlines the good news while leaving the grim news to creep up on an unsuspecting public.
I shall divide my comments into four sections: nursery, primary, secondary and school sports—one aspect of school sports in particular. On nursery education, when Lancashire county council believed that it was to be part of a pilot scheme for nursery centres, it decided to embark on a wholesale review of nursery provision in the county. Nursery schools which stood apart from primary schools were told not to confirm any places until after the review. That led to a great deal of uncertainty for parents and for the staff in those schools.
I visted Ribblesdale nursery school in Clitheroe, where the headmistress—the excellent Mrs. Dewhurst—and the teaching staff were extremely concerned that the review would prejudge the merit of having stand-alone schools such as Ribblesdale, and that they would be amalgamated into other primary schools. I toured the school and met many parents who treasured the excellent nursery provision available. Will the Minister ensure that, when reviews take place in future, excellence is the determining factor, and not simply the fact that stand-alone schools may cost more than integrated provision? We need a period of stability for parents and youngsters in Ribble valley. The fact that a wide variety of nursery provision is available gives parents a greater choice.
The reason why I put such emphasis on assurances for stand-alone schools is that the local authority states in its review document that it intends to give more money to deprived areas. I have no problem with giving money to those areas where it is most needed. However, the document states:
those nursery schools not required for enhanced provision should be amalgamated with adjacent primary schools.
That would extend the age range of the primary school to include nursery-age children, and I have a problem with that. It is a clear example of socialism hitting hard. Nursery school children aged four are to be given their first lesson in the brave new world of politics, and of redistribution from the haves to the have-nots. Good quality nursery provision in Clitheroe could be sacrificed to pay for a more comprehensive nursery provision in a poorer area. It is a plan to soak the rich, starting with the children of those deemed well-to-do. I ask the Minister to come to Clitheroe and to see for herself that the children come from all kinds of backgrounds, and that excellence in education should never be sacrificed on the alter of political dogma.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): Hear, hear.
Mr. Evans: I am delighted to hear the Minister assenting, and I look forward to her response, which I am sure will not be coloured by any political dogma whatever.
The children attending primary schools in Ribble valley have also suffered from vicious cuts in education. I have raised the issue of cuts in the provision of swimming lessons for youngsters over a period of several months, in oral questions and letters. The Minister for Sport wrote to me on 12 October 1999, stating:
All primary schools in England are required to teach swimming, including the principles and skills of water safety and survival, as part of the National Curriculum for physical education.
She went on to say:
In a recent meeting with OFSTED I raised the question on monitoring of the swimming requirement as I feel there are still many youngsters leaving school without achieving this standard.
I applaud those aims. However, when an education authority halves the amount of money that is available for swimming, the provision of swimming is also halved. It also means that parents have to dig deeper into their pockets to pay for the "swimming tax". Primary schools in my area have to bus their pupils to swimming pools, some of which are miles away, which involves extra cost. The Minister clearly recognises the extra burden on parents, especially if they have more than one child in the school.
The local newspaper, the Lancashire Evening Telegraph, quoted Sandra Dundon, who is head of Sabden county primary school. She said:
We have had two separate 10 week swimming sessions, with 20 children a session. Under the old system we would have taken 60 children swimming during the whole school year. We now also have to share transport with children from Altham and Simonstone CE schools to get to and from Padiham pool. This could mean some youngsters being unable to swim when they leave primary school.
The article also states:
Headteachers told the Lancashire Evening Telegraph that swimming lessons—which have been a crucial part of the curriculum for more than 30 years—have been cut since County Hall and Blackburn with Darwen Council were forced to devolve swimming budgets to individual primary schools.
Mrs. Blackwell, who is campaigning for more school swimming for primary school youngsters, sends one of her children to Bolton by Bowland primary school. She explained how parents are having to contribute to pay for the swimming coaches, and her child still gets only a third of the previous provision. She has two other children. I am sure that the Minister understands the enormous extra stealth costs that are placed on those parents if they are merely to maintain any semblance of normal swimming lessons. We are talking about lifesaving skills, and youngsters in my area have suffered because of the cuts.
I understand, because of representations to county hall, not only from me but from Labour Members, that extra money for swimming lessons will be made available later this year. However, the figures for Sabden primary school reveal that it still has to make up a shortfall of £1,305. After all the fuss about the
236WH
Chancellor's announcements yesterday, that represents taking with one hand and giving back with the other. I hope that the Minister will have some good news for the parents of the Ribble valley and the rest of Lancashire about getting the swimming lessons that their children deserve.
As we all know, small rural schools have suffered from the average cost of teachers' salaries being met by the county council, while actual costs—especially with regard to mature, experienced teachers—are sometimes higher. I understand that the county council is now considering phasing in actual cost refunding. That will be welcome to all the small schools in the Ribble valley and the rest of Lancashire. However, I do not understand why it has to be phased in—surely actual costs could be met immediately.
Mrs. Milne-Redhead is head teacher of Slaidburn primary school, which is one of the smaller schools in my constituency. She has explained that the amount of paperwork that she receives from the Minister's Department is "dreadful". The school has only a small number of pupils, but the amount of paperwork must make her feel as though it is one of the larger comprehensives. The school governors recently suggested having an additional meeting solely to concentrate on sifting through all the directives and red tape emanating from the Department. That is worrying, and I should like the Minister to tell me whether she believes that it is acceptable. Small rural schools are the lifeblood of many of our villages, and any threat to them must be resisted.
That brings me to Tosside school in my constituency. Its future is under review. It is a small rural primary school on the borders of Lancashire and north Yorkshire, and is very much out on its own, with 5.3 miles of unclassified roads between it and the next school. During the winter, there are often treacherous conditions and poor gritting in the area. It has only nine pupils at the moment, but had as many as 30 during the 1970s. The threat of closure has dogged the school and its prospects for many years. That has led some parents in marginal areas to send their children to schools elsewhere instead of to Tosside school where there is a possibility of closure and of children being uprooted and moved to another school. There has been little encouragement to fill the school. It needs continuity and stability. It has two full-time and two part-time teaching staff.
As the Minister will realise, Tosside is a rural school surrounded by farms. Farming is facing its deepest crisis for 60 years and villages such as Tosside need life support. We do not want to kick away its only chance of survival. The local pub recently closed for several months and an application was made to turn it into residential accommodation. That was resisted by the local authority and I congratulate it. The pub is now under new management and has reopened, which is good news for the village. The village has one local shop, which is not far from the school. If the school closed, the shop might be under threat, and jobs involving maintenance and cleaning at the school would also be lost.
Because of the considerable number of complaints about the possible closure, the matter has been referred to Ofsted for advice and a possible visit. If the Government believe in small, rural schools, they must

237WH
ensure that the school if given another chance to grow. It needs a good number of years of life so that the teaching staff can sell the school to the parents; if the parents can be confident that it will not close in the middle of their children's education, it will have the chance to prosper.
The Ribble valley is blessed with excellence and variety in its secondary education. The quality of life in the area is very good and 75 per cent. of it is an area of outstanding natural beauty. I am sure that the Minister understands that people want to live there and that that is not due solely to the quality of the Member of Parliament.
House building has increased in recent years and, bizarrely, the brownfield developments are giving cause for concern, although there have been too many greenfield developments. The 1991–2006 structure plan envisaged 2,400 homes being built in the Ribble valley and, to date, 2,250 have been built. There are 1,161 in the pipeline, including large developments on brownfield sites at Calderstones and Brockhall, which are both sites of former large Victorian asylums. The extra houses are causing demand for local schools to go through the roof. Ribblesdale school in Clitheroe, under the stewardship of the headmistress, Glyn Ward, has an excellent reputation. She has turned the school around and I congratulate here on her tremendous work.
I hope that the Minister will find an opportunity to visit Clitheroe and, while she is visiting the primary school, she can see what is happening in Ribblesdale. Last year, I was able to show my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition around Ribblesdale school and he saw the excellent technology teaching that the school now offers local people. It now has technical college status and I offer my congratulations on that. Many youngsters want to attend Ribblesdale school. Other local schools include Longridge high, St. Cecilia's, St. Augustine's Bowland high, Clitheroe royal grammar, Fulwood high, Archbishop Temple and Corpus Christi. Demand for places at all those secondary schools is going through the roof. Even in the Fullwood area, house-building is high, and a third former asylum in Whittingham is under threat of an enormous housing development, putting more pressure on local secondary schools.
I have a meeting arranged on Sunday with local Ribble valley parents and councillors Albert Atkinson and John Hill. They are furious that school provision does not match local demand. That hits all sorts of people. We are not discussing parents who do not receive their first choice of school; they are being offered schools that never even featured on their radar screens. The stress and pressure for parents and children is intense. I need not rehearse the heartbreak when groups of local youngsters who live only yards away from one another are broken up and sent in different directions. I need not repeat the horror stories of youngsters facing long bus journeys from the Ribble valley to neighbouring areas during dark winter mornings and evenings to obtain secondary education.
Extra provision has been made in some schools. Ribblesdale school is now bursting at the seams as extra provision has been made available, and parents are waiting to hear how successful their appeals have been for places at other local schools. I resent the local authority telling the local grammar school that it cannot
238WH
increase its numbers to 30 to cater for the additional demand for local places. The chairman of the education committee, Hazel Harding, says that she does not believe in selection and therefore does not want to encourage greater numbers of youngsters to go to the grammar school. Try telling her that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was only joking when he said that there would be no difference in terms of policy on those schools, and that he was giving some kind of credibility to grammar schools. The Government say one thing while the county council says something completely different. I want politics to be taken out of local education provision.
Clitheroe royal grammar school, as the Minister acknowledged in a letter, is a beacon school. It has a high academic reputation; indeed, it is one of the best schools in the country. It is so good even Labour Members of Parliament would like to send their children there. There are no additional fees at Clitheroe royal grammar school, unlike at Manchester grammar school. Clitheroe royal grammar school should be allowed to provide the 30 additional places. It should be able to act like a safety valve so that additional youngsters from the vicinity can attend it. It is an indictment of the small-mindedness of some local politicians that they would prefer to see young children bussed around the county to spite the grammar school. That is a disgrace. There will be an extra building at Bowland, but its excellent new head, Maurice Graham, has told me that the new places will not be available for at least a year. There is speculation that Bowland high school will be replaced with a new school, but in five years' time. Short-term solutions are needed for the current crisis in school places.
According to the county council, extra house building means that it cannot use future projections on an area's housing to determine where a new school will be needed. Section agreements can be applied to large housing developments, whereby building is encouraged in a certain area as long as a school is also provided. In the Ribble valley, however, many such developments are small, and could not afford to pay for the building of an extra school. The local authority should be able to look at projected house building in an area, and build extra provision so that local youngsters who move into those houses can go to local schools.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider that policy. Given all the extra house building and the fact that people are moving around—she should give comfort to people moving to the Ribble valley, and to those who have lived there for many years and are now subject to a change in local government policy on where youngsters go to school. Government policy should change to ensure that local people and local children can access local provision.
12.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): I, too, am a fan of yours, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on securing the debate and expressing concerns about education in his constituency. It is a shame that he did not express the same concerns when his party was in government, and that he did not do more to secure

239WH
adequate funding for education in his constituency. Under the last Budget of the previous Conservative Government, the old Lancashire county council suffered a real-terms cut in its standard spending assessment for education of £ 13.2 million. Next year, we will provide the new Lancashire county council, which is smaller than the old one, with an extra £12 million in its SSA. That does not include the money that the Chancellor announced in yesterday's Budget—a 10.5 per cent. real increase, which will go directly into schools, including those in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I would have hoped that he would applaud that record.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of nursery education. This Government's record on nursery education is second to none. We are investing £8 billion in early-years education and child care. We got rid of the divisive nursery voucher scheme immediately after we came into office. All four-year-olds now have a place in a nursery class, and we are doubling the number of free places for three-year-olds in nursery classes. In the first nine months of this financial year we have created 106,000 child care places. That is more than the established target, and more than double the number that the previous Government created in 18 years.
Next year, Lancashire county council will receive more than £2 million to provide an additional 1,871 free places for three-year-olds. That is the largest proportion of funding for three-year-olds in the north-west. In Hyndburn and the Ribble valley, 900 places for three-year-olds already exist in the statutory sector. Lancashire county council has received a child care grant of more then £1 million, enabling the creation of almost 2,500 new child care places in the first nine months of this year. Next year, it will receive a grant of £1.214 million—a 20 per cent. increase on this year—which will enable the creation of further places.
Lancashire county council is reviewing nursery education and putting excellence in education above political dogma, unlike the previous Government, who introduced a divisive nursery voucher scheme. Nursery places will be created in the location that is right for parents, so that we can overcome the travelling issue that arises in many rural areas, and to which the hon. Member for Ribble Valley referred. As I understand it, the nursery in his constituency is full, so there is no question of it being under threat. We are looking simply at the redistribution of surplus places.
As a member of the Conservative party, the hon. Gentleman ought to welcome this initiative. As Lancashire county council redistributes surplus places to areas in greatest need, the private voluntary sector will be able to play a role that it has hitherto been unable to play in the expansion of new places. That will provide real diversity and choice for parents. The hon. Gentleman ought also to welcome the proposal to change nursery schools into nursery centres, which will provide a more extensive service, spread costs and enable them to stay open for longer.
Mr. Evans: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for her commitment to keep Ribblesdale nursery school open. However, does she agree that the priority should be not cost but excellence in the provision of nursery
240WH
education? We should not amalgamate Ribblesdale with other primary schools simply because it would be cheaper to do so.
Ms Hodge: Excellence is of course the priority, but the hon. Gentleman will agree that we want excellence and value. Lancashire county council's review contemplates the integration of child care and education, which will sustain excellence, increase value and extend the quality and services that nursery schools traditionally provide. Indeed, there are many examples of excellent practice in the Lancashire area. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the rural child care project, which began in September 1998, and to which I often refer in speeches. So far, it has provided nearly 250 child care places in rural areas.
The hon. Gentleman referred to swimming, which should of course be encouraged. He will know from correspondence with Ministers in my Department and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that swimming forms part of the national curriculum. By the age of 11, pupils should be able to swim unaided, competently and safety for at least 25 metres, and be aware of the principles and skills associated with water safety and survival. Of course, the distribution of available resources is a matter for the local education authority, but I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to yesterday's statement by the Chancellor. This year, an additional sum of between £3,000 and £9,000 will go directly to every primary school. The school that the hon. Gentleman cited will be able to control those resources, so it could divert them to its swimming shortfall if it so wishes.
The hon. Gentleman referred to rural schools. He will understand that I cannot comment on the individual case that he cited. He will remember that, in February 1998, we announced that, in any proposal for reorganisation, the presumption in the Department will be against the closure of rural schools and that the onus will be on the local education authority to make a strong case. From September 2000, that important policy will be supported by the small schools support fund that we have established. That fund will help small schools pilot innovative approaches to joint working, which will provide them with stability and greater assurance of a future so that they can overcome some of the difficulties that relate to their small size.
In addition, we have made funds available for this year and next to provide more administrative support staff an issue raised by the hon. Gentleman—in small schools where administrative tasks are thought to be most pressing. I hope that he will agree that our policies, such as those on smaller infant class sizes, will support rural schools.
Lancashire county council has a surplus of places in the primary and secondary sectors, but that surplus is being addressed in its school organisation plan. I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates—as I do, given the information that I have received from officials—that the particular shortages faced in his constituency have been recognised in that school organisation plan. Therefore, Lancashire county council has plans for 214 extra places in the primary sector and 345 extra places in the secondary sector. However, I hope that he will agree that we want excellence and value, and that providing surplus places that are not required or demanded by local parents wastes resources.

241WH
It is not appropriate for me to intervene in admission arrangements in secondary schools, which is essentially a local issue. Lancashire local education authority needs to settle that matter through consultation with local people and to decide which arrangements work best in the interests of local parents and children. Such issues are always especially difficult in rural areas, where children have to travel long distances to school. However, it is appropriate and proper that such decisions should be taken locally; it is for local people to decide what works best locally. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that our new admissions framework is intended to maximise parental preference through clear, fair and objective admissions criteria. Where local agreement is not possible, the admission authority and, in some cases, parents, can object to an independent adjudicator.
Yesterday's Budget announcement brought good news for schools. If the hon. Gentleman had really not wanted to play politics with children's futures, he would have welcomed the announcement of an extra £1 billion for the coming financial year. There will be an 8.5 per cent. real-terms increase over two years, most of which will go directly to schools. The 10 per cent. increase over two years in spending on schools means that each primary school in his constituency will receive between £3,000 and £9,000. Secondary schools will receive between £30,000 and £50,000 each. Head teachers will determine how to spend that money. Special schools will receive £15,000 each.
I shall put those increases into context. The average after-inflation increase between April 1998 and April 2002 per pupil will be £300. That increase should be compared to the £50 decrease per pupil between 1995 and 1998, when the Conservative party was in government.
Mr. Evans: Does all the wonderful trumpeting of all the extra money mean that youngsters will be able to attend local Ribble valley secondary schools? Can the Minister guarantee that, if any shortage occurs, the grammar school will not be victimised by Lancashire county council and that it will be able to provide extra places for the children in my constituency?
Ms Hodge: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for local decision. He should ensure that he has an influence in the local arena that truly reflects local priorities and parents' preferences, not his own political ideology. Much of what we have done in Ribble valley has benefited its pupils. We have put children first in terms of child care places, the size of classes, numeracy and literacy targets, information technology and books. We have invested in children because they are our future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order.

Salerno Mutineers
1 pm
Miss Anne Begg: Almost two years ago, a constituent of mine, Bill Bradbrook, contacted me about what he saw as an injustice that occurred in 1943, during the second world war. He thought that now was the time to forgive, and to set the record straight. Mr. Bradbrook contacted me not on his own behalf, but on behalf of his friend, another constituent, Hugh Fraser. Mr. Bradbrook brought his friend to my surgery and I sat and listended to Hugh Fraser's story. It was the story of a young man who had proudly joined the Cameron Highlanders to fight for his country and had risen to the rank of corporal; a young man who had fought bravely with the 8th Army in the desert campaign and was of undoubted high moral integrity. It was the story of a retired man who, despite having achieved much as an inspector of police in Aberdeen, could not shake off a black stain on his character.
As I listened to the story I found myself getting caught up in the events in north Africa and Italy more than 50 years ago. Despite having been a history teacher, this was the first time that I had heard of the mutiny at Salerno, in Italy. Since that day, I have become increasingly fascinated by the events surrounding the largest war-time mutiny in British military history.
What had motivated 191 men all to make the same decision to disobey an order to fall in in a field near Salerno on 20 September 1943? Why had these men, when told that their action constituted mutiny and that mutiny was a capital offence, remained where they were? Why did so many of them do this? Not all of them could have decided that they did not want to fight any more. Surely something must have gone wrong with the line of command for so many men to refuse to obey the same order. The more I have studied the details of what happened to those men, including my constituent, Hugh Fraser, the more convinced I have become that a great injustice was done, which should now be put right. I called for this debate to highlight what happened to those men in 1943, and afterwards, and to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to give serious consideration to awarding the men, who were convicted of mutiny, a free pardon.
What went wrong at Salerno? The Highland and Tyne Tees divisions had fought bravely with Montgomery and the 8th Army in north Africa and he promised them that he needed them for only one more action. One reason Montgomery was so successful as a military commander was the loyalty that he generated among his men. As essential part of the north Africa campaign had been the esprit de corps that Montgomery had fostered. If a man was separated from his unit, he was to do everything in his power to get back to it.
When the 8th Army crossed over to Sicily, many of the men were wounded or ill, often with dysentery. After all, they had taken part in the long desert campaign. This group of men who were to become the Salerno mutineers were sent back to hospital in Tripoli. From there they were taken to transit camp 155, which was also in Libya.
During that time, Major-General Douglas Wimberley, who commanded the 51st Highland Division, of which my constituent, Hugh Fraser, was a

243WH
member, visited camp 155 and said that his men should be returned to their units. There is no doubt that the men believed that they would be. This is confirmed by a number of men who were in camp 155 at the time—especially the camp duty sergeant-major, Sergeant-Major Green who gave evidence for the defence in the subsequent court martial. My constituent remembers Green telling him that he would be going back to his own unit.
In the belief that they were to rejoin their units, the men agreed to join the draft that was called on 14 September 1943. They did not know exactly where their units were; they knew only that they were somewhere in Italy. No one told them that they were going anywhere else: their true destination was kept secret.
Where were the men going? At the time, things were not going well for the American 5th Army in Salerno, so reinforcements were sent for, and three light cruisers dispatched. The American commander had expected the reinforcements to come from what was then Philippeville, in Algeria, which was the official reinforcement camp for Salerno, and also the closest.
There was some confusion over signals and a draft was called at camp 155 instead. The men from the Highland and Tyne Tees divisions readily volunteered, even though many of them were far from fully recovered from their wounds or illnesses. These were the men who had fought so bravely along with Montgomery and they believed that they were rejoining their comrades-in-arms. At no time were they told that they were rejoining the 46th division that was fighting alongside the US 5th Army at Salerno.
Montgomery did not know what was happening to his men either. He wrote on 10 April 1944 to Sir Ronald Adam, the Army's senior administrative officer, saying that, had he been consulted, he would have said no. Montgomery was angry and blamed the whole confusion on Major-General Charles Miller, the man in charge of Army administration in Africa, whom he described as
the real culprit in this case.
The first that the men knew of their true destination was off the coast of Italy when the message came over the ship's Tannoy system. Many of the men did not believe what they were hearing. They had been told that they were to join their own units. When the men disembarked, the new recruits who had accompanied them were marched away and the veterans of the 8th Army were herded into a nearby field. There they stayed for three days. The men at this time were convinced that if they only stuck together, someone, somewhere, would realise that there had been an administrative error and sort it out. They genuinely believed that right was on their side and that good sense would prevail. Unfortunately, it did not.
After another two days they were told to parade. That was on 20 September 1943. The corps commander, Lieutenant-General Richard McCreery arrived and admitted that there had been, in his words, "a cock-up" which he would sort out when the men joined the new unit. He said that there could be no compromise and that they had to obey orders. If they disobeyed it would be mutiny, which was a capital offence. The order was
244WH
then given. The men were told to pick up their kit and fall in by Captain Albert Lee. The order was repeated three times. Some of the men moved off the field at that time, but 191 did not. They knew that they had disobeyed an order in wartime. They knew that that could be construed as mutiny but they did not feel that they were mutineers. They were not refusing to fight. They just wanted to fight with their own comrades.
All 191 were placed under arrest and marched to a nearby prisoner of war camp. By that time, ironically, the reinforcements were no longer needed at Salerno, as the crisis had passed, but it had not passed for the 191. The mutineers were shipped back to Africa where they were held in a prison near Constantine in Algeria for five weeks before their trial. The whole affair had been an embarrassment for the British Army and so was kept very hush hush.
On 22 October 1943, the defence team for the mutineers met at Constantine for the first time. Captain Hugh Quennell took control. They had six days to prepare a defence, which was an impossible task. They did not even have time to interview the men. Moreover, as this was at least a month after the men had been arrested, they did not know how ill many of the men had been at the time of their arrest.
The court martial opened on 29 October in the gymnasium of the local French school, the only place big enough to hold all the defendants. The men were each given a number to hang round their necks to identify them; my constituent, Hugh Fraser, was given the number 111. The transcript of the trial has only recently been released and it shows that it proved impossible for the defence team to call the witnesses that it needed, as many of the men were then on active duty. Those witnesses would have spoken up for the men and proved that they were following orders in insisting that they should return to their own units. The only witness called was Sergeant-Major Green from camp 155, who confirmed that the men had been told that they were returning to their own units; that there was an order from GHQ, which confirmed that; and that the men had not had the necessary medical to determine their fitness to return to active duty.
The trial lasted for five days, but not one of the mutineers was called to the witness stand. Even so, they were found guilty. As a corporal, Hugh Fraser was kept in solitary confinement and passed his time—when he was not breaking rocks—reading the New Testament and polishing his mess tin, which he says became the shiniest in the British Army. On 15 November he was told his sentence: 10 years' penal servitude, and to be reduced to the ranks. He could not believe what he had heard.
The next day, 16 November, the three sergeants involved in the mutiny found out their fate: they were sentenced to death. Luckily, two weeks later, that was commuted to 12 years' hard labour. However, fortunately for the mutineers, on 15 November, Adjutant-General Sir Ronald Adam, the second most senior man in the British Army, arrived in north Africa. He asked to see the papers relating to the mutiny. He was horrified by what he read and demanded that the men be released. Their sentences were therefore suspended, but the men's misery did not end there. They were released but were sent to join the units they had refused to join in September. Many were treated

245WH
harshly, and 80 of them subsequently absconded. That fact has been used in the past by the Ministry of Defence to refuse the men a free pardon. John McFarlane was one of those men and he was stripped of the medal that he won before the mutiny for his bravery in the desert campaign. Unfortunately, he is now dead, but that he absconded twice has been given as the reason to his family why his medal cannot be reinstated. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) who raised John McFarlane's case with the Minister.
My constituent, Hugh Fraser, was not one of the abscondees. Even so, he still says:
What I would like more than anything is for John McFarlane's military medal to be returned to his wife. It is a sin to take back a gallantry medal after it has been awarded. It broke his heart and the hearts of his wife and family.
Most of the research into the events leading up to and after the mutiny at Salerno was conducted by the historian Saul David, and I recommend his book "Mutiny at Salerno—an injustice exposed" to anyone who is interested in the subject.
In January this year, Saul David submitted new evidence to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence from Eric Griffin, who came across two men, whom he called the Tunis mutineers, in the summer of 1944 when he was serving as a clerk to the command psychiatrist, Major O'Hanlon, based in Naples. There is no doubt that the two men were Salerno mutineers. The men's commanding officer had been told that the mutineers' original sentences had been commuted to continuous duty in the front line and, as his unit was being taken out of the line for a rest, so these men could not go with them, he sent them to the psychiatric unit. There is no such punishment in British military history; but if that unofficial vindictiveness was widespread, it is little wonder that the men absconded, as they had been left with little choice.
I shall sum up the reasons why the men who disobeyed an order on that fateful day of 20 September 1943 now deserve a free pardon. They should never have been in Salerno; they were the wrong men from the wrong transit camp. The men genuinely believed that they were lied to about their destination. It is certainly true that those officers who knew that they were going to join the 46th division did not tell the men before embarkation.
The men should not have been put in the position where they had to decide whether to obey the order to fall in or not. Sir Richard McCreery admitted that there had been an error. He should have sorted it out and not insisted that the men joined the new units, especially as, by that time, they had lost faith in the officers who were dealing with them. The men may have disobeyed one order, but they believed that they were carrying out the orders of the one commander whom they trusted, the one who had led them through the desert campaign—General Montgomery. He had told them that, come what may, they were to try to get back to their own units at all costs. The court martial was not thorough in its investigation and the defence was cursory in the extreme.
New evidence now suggests that the men were victimised subsequently in their new units and forced to stay on active front-line service, even when the new units
246WH
were given leave. Perhaps that helps to explain why so many men absconded. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will carefully consider the evidence that I have presented to him and that he will reach the same conclusion as me: that the time has come to make reparation for the injustice that was done to the Salerno mutineers. I am asking for a free pardon, not to say that the men were innocent—they all admit that they disobeyed an order in wartime—but to allow them or their families to collect their campaign medals.
The men were not cowards. They did not refuse to fight. It is time for the Army to put its embarrassment at the sorry incident behind it and admit that the men were victims of a failure of command and should not have been put in such a situation. We all like to think that, when tested, we will stand up for our principles. That is what men such as my constituent, Hugh Fraser, did. I shall leave the last words to him, a man who, after the war, rose to the rank of inspector of police, a man of undoubted high moral integrity. He said:
Given the same circumstances, I would do the same again. It was purely and simply a matter of principle.
1.17 pm
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) on securing a debate on a matter that has aroused the sympathy of many hon. Members over the years. The events surrounding the Salerno mutiny of 1943 have been carefully examined by the legal authorities and the Ministry of Defence, including Ministers, on several occasions. The examinations included consideration of points raised by hon. Members as well as several researchers, particularly in the past 20 years.
Many misunderstandings and erroneous claims surround the Salerno mutiny. Let it be understood at the outset that there is not, and never has been, any suggestion by the authorities that the men were cowards or traitors. Nor was the value of their previous service or strong regimental and divisional loyalty ever denied or ignored by the authorities. Nevertheless, I must refer to the key point that has been overlooked in many discussions on the subject. It has long been a basic tenet of military life—it was during the second world war, and it is today—that a solider has no defence in military law that allows him to choose which lawful orders he will obey and which he will not. My hon. Friend mentioned the letter of 10 April from General Montgomery, who wrote:
The men refused to go into battle, which is of course quite inexcusable—and cannot be condoned.
In September 1943, after an opposed landing on the Italian mainland at Salerno, the allies had gained a precarious foothold. The main British element of the 5th Army force consisted of the 46th and 56th divisions that were not part of the 8th Army. However, fierce German resistance inflicted heavy casualties, primarily on the infantry and General Alexander, the senior commander, arranged for several drafts of infantry reinforcements to be moved as quickly as possibly to Salerno. Among those was a draft of 1,500 men moved on 15 September by Royal Navy warships from a transit camp at Tripoli, holding primarily 8th Army soldiers awaiting posting. Among that draft were, as my hon. Friend said, some

247WH
300 men formerly with two 8th Army formations, the 50th Northumbrian and 51st Highland divisions. Those two divisions were resting in Sicily and had been earmarked soon to return to the UK to prepare for the D-Day landings in June 1944.
The use of those men from Tripoli was not, as is often claimed, an administrative error by the staff at higher headquarters. Contemporary signals show that the relevant headquarters was made aware that those reinforcements from Tripoli would include men previously with 8th Army formations in Sicily, rather than men already earmarked for the 5th Army, who could not be moved in time.
Miss Begg: I do not know whether my hon. Friend agrees, but there is evidence that there were conflicting signals that day. One signal was apparently sent to what was then Philippeville, and another to camp 155. That confusion resulted in the Salerno mutineers volunteering for a draft for which they should not have been asked to volunteer; there were already plenty of men at Philippeville and they, in normal circumstances, would have been called to assist the 46th division.
Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend points to evidence that, contrary to what I described, there was an order from headquarters to transfer those troops. Areas of confusion often arise in such circumstances. The key issue, to which I hope to come if there is time, is that when a matter is resolved by a legitimate order, it is not within the duties of soldiers to resist and refuse it.—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend may intervene, but I will not be able to go through the whole case.
Miss Begg: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the men of the 8th Army, of the Highland and Northumbrian divisions, need not have volunteered for that draft?
Mr Spellar: As I said, headquarters ordered the movement of troops because of an emergency in Salerno and heavy casualties taken by the infantry division; other units that might have been used were not thought to be able to get there in time, and there was therefore a legitimate order for the troops to be transported. Indeed, such cross-posting of men to new units and formations was justifiable, lawful and not at all uncommon in emergencies.
Miss Begg: How common was it, in such cross-transfers, for men to be returned to active duty after an illness without a medical examination to determine their fitness?
Mr. Spellar: I could go into the research on those areas, but we are dealing with a military emergency, an invasion of Italy, unexpected but heavy losses at Salerno and the order to send in reinforcements. My hon. Friend reiterated the usual allegation that the men were misled about their destination and did not know where they were going. I am sure that hon. Members will understand that operational security meant—and often mean—that the destination of an emergency draft was not announced so that only a handful of more senior
248WH
people in the camp actually knew. That is standard security procedure. Until the destination was announced during the voyage to Salerno, some men assumed that they were returning to their units.
Much emphasis has been placed on whether the men were needed when they arrived. The mutineers' testimony shows that, even while at sea, when they had no knowledge of the situation at Salerno, there was already a conspiracy to refuse to serve there.
With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that German attacks peaked on 16 September. However, commanders had to plan for the continuing, immediate threat. A further important factor often overlooked is that such had been the casualties among the British infantry that non-infantry troops from the Royal Engineers and the beach administration companies at Salerno were already fighting at the front as infantry. Even on 16 September, a further 400 Royal Artillerymen were posted as temporary infantry reinforcements. Clearly, replacements for the non-infantrymen in the front-line were needed, and these non-infantry troops were needed to resume their normal tasks. The inevitable difficulties of operating a beachhead under attack had been exacerbated by their removal, which might explain some of the feelings of chaos among the new arrivals.
After landing at Salerno on 16 September, some 1,200 of the 1,500 reinforcements went, without any protest, to join the troops at the front. The remaining 300, largely from the 50th and 51st divisions, refused to move, saying they would serve only with their own units and divisions.
As the men's refusal became clear, the operational situation was explained to them a number of times, but to no avail. The men were personally addressed by the corps commander, who explained why they were needed. He was aware of their grievance at being cross-posted, so he promised that, provided that they complied with current necessary orders, they would be given the opportunity to re-join their previous units once the emergency was over. There is evidence that that promise was kept.
Finally, a formal parade was held at which an explanation was again given of the seriousness of the 300 men continuing on the same course, including the reading of the relevant parts of the applicable legislation. About 100 of the group obeyed the commands and joined units at Salerno. However, 192 stood fast and refused to obey the orders. They were again told of the serious nature of the crime of mutiny, and were allowed time for further reflection before the order was repeated. As my hon. Friend suggested, those who failed to comply were arrested and subsequently charged with mutiny at a court martial at the allied base in north Africa.
It shall speak about the conduct of the court martial and the actions of the defence team. Eleven extenuating circumstances were properly presented. No evidence was submitted by the defending officers to say that the men had been unfit to fight by the operational standards of the time, nor did the men choose to give evidence themselves and be cross-examined. The court subsequently found all but a few of the men guilty of mutiny.
The court heard all the defence statements of

249WH
extenuating circumstances in mitigation before passing sentence; they reflected the responsibility expected according to rank. Three sergeants were initially sentenced to death, but that was subsequently commuted to 12 years' imprisonment; the corporals received sentences of 10 years and the remainder received sentences of seven years. However, all sentences were subsequently formally suspended, thus offering the men a chance to redeem themselves; the sentence would be activated only if there was later misconduct.
The conviction for mutiny led to the loss of campaign medals but no gallantry medals were forfeited automatically on conviction. Of the two military medals held, only one was forfeited later, following the subsequent conviction of the holder for another offence.
Following suspension of sentence, the men were posted to other units in the Mediterranean theatre. Retaining the men there, rather than posting them back to their own units—by then in the United Kingdom—was lawful and probably understandable. It could hardly be expected that men who had broken military law should be allowed to achieve the objective of their unlawful action, and the bonus of a return to the UK.
We fully understand the strong loyalties to former units felt by the men, but, as General Montgomery suggested, those could not override lawful orders based on operational necessities and did not give them the right to mutiny. General Montgomery was in no doubt: he could not condone their action in refusing, when called upon, to provide operationally necessary reinforcements for the battlefield. The inescapable fact remains that the men mutinied on active service in the battlefield. By any account, that is a serious offence. To grant a pardon for that offence would be a disservice to the many men, including other 8th Army veterans, who obeyed orders, whether they liked them or not, and fought on. It would be a particular slight to those who gave their lives as a result.
Many who took part in the mutiny—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order.

NHS (Oxfordshire)
1.30 pm
Dr. Evan Harris: I am pleased to launch the first debate on the national health service following the Budget and to draw attention to the crisis facing the NHS in Oxfordshire. The Minister will know from previous meetings and correspondence how bad the situation has become in Oxfordshire. My postbag, and those of other Members of Parliament in the county, has increased because of the gap between expectations raised by the Government and the services that the health authority has been able to deliver.
At the general election, the Government said that they had "14 days to save the NHS". There was no mention that that announcement would be repeated yesterday—nearly three years into the Labour Government's period in office. The funding announced yesterday would have been critical to preserving services in Oxfordshire during the first two years of this Parliament.
Local people, patients and elected councillors of all parties are upset to find that services that survived 18 years of Tory cuts have fallen victim to the Tory spending plans imposed on the county during the Government's first two years. The Minister will be aware of the cuts in Oxfordshire, but it would be helpful to recount some of them.
Two community hospitals—at Burford and Watlington—were closed, and 18 beds were lost at Abingdon hospital in my constituency. The trust and health authority admitted that the closures took place because there was not enough money to keep those hospitals open. The trust was in deficit and had to cut its budget. That can be disguised, using the language of "cost improvements" or "cost savings", but the fact remains that there were financial cuts. The community trust recognised that closing hospitals provided a bigger financial saving per bed than cutting beds generally, or cutting services, such as occupational therapy. However, those hospitals not only provided a local service, but helped acute hospitals by providing recuperation and rehabilitation.
The three Rs—recuperation, rehabilitation and respite care—so important to many elderly patients, have been seriously damaged by the Secretary of State for Health's decision to allow the closure of those hospitals in line with the health authority plan, and his failure to finance the health authority and, through it, general practitioner groups and the community trust, well enough to keep the hospitals open. Occupancy rates in those hospital beds were high. They served GPs, who could divert patients from acute hospitals to community hospital beds, and they enabled hospitals, such as the John Radcliffe, to discharge patients and make more cost-effective use of their beds, and to provide a more appropriate environment, especially for elderly patients who needed no longer to be in the hurly-burly of an acute hospital.
Will the Minister give an assurance that the funds announced yesterday for this financial year can and should be used to re-open those community hospital beds? The health authority and the Government have tried to disguise the closure of beds by talking about an additional hospital in Bicester and by changing the

251WH
means by which patients are admitted to beds. However, that is irrelevant, and entirely separate from the number of beds closed in Oxfordshire.
We heard recently about the closure of the cardiac rehabilitation unit in Oxfordshire—a service for people who have suffered heart attacks, to enable them to recover and improve their quality of life. Sadly, that service has effectively ceased across almost all of Oxfordshire. Again that is due to a shortage of funds in the acute trust, which cannot obtain funding from other sources. We were told yesterday that money will be available from 1 April. A litmus test of the Government's commitment to the NHS would be whether such a service could be restored immediately. Many hon. Members who represent Oxfordshire constituencies have received heart-rending letters from cardiac patients who would expect to see, in line with the Government's health service policies, an improvement in rehabilitation services. They would not expect them to be cut.
The Minister will know that Oxfordshire's mental health care NHS trust has a severe financial deficit. It survived 18 years of Conservative Government, but in the third year of a Labour Government, it is facing a recovery plan that requires it to make significant cuts in clinical services for various patient groups. The trust has tried to make cuts that do not affect patient care, but the jargon of the trust recovery plan leaves me in no doubt that cuts will be made to occupational therapy, psychotherapy and psychology services. Those cuts could affect clinical and medical posts at a time when the Government say—indeed, they were elected on this platform—that we will have more doctors, nurses and caring professional staff, such as occupational therapists.
In light of the new money, will the Government confirm that the funds can, and, as mental health desperately needs additional funding, should, be used to ensure that the cuts do not occur? People in Oxfordshire will not understand the hype that surrounds a cash bonanza for the NHS if community hospitals remain closed, more community beds are closed, cardiac rehabilitation services continue to be affected and more cuts are made to mental health care services.
The John Radcliffe hospital faces a critical cash crisis. For many months, more than 100 beds have been closed because of a lack of nurses. Although it is not providing a proper service, people might think that it is saving money. But on 17 February, the Oxford Mail reported that the hospital had a predicted debt of £3.5 million by the end of the financial year, despite cuts in clinical services. On the radio this morning, prior to a health authority meeting, it was confirmed that that figure was an underestimate. The John Radcliffe hospital is in even greater financial crisis. Combined with the accumulated deficit in the ambulance trust and the mental health trust, and with continuing difficulties with waiting times at the Nuffield orthopaedic centre, Oxfordshire health authority can, at the end of the financial year, report only a deepening financial crisis.
Will some of the cash bonanza that the Government announced yesterday be available to obliterate those deficits without further cuts in clinical services or cuts in planned growth in services for the next year?
252WH
Oxfordshire people will want to know whether their services match the hype surrounding the Government's comprehensive spending review and yesterday's announcement of significant extra funds for the health service.
The situation is drastic for people who want to gain admission to the Oxford Radcliffe hospitals. General practitioners in my area are for ever being sent letters explaining the difficulty that the trust is in. On 25 January, the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS trust sent a letter to GPs stating:
Dear Colleague … At 8.30 this morning we had 26 patients waiting for admission in the A&E Department; all our cubicles and corridors were full—
the assumption being that today's NHS fills corridors. It went on to say:
We had in excess of 20 patients waiting for admission to a ward from our GP Referral Unit and also Edward Buzzard Ward.
Level 3 of the escalation policy was called at 5pm last night. This states that "all cubicles in A&E are full and the number of patients on trolleys in corridors is so overwhelming to the extent that patients cannot readily be taken off the ambulances.
Coming at a time in January significantly after the increased activity caused by the flu epidemic, what sort of a comment is that on the Labour Government's stewardship of an NHS, which, with all good intentions, they promised in April 1997 to save?
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: What always surpises me about the comments of the hon. Gentleman and other Liberal Democrats is that although one can understand their concerns, one cannot understand what solution is being proposed. Is the hon. Gentlemen suggesting that significantly more funds should have been made available earlier on, and if so, where does he think the money should have come from, beyond putting 1p on income tax?
Dr. Harris: I am grateful for that intervention because it enables me to explain what we would have done. There is no reason why the Government should have stuck to Conservative spending plans during their first two years in office; during that time, real-terms growth for the NHS was still the lowest for the past two decades, even taking into account the additional funds provided by the Government. As we made clear, we thought that the Chancellor should have opened his war chest much earlier than he did, and should have eschewed an income tax cut earlier in the Parliament in favour of putting money into public services.
The Liberal Democrats stood on a platform of putting 1p on income tax to go towards education, if it was necessary, as we believed it was. We also made it clear that, if the Government would not do that, they should not cut taxes for the better off at a time when the NHS was desperate for funding. If that money were directed into the NHS, Oxfordshire's share of the income tax cut would be about 1 per cent. of the total amount available, which would be about £26 million if all the funding was allocated on a weighted capitation allocation through the hospital and community health services budget this year. That money would have eradicated all the deficits in Oxfordshire and would have permitted some growth in services.

253WH
As a result of his departmental responsibilities, the Minister will know of the very important mix between social services and health services. Some of the cuts in the Oxfordshire health service would not be so bad if social services had not been clobbered year after year under successive Conservative Governments and then again under this Government. The Government capped Oxfordshire county council, which meant that it could not spend what it wished to spend on social services, which made the crisis in NHS provision even worse for the health authority.
I joined an all-party delegation to see the Minister at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to plead with him, in the light of the squeeze on health services, not to cap Oxfordshire county council, but to allow local people and the representatives of the four parties on the council to improve social services, as the Labour party said that it would before it was elected. Under this Government, two care homes for the elderly in my constituency have been closed. Care homes for the elderly that survived 18 years of Tory cuts were closed under this Government's stewardship. I receive more letters about the closure of Oseney court than on any other matter. Indeed, Labour councillors joined Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors to plead for Oxfordshire to be allowed to spend the money that it requires to improve services and not to cut services.
Therefore, I should be grateful if the Minister would explain why, two years into a Labour Government, we are facing cuts in all the services that I have mentioned. Will he also explain why the cash bonanza that the NHS is about to receive is coming only now? Are the Government saying to the people of Oxfordshire, "Do not be sick, ill or infirm, except in the pre-election year of a Labour Government"? The people of Oxfordshire cannot understand why, having voted for a Government who pledged to save the NHS, all they have seen is cut after cut. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will either say that the cuts will be reversed by the new funding or at least apologise for the Government's failure to deliver the improved health services in Oxfordshire that they pledged.
I am, of course, aware of the inheritance received by the Minister and his Government, and that it takes a long time to train the nurses and doctors that the health service needs. I accept that, and have not called for the staff to be conjured up overnight. However, if the funding for which most people felt that they were voting had been put in place at the beginning of the Parliament, Oxfordshire would not be in its current situation.
The Government pledged to save the NHS. They might also have pledged to stick to Tory spending plans, but we in Oxfordshire know that the two pledges were incompatible. They decided to keep their pledge to the better off and to stick to a tax-cutting agenda, rather than funding the health service to meet their pledge to the elderly, the ill and the infirm. That is sad for patients and their relatives in Oxfordshire.
1.45 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Hutton): I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on securing the debate on NHS provision in Oxfordshire.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are fully committed to a high-quality national health service for all the people of the country, including those
254WH
living in Oxfordshire. Our principle is that the best services should be available to everyone, no matter where they live. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have set a modernising, radical agenda for transforming the NHS that will, in time, deliver year-on-year improvements in health and social service provision.
The hon. Gentleman has chosen to highlight the problems in Oxfordshire. Although the Government fully recognise that the NHS faces considerable pressure in meeting its challenging agenda, it is only right that I take the opportunity to focus on the positive progress being made in his area. He completely failed to acknowledge such positive progress and developments.
I begin by reminding the hon. Gentleman about how much money we are investing in the NHS—investment is higher than ever. In December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced total funding of £34 billion for England's health authorities for next year. That represented an average cash increase of 6.9 per cent., which is a rise of 4.2 per cent. in real terms.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Chancellor's statement in the House yesterday that national health service spending will rise by 6.1 per cent. each year above inflation until 2004. An extra £2 billion of new money will be available to the NHS from 1 April this year. The investment is sensible and sustainable and will continue the Government's drive to modernise the NHS, and help to create the fast, fair and convenient health service that people expect.
I should say to the hon. Gentleman and to his Liberal Democrat colleagues that the significant increases in NHS funding dwarf the commitments made by his party at the election. I read his party's manifesto today; it said that it would increase health service spending by £540 million a year. That would have been a completely inadequate response to the crisis that he attempted to describe.
Dr. Harris: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hutton: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman had a chance to make his speech; it is now my chance to set the record straight.
The allocation for Oxfordshire health authority is £327 million this year. Next year, we shall be backing up our commitment to provide year-on-year increases for the health service by allocating the authority £357 million, which represents a cash increase of £23.6 million, or 7.09 per cent. The increase is higher than the national average.
We have not stopped there. We recognise the need to support local services if we are to expect them to keep pace with out modernisation agenda. That is why Oxfordshire health authority has received £6.3 million in special assistance funding since April 1998 to support the modernisation programme and reconfiguration of services across the county.
Oxfordshire has received not only that additional investment. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the authority received an extra £10.8 million in 1999–2000, which we provided to support our modernisation programme. To cut hospital out-patient waiting times, £300,000 was allocated. An allocation of £200,000 was

255WH
made to support the booked admission scheme at Oxford's John Radcliffe hospital. Oxfordshire received £1.9 million of extra money from the Government's accident and emergency modernisation fund. A sum of £850,000 has gone to support the upgrading of that hospital's accident and emergency and intensive care departments. An extra £100,000 will be invested to improve cancer out-patient services and more than 100,000 to help to tackle lung cancer. I could continue.
The additional investment has made a real difference. For example, in-patient waiting lists have been reduced. Between March 1998 and January 2000, waiting lists in Oxfordshire went down by more than 2,000. More people in Oxfordshire are being treated by the NHS than ever before, and 5,000 more people were seen in hospitals in Oxfordshire in the second quarter of this financial year than in this quarter last year.Those are the latest statistics.
In December 1999, the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS trust met the required target on waiting times for cancer patients—a 100 per cent. success rate that should be celebrated. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman failed to do that. The upgrade of facilities at the John Radcliffe hospital will result in the expansion of treatment areas and an increase in the number of high dependency beds from 12 to 16.
With that additional investment, we shall be reducing waiting lists, modernising every casualty department that needs it and investing more money in key areas such as cancer and coronary heart disease treatment. The hon. Gentleman said that the coronary rehabilitation unit was closing. He is wrong. It is not closing; the health authority has put it on the priority list for funding in the coming financial year.
Not only are we supporting the services that patients receive, we are starting the biggest hospital-building programme in the history of the NHS. The hon. Gentleman failed to refer to it, but a £80 million redevelopment is taking place at the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS trust, which will mean patients being treated in modern, purpose-built accommodation. Services will no longer be split between sites, which will reduce the need to transfer patients, removing also the problems that that can often cause. Staff will not have to waste time travelling between sites. Access for patients and visitors will be improved.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned mental health services. In September 1999, I had the pleasure of visiting the brand new medium-secure unit on the Littlemore mental health centre site. A £9 million private finance initiative funded unit will provide 30 mental health beds, and a further 10 beds for people with learning disabilities. The establishment of that unit is good news for the NHS and for the people of Oxfordshire. It is another part of the Government's modernisation programme for the NHS, which will provide safer and more secure care for people with severe mental illness.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of Oxford's excellent reputation as a world-class centre for innovation and teaching. We want to encourage that. That is why £4.2 million will go to the brand-new Oxford centre for diabetes based at the Churchill
256WH
hospital. It will be linked with the drug company Novo Nordisk and Oxford university, renowned for its academic excellence, to develop research facilities for diabetes and related problems.
Since 1998–99, the health service in Oxfordshire has benefited from more than £34 million of new and targeted Government modernising funding; that is on top of the general increase in health authority funding. That investment will continue in future years.
The hon. Gentleman referred to community hospitals in Oxfordshire. It is true that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to make some difficult decisions about the future of those hospitals, but he made the right choice. I assure the hon. Gentleman that such decisions are not taken lightly, but we need to ensure that the right balance of services is available for all hospitals in the county.
The changes are part of a modernisation programme for community services in Oxfordshire and of a coherent development programme for health services in the area. The changes provide an opportunity to redress the inequity of access to community hospital in-patient services. They will also secure the development of increased and more flexible community-based services, which will enable more patients to be treated in or near their homes. That is what patients want, and it is completely in line with the Government's thinking.
We need to make more of the link between community hospitals and intermediate care. Some services will be given in specially designated hospital wards, some in step-down facilities, and some improved care services will be given in the home. For instance, the intensive community support services scheme in Watlington and Wallingford is an innovative approach to providing support services for the local community.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the brand new 30-bed community hospital that is to be built in Bicester. He said that it was irrelevant but it is not. It is part of the modernisation of community services in the county. In an expansion of facilities, the current 12-bed unit will be replaced. There will be more beds to provide equity of services for the county's anticipated population growth. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as part of the process, the 18 beds earmarked for closure at Abingdon hospital in his constituency will remain open until the new facility at Bicester hospital has been expanded. The hon. Gentleman failed to mention that, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced his decision, he rejected proposals to close beds at Wallingford, Wantage and Witney community hospitals.
The uncertainty surrounding community services in Oxfordshire is over. The changes will help to shape local health services. The aim is to develop modern, effective, dependable services so that all patients in the county can benefit from the latest in community health care services. All parties have already begun to work closely together to manage that transition.
The hon. Gentleman referred briefly to staffing shortages and pressure on NHS beds generally, and, to be fair to him, he said that those problems would not be solved overnight. We accept that and have always made that clear. We are tackling those matters. Work is progressing on some of the historic recruitment and staff retention problems of the NHS in Oxfordshire. Some of the investments that I have outlined today will help to

257WH
deal with wider pressures affecting the service in the hon. Gentleman's part of the country. However, what he described in his speech bore no resemblance to what is really happening in the county. It made no acknowledgement of the hard work of Oxfordshire NHS staff, who work tirelessly for patients. It is incumbent on Members of Parliament to try to provide an accurate picture—[Interruption.] I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. Hon. Members should attempt to give an accurate assessment of what is happening before presenting the national health service in their part of the country as being in complete collapse. That is a travesty. The hon. Gentleman did himself and his party no favours in trying to caricature the problem.
We are the first to recognise the county's problems. The hon. Gentleman has spoken about them at length today—eloquently and articulately—and on other occasions. That is his job as a constituency MP, which I know he takes seriously. However, a fuller and more balanced depiction would have served his constituents better than the hatchet job that he tried today.
Some of the historic deficit problems that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are being tackled. However, he and those like him who want, for political reasons, to portray the national health service in their constituencies as being in a state of collapse will have
258WH
been slightly embarrassed by the timing of today's debate. We are beginning a record investment programme for the health service, which will substantially modernise and improve the services that the hon. Gentleman, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I expect for our respective constituents. We are embarking on a 10-year modernisation programme. The results will be clear for the hon. Gentleman's constituents and others to see.
If, as we need to do, we are to assess the national health service and analyse its problems, that must be in the context of the current change and new investment, the new doctors and nurses and the refocusing of services so that patients' needs and interests always come first. We are beginning to work through some of those changes in the national health service. I am confident that, with the continuing fantastic work of Oxfordshire NHS staff, the range and quality of services will improve year on year. We shall all be able to take confidence and pride in the fact that the national health service, about which we feel so strongly and passionately, is providing modernised health care into the new century.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Tenant Subsidies
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the average annual subsidy per tenant, taking into account housing benefits and capital grants paid by the Exchequer, to(a) council tenants and (b) tenants of registered social landlords, in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [114719]

  Mr. Mullin
  Table 1 shows the information that is available on the level of Exchequer support for tenants of local authorities and of registered social landlords (RSLs), but the information does not allow a direct comparison between the two sectors. The table shows the Exchequer subsidy which is paid to local authorities in respect of their tenants as Housing Revenue Account subsidy, and the Housing Benefit paid to tenants of RSLs.

  Capital support for local authorities is in the form of permissions to borrow (known as Basic Credit Approvals) rather than capital grants; the interest on this borrowing is subsidised as part of the Housing Revenue Account subsidy.

  Table 2 shows the Exchequer capital grants paid as Social Housing Grant (SHG) to RSLs by the Housing Corporation through the Approved Development Programme (ADP). SHG enables RSLs to provide affordable housing for rent and sale. Because the benefit of the SHG is realised over the lifetime of the property there is no direct correlation between the grant paid in any one year and the number of tenants.

  Table 1

  £ per dwelling per annum

  Average per dwelling of Housing Element and Rent Rebate subsidy paid to local authorities

  Average gross expenditure on rent allowances for tenants of registered social landlords

  1990–91

  922

  —

  1991–92

  964

  —

  1992–93

  1,044

  —

  1993–94

  1,100

  1,222

  1994–95

  1,145

  1,430

  1995–96

  1,146

  1,640

  1996–97

  1,173

  1,825

  1997–98

  1,140

  1,892

  1998–99

  1,078

  1,977

  Notes:

  1. The figures are averages per dwelling.

  2. Local authority information is derived from subsidy claim forms, and shows the sum of Housing Element and Rent Rebate subsidy.

  3. For registered social landlords, estimates derived from quarterly and annual statistical returns, and annual subsidy claim forms, from local authorities.

  4. Information on average gross expenditure for registered social landlords is not available before 1993–94.

  5. England only
  532W

  Table 2: Housing corporation gross approved development programme expenditure

  £ million

  Year

  1992–93

  2,351

  1993–94

  1,810

  1994–95

  1,484

  1995–96

  1,142

  1996–97

  1,044

  1998–99

  684

  1998–99

  607

  Notes:

  1. Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme is the main component of the Social Housing Grant. RSLs bid for capital grants from the ADP to develop new social housing, with rents at sub-market levels.

  2. Figures taken from Housing Corporation Stewardship Reports. Reliable information is only available from 1992–93.

  3. England only

  Rail Safety
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many of the directors of the safety company subsidiary of Railtrack will have a background in an industry other than railways; what will be the composition of the board; what arrangements have been made for funding the company; and to what extent he has been consulted on the appointments of directors; [114833]

  (2) what talks he has held with the board and Chief Executive of Railtrack since the announcement of their decision to create a separate subsidiary safety company; what timetable is proposed for its establishment; who is to be its Chief Executive, to whom the board will report; and who are its members. [114834]

  Mr. Hill
  Work to establish the company is being overseen by a committee chaired by a senior DETR official on which Railtrack are represented at board level.

  The composition and arrangements for the appointment of the board of the safety subsidiary and its funding arrangements are matters for the Rail Regulator and the Health and Safety Commission to consider when taking forward changes to Regulations and to Railtrack's network licence, which are subject to public consultation procedures.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if there is a centrally held list of empty properties owned by housing associations; and if so how many(a) have been empty for under six months, (b) have been empty for under one year and (c) have been empty over a year; [114801]

  (2) how many properties owned by housing associations have been empty for (a) under six months, (b) under one year and (c) over one year. [114800]

  Mr. Mullin
  A centrally held list of properties owned by housing associations does not exist.
  533W
  The Housing Corporation is the regulatory body for housing associations (also referred to as registered social landlords—RSLs). The Corporation keeps various details about stock owned/managed by RSLs (from the annual Regulatory and Statistical Return and other returns), but this does not include a list of property addresses.

  The RSLs themselves maintain records of all their properties in order that they can manage their properties to the standards set down by the Corporation—and to provide information for audit purposes.

  Number of vacant self-contained RSL units

  At March 31 each year

  Available for letting

  Percentage

  Not available for letting

  Percentage

  Total vacancies

  Percentage

  Vacancies in 1998

  Less than 6 months

  13,547

  88

  6,049

  47

  19,596

  69

  6 months to 1 year

  1,043

  7

  2,908

  23

  3,951

  14

  More than a year

  782

  5

  3,874

  30

  4,656

  17

  Total

  15,372

  100

  12,831

  100

  28,203

  100

  Vacancies in 1999

  Less than 6 months

  15,143

  88

  7,852

  53

  22,995

  72

  6 months to 1 year

  1,156

  7

  2,504

  17

  3,660

  11

  More than a year

  863

  5

  4,514

  30

  5,377

  17

  Total

  17,162

  100

  14,870

  100

  32,032

  100

  Sources:

  Profile of the RSL Sector, 1998 (Table 3.9), published by the Housing Corporation

  Profile of the RSL Sector, 1999 (provisional draft of table 3.9)—unpublished but due to be published during 2000 by the Housing Corporation

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the number of empty council-owned properties in each local authority; [114799]

  (2) if there is a centrally held database on the amount of council-owned empty property. [114798]

  Mr. Mullin
  Local authorities in England provide information on the number of vacant dwellings in their ownership as part of their annual Housing Investment Programme submission to the Department. The latest available information, as reported by local authorities on their 1999 HIP returns, is on a computerised dataset available in the Library.

  A level of vacancy is a usual feature of housing management, reflecting turnover and movement within the stock. There is likely to be some variation in the proportion of dwellings that are vacant in a local authority from one date to another during the year.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people are registered on each local authority list as homeless. [114769]

  Mr. Mullin
  Homeless households accepted by local authorities are those which, after investigation, were found to be eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need under part VII of the Housing Act 1996. The latest available information is given in the table.
  534W
  The performance standards laid down by the Corporation include some that cover the control of empty properties. For instance, no more than two per cent. of properties under management should be empty at any time.

  The overall RSL vacancy rate is not monitored continuously, so the current situation is not known. However, as a guide, the table shows the vacancy rates as at 31 March in 1998 and 1999—and how many vacant units had been empty for less than six months, for between six months and a year and for more than a year.

  Number of households accepted by local authorities as being unintentionally homeless and in priority need under the provisions of the 1996 Housing Act: October-December 1999

  Number

  North East

  Alnwick

  7

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  5

  Blyth Valley

  9

  Castle Morpeth

  0

  Chester-le-Street

  4

  Darlington

  48

  Derwentside

  29

  Durham

  10

  Easington

  15

  Gateshead

  89

  Hartlepool

  65

  Middlesbrough

  94

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  74

  North Tyneside

  246

  Redcar and Cleveland

  63

  Sedgefield

  34

  South Tyneside

  40

  Stockton-on-Tees

  46

  Sunderland

  138

  Teesdale

  2

  Tynedale

  n/a

  Wansbeck

  13

  Wear Valley

  8

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  Barnsley

  47

  Bradford

  282

  Calderdale

  66

  Craven

  n/a

  Doncaster

  n/a

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  60

  Hambleton

  2

  Harrogate

  26

  535W

  Number of households accepted by local authorities as being unintentionally homeless and in priority need under the provisions of the 1996 Housing Act: October-December 1999

  Number

  Kingston upon Hull

  56

  Kirklees

  273

  Leeds

  530

  North East Lincolnshire

  16

  North Lincolnshire

  63

  Richmondshire

  2

  Rotherham

  59

  Ryedale

  4

  Scarborough

  41

  Selby

  14

  Sheffield

  n/a

  Wakefield

  49

  York

  67

  East Midlands

  Amber Valley

  55

  Ashfleld

  10

  Bassetlaw

  52

  Blaby

  3

  Bolsover

  14

  Boston

  12

  Broxtowe

  27

  Charnwood

  23

  Chesterfield

  53

  Corby

  10

  Daventry

  27

  Derby

  242

  Derbyshire Dales

  6

  East Lindsey

  62

  East Northamptonshire

  12

  Erewash

  33

  Gedling

  35

  Harborough

  12

  High Peak

  34

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  20

  Kettering

  25

  Leicester

  162

  Lincoln

  13

  Mansfield

  42

  Melton

  13

  Newark and Sherwood

  61

  North East Derbyshire

  19

  North Kesteven

  11

  North West Leicestershire

  55

  Northampton

  73

  Nottingham

  n/a

  Oadby and Wigston

  6

  Rushcliffe

  11

  Rutland

  0

  South Derbyshire

  51

  South Holland

  5

  South Kesteven

  55

  South Northamptonshire

  26

  Wellingborough

  1

  West Lindsey

  9

  East of England

  Babergh

  15

  Basildon

  82

  Bedford

  91

  Braintree

  n/a

  Breckland

  59

  Brentwood

  9

  Broadland

  42

  Broxbourne

  61

  Cambridge

  60

  Castle Point

  14

  Chelmsford

  74

  Colchester

  101

  Dacorum

  n/a

  East Cambridgeshire

  45

  536W

  Number of households accepted by local authorities as being unintentionally homeless and in priority need under the provisions of the 1996 Housing Act: October-December 1999

  Number

  East Hertfordshire

  n/a

  Epping Forest

  26

  Fenland

  24

  Forest Heath

  8

  Great Yarmouth

  44

  Harlow

  68

  Hertsmere

  10

  Huntingdonshire

  30

  Ipswich

  46

  Kings Lynn and West Norfolk

  46

  Luton

  55

  Maldon

  26

  Mid Bedfordshire

  11

  Mid Suffolk

  19

  North Hertfordshire

  49

  North Norfolk

  24

  Norwich

  137

  Peterborough

  54

  Rochford

  9

  South Bedfordshire

  50

  South Cambridgeshire

  23

  South Norfolk

  29

  Southend-on-Sea

  18

  St. Albans

  26

  St. Edmundsbury

  36

  Stevenage

  28

  Suffolk Coastal

  26

  Tendring

  73

  Three Rivers

  22

  Thurrock

  n/a

  Uttlesford

  17

  Watford

  36

  Waveney

  22

  Welwyn Hatfield

  49

  Greater London

  Barking and Dagenham

  66

  Barnet

  239

  Bexley

  66

  Brent

  252

  Bromley

  189

  Camden

  331

  City of London

  22

  Croydon

  291

  Ealing

  278

  Enfield

  201

  Greenwich

  294

  Hackney

  n/a

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  165

  Haringey

  428

  Harrow

  158

  Havering

  125

  Hillingdon

  229

  Hounslow

  192

  Islington

  295

  Kensington and Chelsea

  112

  Kingston upon Thames

  48

  Lambeth

  242

  Lewisham

  259

  Merton

  59

  Newham

  383

  Redbridge

  159

  Richmond upon Thames

  94

  Southwark

  303

  Sutton

  176

  Tower Hamlets

  264

  Waltham Forest

  n/a

  Wandsworth

  n/a

  Westminster

  288

  537W

  Number of households accepted by local authorities as being unintentionally homeless and in priority need under the provisions of the 1996 Housing Act: October-December 1999

  Number

  South East

  Adur

  58

  Arun

  46

  Ashford

  20

  Aylesbury Vale

  26

  Basingstoke and Deane

  44

  Bracknell Forest

  16

  Brighton and Hove

  201

  Canterbury

  60

  Cherwell

  25

  Chichester

  32

  Chiltern

  34

  Crawley

  52

  Dartford

  33

  Dover

  19

  East Hampshire

  29

  Eastbourne

  73

  Eastleigh

  10

  Elmbridge

  38

  Epsom and Ewell

  16

  Fareham

  44

  Gosport

  45

  Gravesham

  n/a

  Guildford

  25

  Hart

  32

  Hastings

  47

  Havant

  62

  Horsham

  55

  Isle of Wight

  49

  Lewes

  44

  Maidstone

  29

  Mid Sussex

  28

  Milton Keynes

  n/a

  Mole Valley

  21

  New Forest

  57

  Oxford

  83

  Portsmouth

  150

  Reading

  88

  Reigate and Banstead

  34

  Rother

  36

  Runnymede

  20

  Rushmoor

  n/a

  Sevenoaks

  32

  Shepway

  47

  Slough

  n/a

  South Bucks

  8

  South Oxfordshire

  46

  Southampton

  165

  Spelthorne

  12

  Surrey Heath

  30

  Swale

  28

  Tandridge

  21

  Test Valley

  41

  Thanet

  n/a

  The Medway Towns

  n/a

  Tonbridge and Malling

  23

  Tunbridge Wells

  85

  Vale of White Horse

  47

  Waverley

  20

  Wealden

  58

  West Berkshire

  53

  West Oxfordshire

  7

  Winchster

  12

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  23

  Woking

  33

  Wokingham

  24

  Worthing

  54

  Wycombe

  75

  538W

  Number of households accepted by local authorities as being unintentionally homeless and in priority need under the provisions of the 1996 Housing Act: October-December 1999

  Number

  South West

  Bath and North East Somerset

  58

  Bournemouth

  n/a

  Bristol

  278

  Caradon

  21

  Carrick

  50

  Cheltenham

  41

  Christchurch

  21

  Cotswold

  29

  East Devon

  36

  East Dorset

  18

  Exeter

  41

  Forest of Dean

  19

  Gloucester

  37

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Kennet

  47

  Kerrier

  34

  Mendip

  26

  Mid Devon

  36

  North Cornwall

  42

  North Devon

  20

  North Dorset

  31

  North Somerset

  40

  North Wiltshire

  59

  Penwith

  27

  Plymouth

  260

  Poole

  n/a

  Purbeck

  16

  Restormel

  40

  Salisbury

  68

  Sedgemoor

  28

  South Gloucestershire

  n/a

  South Hams

  54

  South Somerset

  83

  Stroud

  3

  Swindon

  n/a

  Taunton Deane

  70

  Teignbridge

  56

  Tewkesbury

  20

  Torbay

  55

  Torridge

  10

  West Devon

  31

  West Dorset

  34

  West Somerset

  19

  West Wiltshire

  72

  Weymouth and Portland

  58

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  1,247

  Bridgnorth

  7

  Bromsgrove

  39

  Cannock Chase

  35

  Coventry

  90

  Dudley

  53

  East Staffordshire

  6

  Herefordshire

  51

  Lichfield

  13

  Malvern Hills

  20

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  40

  North Shropshire

  20

  North Warwickshire

  6

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  16

  Oswestry

  17

  Redditch

  60

  Rugby

  n/a

  Sandwell

  235

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  29

  539W

  Number of households accepted by local authorities as being unintentionally homeless and in priority need under the provisions of the 1996 Housing Act: October-December 1999

  Number

  Solihull

  136

  South Shropshire

  n/a

  South Staffordshire

  46

  Stafford

  18

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  13

  Stoke-on-Trent

  32

  Stratford-on-Avon

  20

  Tamworth

  20

  Telford and Wrekin

  50

  Walsall

  295

  Warwick

  56

  Wolverhampton

  106

  Worcester

  n/a

  Wychavon

  29

  Wyre Forest

  89

  North West

  Allerdale

  13

  Barrow-in-Furness

  2

  Blackburn with Danwen

  36

  Blackpool

  36

  Bolton

  178

  Burnley

  57

  Bury

  31

  Carlisle

  6

  Chester

  25

  Chorley

  31

  Congleton

  n/a

  Copeland

  10

  Crewe and Nantwich

  53

  Eden

  12

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  18

  Fylde

  7

  Halton

  n/a

  Hyndburn

  20

  Knowsley

  40

  Lancaster

  29

  Liverpool

  196

  Macclesfield

  n/a

  Manchester

  632

  Oldham

  269

  Pendle

  16

  Preston

  35

  Ribble Valley

  15

  Rochdale

  124

  Rossendale

  49

  Regional Development Agencies

  Administration (£000)

  Programme (£000)

  Staff numbers

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  1999–2000

  1 April 1999

  30 September 1999

  Yorkshire Forward

  403

  8,036

  152,203

  174.5

  211

  One North East

  2,395

  9,771

  139,039

  203

  232

  NorthWest

  327

  12,131

  212,595

  182

  199

  East Midlands

  406

  7,155

  60,193

  107

  132

  Advantage West Midlands

  384

  7,678

  114,764

  118.5

  147

  East of England

  350

  4,803

  28,957

  38

  71

  South East

  411

  5,486

  82,850

  60

  95

  South West

  461

  7,488

  46,509

  143

  171

  Total (all RDAs)

  5,137

  62,548

  837,110

  1,026

  1,258

  Note:

  Staff numbers are full time equivalents except North West RDA with is staff-post
  540W

  Number of households accepted by local authorities as being unintentionally homeless and in priority need under the provisions of the 1996 Housing Act: October-December 1999

  Number

  Salford

  101

  Sefton

  22

  South Lakeland

  8

  South Ribble

  35

  St. Helens

  25

  Stockport

  56

  Tameside

  123

  Trafford

  109

  Vale Royal

  n/a

  Warrington

  62

  West Lancashire

  4

  Wigan

  116

  Wirral

  156

  Wyre

  23

  Notes:

  1. n/a indicates the authority did not provide a return.

  2. Figures reported may include a small number of residual cases eligible under 1985 Housing Act.

  Source:

  DETR quarterly P1(E) returns

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is(a) the annual cost, (b) the number employed and (c) the total expenditure of (i) the integrated regional office and (ii) the regional development agencies in (1) Yorkshire and Humberside, (2) the Northern Region, (3) the North West and (4) all English regions in (A) 1997, (B) 1998 and (C) 1999, respectively. [114903]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The first table shows the Regional Development Agencies' gross expenditure on their administration for the 1998–99 financial year when the agencies were being set up; and their allocations for administration and programmes for 1999–2000 at the start of the financial year. It also shows staff-in-post figures for 1 April and 30 September 1999, the latest data that are available.

  The second table shows the relevant data for Government offices. Information on programme expenditure in 1999–2000 is not available yet.
  541W

  Government Offices

  Running costs (£000)

  Programme costs (£000)

  Staff numbers

  1997–98

  GO-NE

  8,617

  447,900

  243

  GO-NW

  9,443

  702,970

  244

  GO-M

  4,200

  404,920

  113

  GO-YH

  8,475

  575,470

  237

  GO-WM

  9,758

  564,720

  316

  GO-EM

  6,436

  349,640

  191

  GO-East

  6,271

  325,300

  162

  GO-SW

  6,826

  308,890

  185

  GO-SE

  8,545

  473,120

  159

  GO-L

  13,459

  1,057,600

  305

  GO-total

  82,028

  5,210,530

  2,155

  GO-CU

  4,356

  0

  Grand total

  86,384

  5,210,530

  1998–99

  GO-NE

  8,619

  383,660

  248

  GO-NW

  13,702

  886,000

  365

  GO-M

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  GO-YH

  8,683

  521,770

  241

  GO-WM

  9,474

  535,830

  305

  GO-EM

  6,754

  332,590

  192

  GO-East

  6,268

  393,900

  165

  GO-SW

  6,985

  361,000

  186

  GO-SE

  8,561

  495,470

  177

  GO-L

  12,722

  1,439,600

  311

  GO-total

  81,769

  5,349,820

  2,190

  GO-CU

  3,095

  0

  Grand total

  84,864

  5,349,820

  1999–2000

  GO-NE

  8,356

  —

  234

  GO-NW

  13,020

  —

  351

  GO-M

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  GO-YH

  8,878

  —

  240

  GO-WM

  9,345

  —

  239

  GO-EM

  6,935

  —

  206

  GO-East

  6,991

  —

  165

  GO-SW

  7,865

  —

  199

  GO-SE

  8,657

  —

  209

  GO-L

  13,681

  —

  346

  GO-total

  83,728

  2,189

  GO-CU

  3,757

  Grand total

  87,484

  Notes:

  1. GO-Merseyside and GO-NW merged during 1998–99

  2. Running cost figures shown are final out-turns for 1997–98 and 1998–99; and budgets for 1999–2000

  3. Programme costs 1997–98 and 1998–99 for GO-WM exclude European Programme payments covering period 1994–99 of total value £627.9m and £762.6m respectively; for 1997–98 GO-L excludes London Transport Funding

  4. Staff numbers are staff-in-post averages (not full time equivalents) taken over the course of the year

  5. GO-CU is the Government Offices' Central Unit

  Aircraft Safety
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will require commercial airlines to make available sufficient leg room to ensure that all passengers can adopt the brace position in the event of an emergency. [114937]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has set minimum requirements relating to the spacing of passenger seats for aircraft on the UK register. This is 542W
  because, in the event of an emergency, it is one of a number of factors which can have an effect on the evacuation of an aircraft. We are not aware that any other country has a similar requirement.

  The CAA has also conducted extensive research into passenger brace positions and published its preferred brace position in a Notice to Air Operator Certificate Holders in 1993. This requires that the upper body is bent forward as far as possible with the head touching the back of the seat in front. However, it is recognised that there is not a seat pitch at which people from both extremes of the height range will be able to achieve this position. Where the preferred brace position cannot be adopted passengers should adopt a position as close as possible to it as the circumstances allow.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the return to local authorities of the full value of the Landfill Tax to fund schemes for reduction, re-use and recycling of waste; and if he will make a statement. [114888]

  Mr. Mullin
  None. The revenue raised from Landfill Tax is general Government revenue, not earmarked for particular purposes.

  The local government settlement for 2000–01 provides an additional £2.9 billion (5.8 per cent.) for councils' total revenue spending. The Government are considering the question of resources for local authority waste management as part of the overall year 2000 Spending Review.

  Heathrow Slots
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what EU legislation governs the allocation of departure and arrival slots at Heathrow to British airlines which merge with non-EU airlines; and if he will make a statement. [115226]

  Mr. Mullin
  Slot allocation at Heathrow is governed by EC Regulation 95/93, which was transposed into UK law by the Airports Slot Allocation Regulations 1993 (SI 1993/1067). Under these regulations, an independent co-ordinator has been appointed to allocate slots. He is charged with carrying out his duties in a neutral, transparent and non-discriminatory manner. No account is taken in the slot allocation process of the nationality of applicant airlines. However, European and national competition authorities have in the past had regard to the number of slots that would be controlled by a single operating entity, and any possible resultant detrimental effect on competition, when considering proposed mergers and acquisitions.

  Private Zoos
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many private zoos there are in the UK; and how many reported accidents involving(a) animals and keepers and (b) animals and the public resulted in (i) hospitalisation and (ii) death in the last five years. [115118]
  543W
  Mr. Mullin
  Official statistics about the ownership of zoos are not kept.

  The table shows the breakdown of injuries and death in zoos in Great Britain for the years 1994–98. These figures are reported to local authorities under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR) and relate to accidents arising out of work activities at zoos.

  Injured by animal

  Severity of injury

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Total

  Employees

  Fatal

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Major

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Over 3 day

  —

  2

  1

  1

  4

  Member of public

  Fatal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Major

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Total

  2

  2

  1

  2

  7

  Water (Kent)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what forecasts he made of water availability in Kent prior to deciding on the number of new homes to be built in the county. [115338]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning gave on 13 March 2000,Official Report, column 35W. The Secretary of State has made no decision on the number of new homes to be built in Kent. Details of our proposed changes to regional planning guidance in the South East will be published on 27 March 2000. These will include an illustrative breakdown of housing within the region to county level, including an annual rate of provision for Kent. We will be consulting SERPLAN and others on the distribution of housing within the region. Water availability will be one of the factors to be taken into account.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to require councils to allow people to pay(a) rents and (b) council tax at post offices. [115485]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  There is a range of payment facilities which local authorities offer to local tax and rent payers, including payment at Post Offices.

  Since the costs of payment facilities vary, we believe it is right that individual local authorities should be able to decide which facilities to offer in the light of local circumstances.

  Zoos and Safari Parks
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what controls exist in respect of the methods used to cull diseased stock at(a) zoos and (b) safari parks; and if he will make a statement. [115276]
  544W
  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 21 March 2000]: In accordance with the Zoo Licensing Act 1981, all zoos and safari parks in the UK must be licensed by the appropriate local authority.

  Inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State make recommendations to local authorities whether to grant a licence. In doing so, they are required to take account of the Secretary of State's Standards of Modern Zoo Practice.

  There is no guidance on culling in the existing Standards issued in 1988. Earlier this month, I published new Standards which include a requirement that zoos and safari parks must have a policy that ensures humane and timely euthanasia to minimise suffering. Such a course of action may be justifiable under certain conditions, particularly if an animal poses a serious and unavoidable threat to human safety. However, it should not take place without guidance from a veterinary surgeon. The actual method involved will vary depending on the species of animal in question. The new Standards come into force on 3 April.

  Aviation Expenditure
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish an itemised breakdown of the £27 million additional expenditure for aviation on Page 55 of the supply estimates 1999–2000. [115634]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 21 March 2000]: A breakdown of the application of the £27 million additional funding provided to the Civil Aviation Services section of the Transport Industries Vote during the Spring Supplementary Estimates is given in the table.

  Description

  £ million

  Shortfall in Eurocontrol Receipts1

  8.0

  Costs of Bechtel2

  2.0

  National Air Traffic Services (NATS) Public Private Partnership (PPP) Consultants3

  6.0

  Other Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)/NATS Costs4

  11.0

  Total

  27.0

  1 Eurocontrol—This is mainly due to a shortfall in Eurocontrol receipts, which results from a reduction in the UK Government's entitlement, to adjust for an over-recovery two years previously.

  2 Costs of Bechtel—This is the Government's share in the cost of employing Bechtel, who were jointly hired by NATS and DETR to manage the New Scottish Centre air traffic control project. Bechtel expect to make savings of £80-£100 million on the cost of the project.

  3 NATS PPP Consultants—Cost of employing professional advisers to assist the Government in preparing for NATS PPP.

  4 Other CAA/NATS Costs—Government reimbursement to CAA and NATS of separation of the two, eg physical separation of CAA and NATS within CAA House in London, and separation of previously common functions. Under the terms of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, NATS and the CAA are entitled to reimbursement from the Government for the costs of advisers to help them to prepare for the NATS PPP.

  Interactive Website
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans his Department has to set up an interactive website. [114822]
  545W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The central DETR has had an interactive website (at www.detr.gov.uk) since November 1997. The site provides access to a wide range of information about the Department and its policies and, in addition to the normal interactivity of any website, includes more than 300 inquiry e-mail addresses, which can be used to contact any area of the Department, four searchable databases, streamed video and audio and now a sub-domain for schools. There are plans for further developments in interactivity this year.

  Draft Structure Plan (Avon)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to reach a final decision in response to the draft structure plan for the former Avon area. [115853]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  On 17 March the Secretary of State directed the four unitary authorities in the former Avon area not to adopt the structure plan before he has decided whether or not he should intervene. Every effort will be made to reach a final decision as quickly as possible.

  Flooding (Copeland)
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide financial assistance to Copeland Borough Council under the Bellwin Scheme in respect of costs incurred following flooding in the area on 5 November 1999. [116066]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I am satisfied that financial assistance under the Bellwin scheme is justified in the case of Copeland Borough Council given the exceptional nature of the flooding and the damage caused. A scheme will, therefore, be established under section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Grant will be paid to the authority to cover 85 per cent. of its eligible costs above a threshold, which have been incurred by the authority in dealing with the flooding.

  Property Advisory Group
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the findings of the Financial Management and Policy Review on the Property Advisory Group; and what is the Government's response. [116104]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Property Advisory Group (PAG) advises DETR Ministers and officials on commercial property issues. Established in 1978, the PAG is a link with the property world, providing access to sources of expertise on property, financial and legal matters. The Group's current terms of reference are:"to keep under review changes in the land and property market, advise on matters concerning the development process, and advise the Department generally on property issues".

  As a non-Departmental public body, the PAG is subject to a financial management and policy review every five years, carried out internally. The review takes account of consultations both with the Group and relevant external bodies. This review has now been completed, and found in the first stage of its work that the Department had a
  546W
  continuing need for regular impartial advice from external sources on property matters, and that the Group was the most cost-effective means of providing this.

  The second stage of the review considered the operation of the Group, with a full review of its term of reference and the scope of its work as well as its composition, working methods, and public profile. The overall impression was favourable, but the review made a number of detailed recommendations in these areas. We accept these recommendations, and will be taking them forward in co-operation with the Chairman, Robin Broadhurst, and members of the Group.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when was the last meeting of Green Ministers; what was discussed; and which Departments were represented by(a) Ministers and (b) officials. [116205]

  Mr. Meacher
  Green Ministers held their first meeting of this year on 16 March. The Committee agreed the publication of a series of guides to help promote sustainable development and the greening of Government across Whitehall and beyond. "Work of Green Ministers" lists all of the Government's targets and commitments in this area. It is also a good summary for those who would like to understand more about the role of Green Ministers and their work. "Sustainable development—what it is and what you can do" helps to explain sustainable development for the ordinary civil servant. The other leaflets will help public sector bodies prepare sustainable development awareness raising strategies and address biodiversity issues.

  At the meeting, Green Ministers discussed progress on environmental management systems, travel plans and integrating the environment into policy. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office, their Green Minister, outlined progress on greening the police and prison service as well as the main department.

  Green Ministers agreed:
  there should be an annual meeting of departments' senior officials responsible for sustainable development
  to continue their work to make the Government's funding regimes, such as the Spending Review and the Private Finance Initiative, as sustainable as possible, including taking account of the environment.
  target a number of associate bodies (including non-departmental public bodies and executive agencies) and help them become models for best practice on sustainable development, encouraging others to follow suit.

  Since Green Ministers' last meeting in November, the Government have agreed proposals for new energy targets. From 1 April, Government will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1 per cent. a year. In addition, Green Ministers will continue to make the benchmarking of Government buildings a priority and will investigate the feasibility of reporting on emissions from transport as well as buildings.

  The Departments represented by Ministers were: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Cabinet Office; Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Department for Health; Department of Social Security; the Chancellor's Departments; Law Officers

  547W
  Departments; Home Office; the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and the Welsh Office. Those represented by officials were: Department for International Development and Department of Trade and Industry.

  Manchester Metrolink
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in respect of the Manchester Metrolink light rail scheme; and if he will make a statement. [116206]

  Mr. Prescott
  Following the announcement in the Budget of an extra £280 million for transport spending, we intend to provide funding for the three extensions to the Manchester Metrolink for which Manchester Passenger Transport Authority has sought public funding. This is subject to formal completion of the project appraisal and agreement of the overall funding package. We expect that package to include a local contribution to the costs of the scheme. I shall make further announcements about the other elements of our package of additional transport spending shortly.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of the tendering process for the scheme to provide vouchers for asylum seekers; how many firms bid for the contract; on what basis was the contract awarded to Sodexho Pass International; what is the duration and cost of the contract with Sodexho Pass International; what profit margin is built in to the contract; and if he will publish the contract. [114760]

  Mrs. Roche
  The cost of the tendering process for the new voucher scheme is not separately identifiable from the costs of other procurement activity undertaken in the course of establishing the new asylum support arrangements.

  In response to an advertisement placed in the "Official Journal of the European Communities" (OJEC) on 10 July 1999, we received nine expressions of interest from prospective suppliers in designing and operating the voucher scheme. Four suppliers were subsequently invited to prepare detailed proposals as a basis for negotiation and three of these went forward to submit revised formal offers.

  As anticipated in the OJEC, the decision to award the contract was taken with regard to the following factors: ability to achieve time scales; cost; technical competence; experience/ability; flexibility; commercial and financial strength; and, quality.

  The initial duration of the contract is three years. This may be extended by two further one-year periods. Contractual details are commercially confidential.

  Road Accident Victims
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received 548W
  about the decision of the police to refuse to release to the media the names and addresses of people injured in road accidents; and if he will make a statement. [115299]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has received representations from the Director and Members of the Society of Editors about the Association of Chief Police Officers guidelines "Naming of Victims or Witnesses Involved in Crime, Road and other incidents", which he is carefully considering. A number of hon. Members have also made representations.

  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 14 March 2000,Official Report, column 162W, on antisocial behaviour orders, when the records of ASBOs will be collated centrally by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [115362]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We will be writing to local magistrates courts committees during the next few weeks asking them to provide us with information concerning the number of orders granted at their courts. We will be collating this information centrally as soon as we receive the responses.

  Europol
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those powers of Europol whose extension is under discussion; and what is his policy in respect of them. [115620]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  At the European Council held in Tampere in October 1999, it was agreed that Europol's powers should be extended to cover money laundering in general, regardless of the type of offence from which the laundered proceeds originate. The Government welcome this proposal.

  It was also agreed at Tampere that arrangements for the setting up of joint investigation teams, as envisaged in Article 30(2) of the Treaty of Amsterdam, should be put in place without delay, as a first step to combat trafficking in drugs and human beings as well as terrorism. The arrangements should allow representatives of Europol to participate, as appropriate, in the joint teams in a support capacity. It is not envisaged that Europol's mandate will need to be extended to give effect to this conclusion.

  There are no other current proposals to extend Europol's powers.

  Force Crest
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the average dimensions of the force crest on police cars in England and Wales; and what is the size of the(a) largest and (b) smallest crest on the side of police cars in England and Wales. [115570]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We do not collect this information from forces.

  Prison Accommodation
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in each prison establishment are held(a) two to a cell in a single cell and (b) three to a cell in a double cell. [115614]

  Mr. Boateng
  The average number of prisoners for the financial year April 1999 to February 2000 held two in a single cell in each prison establishment is listed in the table. The Prison Service does not collect data on the number of prisoners held three in a double cell.

  These data are provisional and are subject to validation by prisons.

  Average number of prisoners held two to a cell for one—April 1999 to February 2000

  Prison name

  Two to a cell

  Acklington

  0

  Albany

  0

  Altcourse

  416

  Ashfield

  0

  Ashwell

  0

  Askham Grange

  0

  Aylesbury

  0

  Bedford

  137

  Belmarsh

  0

  Birmingham

  758

  Blakenhurst

  371

  Blantyre House

  0

  Blundeston

  0

  Brinsford

  157

  Bristol

  102

  Brixton

  337

  Brockhill

  0

  Buckley Hall

  0

  Bullingdon

  77

  Bullwood Hall

  0

  Camp Hill

  138

  Canterbury

  223

  Cardiff

  471

  Castington

  0

  Channings Wood

  216

  Chelmsford

  66

  Coldingley

  0

  Cookham Wood

  54

  Dartmoor

  0

  Deerbolt

  0

  Doncaster

  589

  Dorchester

  147

  Dover

  0

  Downview

  32

  Drake Hall

  0

  Durham

  538

  East Sutton Park

  0

  Eastwood Park

  40

  Elmley

  218

  Erlestoke

  1

  Everthorpe

  64

  Exeter

  367

  Featherstone

  0

  Feltham

  47

  Ford

  0

  Forest Bank

  0

  Foston Hall

  0

  Frankland

  0

  Full Sutton

  0

  Garth

  0

  Gartree

  0

  Glen Parva

  301

  Gloucester

  180

  Grendon

  0

  Guys Marsh

  61

  550W

  Average number of prisoners held two to a cell for one—April 1999 to February 2000

  Prison name

  Two to a cell

  Haslar

  0

  Hatfield

  0

  Haverigg

  0

  Hewell Grange

  0

  Highdown

  0

  Highpoint

  4

  Hindley

  0

  Hollesley Bay

  0

  Holloway

  0

  Holme House

  105

  Hull

  0

  Huntercombe

  3

  Kingston

  0

  Kirkham

  0

  Kirklevington

  0

  Lancaster

  0

  Lancaster Farms

  41

  Latchmere House

  0

  Leeds

  613

  Leicester

  286

  Lewes

  29

  Leyhill

  0

  Lincoln

  304

  Lindholme

  0

  Littlehey

  46

  Liverpool

  420

  Long Lartin

  0

  Low Newton

  36

  Lowdham Grange

  15

  Maidstone

  74

  Manchester

  387

  Moorland

  41

  Morton Hall

  0

  Mount

  8

  New Hall

  60

  North Sea Camp

  0

  Northallerton

  252

  Norwich

  213

  Nottingham

  0

  Onley

  0

  Pare

  0

  Parkhurst

  21

  Pentonville

  341

  Portland

  139

  Preston

  519

  Ranby

  50

  Reading

  140

  Risley

  65

  Rochester

  0

  Send

  0

  Shepton Mallet

  36

  Shrewsbury

  0

  Stafford

  0

  Stanford Hill

  0

  Stocken

  29

  Stoke Heath

  0

  Styal

  22

  Sudbury

  0

  Swaleside

  0

  Swansea

  198

  Swinfen Hall

  43

  Thorn Cross

  0

  Usk

  149

  Verne

  35

  Wakefield

  0

  Wandsworth

  432

  Wayland

  30

  Wealstun

  10

  Weare

  0

  Wellingborough

  0

  Werrington

  0

  Wetherby

  0

  551W

  Average number of prisoners held two to a cell for one—April 1999 to February 2000

  Prison name

  Two to a cell

  Whatton

  0

  Whitemoor

  0

  Winchester

  299

  Wolds

  0

  Woodhill

  103

  Wormwood Scrubs

  270

  Wymott

  0

  Secure Units
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to divide prison establishments into smaller units. [115626]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Woolf Report recommended that prisons should be divided into small and manageable secure units. Since the Report was published, the Prison Service has focused upon this need when designing both new prison buildings (public and private) and new houseblocks (extensions of existing prisons). It is also a consideration when refurbishing existing prison accommodation—special attention is always given to improving the security of wings by adding new gates, control and restraint staircases and reinforcing the protection of roof spaces.

  Roger Sylvester
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what internal disciplinary actions have been taken by the Metropolitan police concerning officers who were responsible for the custody of Roger Sylvester in January 1999. [115642]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has informed me that the reports of the investigations into the death of Roger Sylvester by Essex police, supervised by the Police Complaints Authority, have been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service to consider whether criminal charges should be laid against any of the police officers involved in this case.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what special police actions by officers not based at Tottenham police station took place from 10 to 13 January 1999 in the Tottenham police division. [115643]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has informed me that an investigation by the Complaints Investigation Bureau into the circumstances surrounding the detention of Roger Sylvester by officers based at Tottenham police station began on 11 January 1999.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Police Complaints Authority report into the circumstances surrounding the death of Roger Sylvester to be published. [115644]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The circumstances surrounding the death of Roger Sylvester have been investigated by Essex police, supervised by the Police Complaints Authority. The publication of Investigating Officers'552W
  reports resulting from public complaints is a matter for individual Chief Officers of Police, in this case the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  The Government have accepted recommendation 10 of the Macpherson report regarding disclosure of Investigating Officers' reports to complainants. The action being taken to implement this recommendation is detailed in the First Annual Report on Progress on the Home Secretary's Action Plan, published on 23 February.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the death of Roger Sylvester in January 1999; and if he will make a statement. [115645]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Since January 1999, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has received a number of representations about the death of Roger Sylvester from several hon. Members, relatives of Roger Sylvester, members of the public and supporters of the Roger Sylvester Justice Campaign.

  Most of the representations call for a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Roger Sylvester's detention by the Metropolitan police. This matter has been investigated by Essex police, supervised by the Police Complaints Authority. The Investigating Officers' reports have now been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for consideration.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish his plans for the regulation of the use of the electoral register under paragraphs 10 and 11 of Schedule 2 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 as amended by the Representation of the People Act 2000; what discussions he has had regarding those plans; and if he will make a statement. [115815]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have met representatives from the banking, credit and mail order industries on several occasions. Officials are also engaged in a series of meetings with these and other organisations aimed at clarifying the issues to be addressed by the regulations. As soon as these discussions have been concluded the regulations will be drafted and published.

  Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if it is his intention that press notices issued by a Minister of the Crown, Government Department and local authority during the relevant period referred to in Clause 118 (2) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill should be(a) posted on the internet and (b) otherwise be made publicly accessible; [115859]

  (2) if he will publish a definition of the term press notice used in Clause 118 (3)(d) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. [115858]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As I indicated during the Report Stage of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill on 14 March 2000,Official Report, column 255, a press notice for the purpose of clause 120(3) of the Bill (as it is now) is a notice to the press and not to the general public.
  553W
  It is the general practice of Government Departments to place their press notices on the Internet. They are not otherwise made available to the general public except in response to specific requests. We do not think that these facilities need to be suspended or modified during referendum periods.

  The arrangements in respect of press releases issued by local authorities are a matter for them.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the oral statement of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), of 14 March 2000,Official Report, columns 255–56, if he will publish guidelines on the role of (a) civil servants, (b) special advisers and (c) local government officers in future referendum campaigns; if he will publish draft guidelines whilst the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill is before Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [115857]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government fully intend that civil servants (including special advisers) should continue to be issued with guidance as to their conduct during general election and referendum campaigns. Such guidance is prepared and issued in respect of each general election and referendum campaign as and when it is required. Copies of the guidance issued in respect of previous referendums are available in the Library. Guidance to the employees of local authorities is not a matter for central Government.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish draft orders to be made under Clause 122 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. [115813]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The purpose of the order-making power in clause 124 of the Bill (as it is now) will be to set up arrangements for the administration of referendums by applying relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Acts and Regulations. A recent example of this kind of order is the Greater London Authority (Referendum Arrangements) Order 1998 (SI 1998–746). We do not envisage exercising the order-making power in the Bill until a referendum to which Part VII of the Bill applies is in immediate prospect.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the increase in the number of registered political parties as a result of the restriction on the description of candidates contained in Clause 19 (2) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill; and if he will make a statement. [115832]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It will be for candidates and the organisations which they represent, if any, to decide whether to register. It seems likely that the number of registered parties will increase, but no basis is available for any reliable estimate of the extent of any increase.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has undertaken into the cost to registered political parties of compliance with the requirements of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill; if he will place a copy of that research in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [115827]
  554W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  On 26 May 1999, the Home Office wrote to the main political parties requesting, among other things, a broad indication of the additional administrative costs that would be incurred in order to establish the systems to comply with the statutory disclosure regime. Only the Liberal Democrats submitted any estimate of such costs.

  Clause 32 of the Bill enables the Electoral Commission to allocate up to £500,000 in grants or assistance in kind (for example software programmes) to registered political parties to help them meet the initial costs involved in complying with the provisions of Parts III (accounting requirements) and IV (control of donations). This sum has been set on the basis of what the Government believe is both reasonable and affordable.

  The Home Office will shortly be inviting the main parties to enter into further discussions about the grants or assistance that the Commission might provide.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to appoint the interim Chief Executive of the Electoral Commission. [115830]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As soon as is practicable after the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill receives Royal Assent.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if it is his intention that the duty placed on the Electoral Commission to promote the institutions of the European Union under Class 11(1)(c) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill should extend only to those institutions of the European Union that are directly elected; and if he will make a statement; [115835]

  (2) if (a) the European Single Currency and (b) the European Central Bank are institutions of the European Union within the meaning of Clause 11(1)(c) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. [115834]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As part of the Electoral Commission's role of encouraging greater public participation in the democratic process, including by voting at elections, clause 12 (formerly clause 11) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill provides for the Electoral Commission to promote public awareness of the institutions of the European Union.

  For the purposes of this clause, the term includes any body constituted under the Treaty establishing the European Community and is not, therefore, confined to the European Parliament. Promoting greater understanding of the role of the Parliament cannot be achieved without reference to the other institutions of the European Union, including the Council of Ministers, the European Commission, the European Court of Justice and the European Central Bank. The European single currency is not an institution of the European Union.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of his discussions with the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive about the extent to which the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill should apply to Scotland. [115814]
  555W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Subject to a number of express limitations in respect of local government and local government elections, clause 151 provides for the whole of the Bill to apply to Scotland.

  As I announced during the Report Stage of the Bill on 13 March 2000, Official Report, columns 47–48, the Scottish Parliament and Executive have indicated that they would welcome an enabling power, akin to that in clause 18 but exercisable in this case by Scottish Ministers, to transfer any of the functions of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland to the Electoral Commission. They have also agreed that there should be an enabling power, again exercisable by Scottish Ministers with the agreement of the Parliament, to extend the Electoral Commission's remit under clauses 9(3)(a)(ii), 12(1), and 135(1)(b) to local government elections in Scotland. Amendments to this effect will be introduced by the Government during the Bill's passage in Another Place.

  In addition, the Scottish Parliament and Executive have agreed that proposed Government amendments to the Bill to amend section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, so as to make it compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights following the European Court's decision in the Case of Bowman, should extend to local government elections in Scotland.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to begin the appointments process for electoral commissioners. [115829]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Preparatory work is already under way. A recruitment firm has been selected to assist in filling the posts and it is expected that advertisements will appear next month. The process will follow the Code of Practice for Public Appointments. A panel with independent representation will determine whom to recommend for appointment so that the procedure set out in Clause 3 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill can be followed.

  Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what statutory mechanisms exist to ensure that(a) an offender convicted of an offence against a child not listed in Schedule 4 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill and (b) an offender sentenced to a term of imprisonment of less than 12 months for an offence committed against a child is prohibited from working with children; what is the maximum term of such a prohibition; and if he will make a statement; [115818]

  (2) if it is his intention that a disqualification order issued under Part II of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill, should apply indefinitely; and if he will make a statement; [115831]

  (3) what mechanisms prevent (a) sex offenders and (b) other offenders from working with children; and if he will make a statement. [115833]

  Mr. Straw
  There are several statutory mechanisms that currently exist to prevent sex offenders and other offenders from working with children. The Education Reform Act 1988, the Education Act 1996 and the Protection of Children Act 1999 provide for lists to be kept by the Secretary of State for Education and 556W
  Employment, the Secretary of State for Health or the National Assembly for Wales of individuals deemed unsuitable, and therefore banned, from working with children in the areas of healthcare, social services, and education. In addition, there are Regulations relating to particular areas of work with children made under the Children Act 1989.

  The Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill introduces measures that would complete the establishment of an integrated system for the protection of children. Under this system, a judge would be able to disqualify those who commit serious criminal offences against children from working with them. In addition, the Bill proposes a new criminal offence of breaching a ban on working with children imposed either through inclusion on one of the relevant lists or by the courts. It also proposes a new definition of working with children which covers all such work in the public, private, voluntary and volunteering sectors.

  Under the Bill, an offender convicted of an offence not listed in Schedule 4, or convicted of such an offence but sentenced to a term of imprisonment of less than 12 months, would not be subject to the statutory disqualification against working with children imposed by a judge. However, if they already work with children in one of the areas covered by the lists kept under the Education Reform Act 1988, the Education Act 1996, or the Protection of Children Act 1999, they could be banned by the Secretary of State. They could also be banned under those lists as a result of conduct which demonstrates that they are unsuitable to work with children even if they are not convicted of any offence. Under Part V of the Police Act 1997, an offender's full criminal record will be available to those registered under the Act who countersign applications for criminal or enhanced criminal record certificates in respect of those to whom they intend to offer positions which involve working with children.

  An offender who is disqualified by a court under Part II of the Bill or is placed on one of the lists will be disqualified from working with children indefinitely. However, the Bill provides for a review of the disqualification order by a Tribunal. The individual must first prove to the Tribunal that his circumstances have changed sufficiently to warrant a review of the disqualification order. The individual must then demonstrate to the Tribunal that this change of circumstances is such that he is no longer a risk to children, and therefore need no longer be subject to disqualification. This review process is only available after a period of ten years (five years for juveniles) after the disqualification was imposed or the offender released from custody.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of persons who will be sent to prison annually as a result of the introduction under Clause 55 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill of the three-month sentence for failing to secure regular attendance at school; what will be the cost to public funds; and if he will make a statement. [115854]

  Mr. Straw
  At present, some 80 per cent. of parents fail to turn up in court when prosecuted for school attendance offences. The intention of this measure is to compel the parent to attend court. Introducing the risk of imprisonment allows magistrates to issue a warrant for the arrest of a defendant who fails to turn up at court to
  557W
  answer charges when summonsed to do so. It also allows magistrates to impose other sentencing options such as community service orders. Magistrates will want to consider how best to secure education for the child involved, and we expect such a sentence will be appropriate only in wholly exceptional circumstances.

  The costs of implementing the measure are estimated at up to £1.2 million per annum. This assumes legal aid costs of up to £1 million, and some minor costs associated with enforcing the warrant to attend court and prosecution costs for education authorities.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of(a) the average cost to public funds of an exclusion order made under Part III of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill, (b) the number of orders that will be made annually and (c) the number of other community orders that will include exclusion requirements; if magistrates courts will be able to make such an order; and if he will make a statement. [115824]

  Mr. Straw
  The Bill contains provisions to enable these powers to be piloted. This will enable us to make a better judgment about the extent to which they may be used and their financial impact.

  In the meantime, the figures quoted in the Explanatory Memorandum assume that there will be about 440 free-standing exclusion orders and 755 exclusion conditions imposed annually. The estimated net impact on public resources (taking into account both costs and savings) is approximately £500 per exclusion imposed.

  As with all other community orders, magistrates courts will be able to make an exclusion order, or impose exclusion as a condition of a community order.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of prisoners who will be released on licence earlier than at present as a result of the introduction of(a) monitoring and (b) drug testing requirements for release on licence under the provisions of Part III of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill; and if he will make a statement. [115820]

  Mr. Boateng
  The measures will not change any prisoner's eligibility for release. The basis of any discretionary release decision will continue to be careful risk assessment. The use of the new licence conditions will be subject to piloting before any consideration is given to wider implementation. Evaluation of the pilots will include consideration of the impact of the new licence conditions on discretionary release decisions taken by the Parole Board and by the Prison Service, on behalf of the Secretary of State.

  We estimate that the new powers to impose drug testing as a licence condition will have no impact at all on release decisions, but will act solely as a reinforcing measure in cases where release would have been authorised or required in any case. However, the wider availability of electronic monitoring may influence release decisions in a small number of cases involving prisoners serving determinate sentences of four years or more who are eligible for parole, and where the risk assessment is finely balanced. We currently estimate that the parole rate may rise by up to 4 per cent., which would represent
  558W
  approximately 230 additional prisoners granted parole per annum. These estimates will be tested through the pilots, and guidance will be issued to the Parole Board in the light of the pilots.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy that a person breaching the provisions of(a) an exclusion order and (b) a drug abstinence order made under the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill should be taken before a court after the first breach; and if he will make a statement. [115822]

  Mr. Straw
  The Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill provides that an offender over 18 who fails unacceptably to comply with the conditions of an exclusion order or a drug abstinence order may be given a statutory warning that a second unacceptable failure to comply within 12 months would result in a return to court. There remains the option of returning an offender to court for a first unacceptable failure to comply.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy that a positive test for(a) Class A and (b) Class B drugs conducted under Clause 48 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill should be taken into account as an aggravating factor in the sentencing exercise if the suspect is subsequently convicted of the offence with which they have been charged; and if he will make a statement. [115819]

  Mr. Straw
  Clause 48 of The Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill provides for drug testing for specified Class A drugs only. The purpose is to identify and monitor drug misusers, who may need treatment; to inform bail decisions; and to assist in appropriate sentencing. The Bill does not make drug use an aggravating factor in relation to an offence.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy that any suspect charged with an offence who subsequently tests positive for(a) Class A and (b) Class B drugs under the provisions of Clause 48 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill should be prosecuted for unlawful possession of such a drug (i) in addition to prosecution for other offences with which they have been charged and (ii) in cases where the charges for other offences are subsequently dropped; and if he will make a statement. [115817]

  Mr. Straw
  The purpose of drug testing, for specified Class A drugs, as provided for in Clause 48 of the Bill, is to identify and monitor drug misusers who may need treatment and to inform bail decisions. A positive test will not, in itself, result in prosecution for unlawful possession.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the average cost to public funds of a drug abstinence order made under Part III of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill; what estimate he has made of the number of orders that will be made annually; what estimate he has made of the number of other community orders that will include drug abstinence requirements; if magistrates courts will be abe to make such an order; and if he will make a statement. [115823]

  Mr. Straw
  The average cost of a Drug Abstinence Order/ Requirement under community supervision is estimated at £1,500. The new drug testing regime will be
  559W
  piloted in the first instance. It is estimated that initial piloting in three areas would result in 3,500 offenders being made subject to the drug abstinence requirement.

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders have been released to date under the home detention curfew scheme; how many offenders convicted of each category of offence have been released; how many offenders convicted of(a) unlawful supply of a controlled drug and (b) possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply have been released on the scheme; how many have re-offended while on the scheme, and what offences have been committed; and if he will make a statement. [115816]

  Mr. Boateng
  As of 13 March 2000, 17,871 prisoners have been placed on home detention curfew since the scheme commenced on 28 January 1999. The original offences committed by these prisoners, and the number of prisoners convicted of each type of offence, are shown in the table.

  Of those prisoners released up to and including 13 March 2000, 969 were convicted of unlawful supply of a controlled drug and 1,238 were convicted of drugs possession with intent to supply.

  As of 13 March 2000, the Prison Service had received notification of 185 curfewees who had been charged with an offence committed while subject to the home detention curfew scheme. The offences with which the curfewees were charged are shown in the table.

  I refer to the replies I gave to the right hon. Lady on 7 March 2000, Official Report, columns 571–72W and on 17 March 2000, Official Report, columns 378–80W.

  Original offences committed by prisoners released on home detention curfew

  Offence type

  Number

  Manslaughter

  43

  Other homicide and attempted homicide

  150

  Wounding

  2,258

  Assaults

  441

  Cruelty to children

  21

  Other violence against the person

  235

  Indecent assault

  16

  Buggery

  1

  Unlawful sexual intercourse

  1

  Abduction

  1

  Bigamy

  10

  Burglary

  1,697

  Robbery

  717

  Taking and driving away

  216

  Other theft

  1,643

  Handling stolen goods

  563

  Fraud

  1,476

  Forgery

  77

  Drugs

  2,931

  Arson

  116

  Criminal damage

  82

  In charge or driving under the influence of drink or drugs

  617

  Other motoring offences

  1,530

  Drunkenness

  64

  Blackmail

  52

  Kidnapping

  26

  Affray

  472

  Violent disorder

  204

  Perjury/libel/pervert the course of justice

  267

  Threat/disorderly behaviour

  83

  560W

  Original offenes committed by prisoners released on home detention curfew

  Offence type

  Number

  Breach of Court Order

  187

  Other offences

  673

  Offence not recorded

  1,001

  Total

  17,871

  Offences with which home detention curfewees have been charged

  Offence type

  Number

  Burglary, theft and theft from shops1

  66

  Assault

  32

  Driving and Traffic Offences

  18

  Drug Offences

  15

  Breach of the peace2

  15

  Criminal Damage

  10

  Handling Stolen Goods/Deception

  9

  Threatening Behaviour

  7

  Possession of an offensive weapon

  3

  Breach of court injunction or Restraining Order

  3

  Rape

  2

  Harassment

  1

  Going Equipped

  1

  False Imprisonment

  1

  Arson

  1

  Indecent Exposure

  1

  Total

  185

  1 Including taking without consent/taking and driving away.

  2 Including Drunk and Disorderly.

  Note:

  Where a curfewee was charged with more than one offence, they appear in the table next to the most serious offence. The table excludes those where, following initial notification, the Prison Service was informed that the charges had been withdrawn. Between 29 February (the date for which the data in this table were last provided) and 13 March, the Prison Service was informed of six cases where the curfewee had been charged with a further offence and three cases where earlier charges had been withdrawn.

  Probation Service
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of his plans to change the name of the probation service. [115856]

  Mr. Boateng
  Creating a national unified service from the current 54 independent services involves a number of changes, of which the change of name is only one part. Others include structural changes to amalgamate some area services and to make all area services more accountable to the Home Secretary. We estimate that the costs involved in establishing a national identity may require central funding of around £800,000, although the cost of changing the name of itself is minimal.

  Orders (Name Changes)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of his plans to change the name of(a) probation orders, (b) community service orders and (c) combination orders. [115825]

  Mr. Boateng
  Any administrative costs arising from the change of names of probation orders, community service orders and combination orders will be minimal and can be absorbed within current funding.

DEFENCE

  Courts-Martial (Royal Navy)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the courts-martial held for Royal Navy ratings between 1993 and 1999 were at the election of the accused. [107867]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 1 February 2000]: This information is only available from 1994, and the details are as follows.

  Total numbers of courts martial for Royal Navy ratings

  Percentage at request of accused

  1994

  80

  18

  1995

  64

  25

  1996

  44

  14

  1997

  56

  34

  1998

  52

  37

  1999

  49

  47

  Until 1996 only Leading Rates and higher ranks were able to elect for courts martial. In 1996, the Armed Forces Act extended this right to all naval ratings, which accounts for the increase in the figures from 1997 onwards.

  Sea King
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many units of the active noise reduction system for the Sea King MK2 his Department is seeking to acquire and at what cost; what estimate he has made of the additional cost of such an upgrade to the MK7; and if he will make a statement. [113900]

  Dr. Moonie
  One hundred Analogue Active Noise Reduction (ANR) systems for the Sea King MK2 were delivered in 1999: the total cost of the programme was some £660,000 VAT inclusive. A further 30 are to be procured to support the Sea King Airborne Early Warning (AEW) MK7 flight trials programme at a unit production cost of £599. Work to develop an improved Digital ANR for the Sea King MK7 is still at an early stage but the cost of introducing such a system is estimated to be in the region of £1 million.

  Minefield Detection System
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the results were of the phase 1 testing of the remote minefield detection system; what is his estimate of the total cost of the system; and if he will make a statement. [113904]

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

  Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 22 March 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the result of the phase 1 testing of the remote minefield detection system and the estimate of the total cost of the system. This letter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  562W
  The aim of phase 1 of the remote minefield detection system Technology Demonstration Programme (TDP) was to evaluate a number of remote sensing technologies. Five emerging technologies were investigated over a ten month period for applicability to the remote minefield detection role. Following feasibility studies a formal sensor selection methodology recommended as Infrared Polarimetric Camera (IPRC) coupled with Ultra WideBand Synthetic Aperture Radar (UWB SAR) as the best complimentary combination. Other technologies were discarded as being too immature, poorly performing, or impractical for airborne operations. Phase 2, which began in November 1996, covers the detailed design and build of the sensors.
  The cost of phase 1 of the TDP was some £411k. The technology is still at a very early stage and, as a consequence, it is too early to estimate the potential cost of any resulting system.

  Shoeburyness
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to visit Warden Bay to investigate the complaints by local residents about the noise levels of explosions from the firing range at Shoeburyness. [114508]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no plans for the Secretary of State for Defence, or indeed any Defence Minister, to visit Warden Bay to investigate the complaints by local residents about the noise levels of explosions from the firing range at Shoeburyness.

  My noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement is, however, due to discuss this issue shortly with the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale).

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how much notice is given to local residents prior to the commencement of gun explosions at Shoeburyness; [114510]

  (2) when the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency last visited Warden Bay to check monitoring levels for gun explosions at Shoeburyness; [114507]

  (3) what work of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency at the firing ranges at Shoeburyness has been carried out on behalf of (a) the UK's armed forces only and (b) the armed forces of foreign countries in the last 12 months. [114509]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Sir John Chisholm to Mr. Derek Wyatt, dated 22 March 2000:
  I am replying to three of your parliamentary questions about activities at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency range at Shoeburyness.
  You ask how much notice is given to local residents prior to the commencement of gun explosions at Shoeburyness. A recorded message on a freephone telephone gives details of the firings scheduled for the following working day. The information given includes the type of activity, whether gunfire and/or explosions and the start time and the expected finish time. Additional information will be given if, for example, an activity is planned to take place outside normal working hours or it is expected to be particularly noisy. That said, the noise levels of activities undertaken at Shoeburyness are, for the most part, comfortably within the Ministry of Defence's guideline limit. We also endeavour to place notice of the out of hours and noisier activities in the local press and/or broadcast details on local radio. The timing of a press announcement will depend very much on the day of publication of the newspaper but could be up to a week in advance of the actual activity.

  563W
  The closest monitor to Warden Bay is located at Sheerness Docks. All monitors are covered by an on-call maintenance contract which provides maintenance and repair cover for any failed monitor. Staff in the range operations office check the operation of all monitors on a daily basis and also hold records of the noise levels detected.
  The majority of work carried out at Shoeburyness has been on behalf of UK's armed forces. In the course of the last 12 months, a very small amount of work has been undertaken for non-UK customers, but only with the support of the relevant MOD authorities. These activities did not generate any noise complaints.
  I hope the above explains the situation.

  Military Exercises (Kenya)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the exercises carried out by Her Majesty's armed forces in Kenya in each of the last five years. [114429]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Following exercises have been carried out, or are to take place in the immediate future, in Kenya by Her Majesty's Armed Forces in the years 1996 to 2000:a. 1996

  1. 4 January-15 February 1996—Ex GRAND PRIX 1/96.

  2. 4 January-28 March 1996—Ex OAK APPLE 96.

  3. 16 February-28 March I996—Ex GRAND PRIX 2/96.

  4. 29 March-29 April 1996—Ex MONO PRIX 96.

  5. 29 March-29 April 1996—Ex SHARP POINT 96.

  6. 29 March-29 April 1996—Ex PINE APPLE 96.

  7. 28 October-9 December 1996—Ex GRAND PRIX 3/96.

  8. 28 October-9 December 1996—Ex CRAB APPLE 96.

  b. 1997

  1. 4 January-15 February 1997—Ex GRAND PRIX 1/97.

  2. 4 January-28 March 1997—Ex OAK APPLE 97.

  3. 16 February-28 March 1997—Ex GRAND PRIX 2/97.

  4. 29 March-29 April 1997—Ex MONO PRIX 1997.

  5. 29 March-29 April 1997—Ex SHARP POINT 97.

  6. 29 March-29 April 1997—Ex PINE APPLE 97.

  7. 23 April-15 May 97—Ex HIGH SLOPE.

  8. 28 October-9 December 97—Ex GRAND PRIX 3/97.

  9. 28 October-9 December 1997—Ex CRAB APPLE 97.

  c. 1998

  1. 4 January-15 February 1998—Ex GRAND PRIX 1/98

  2. 4 January-28 March 1998—Ex OAK APPLE 98.

  3. 16 February-28 March 1998—Ex GRAND PRIX 2/98.

  4. 29 March-29 April 1998—Ex MONO PRIX 98.

  5. 29 March-29 April 1998—Ex SHARP POINT 1998.

  6. 29 March-29 April 1998—Ex PINE APPLE 98.

  7. 28 October-9 December 1998—Ex GRAND PRIX 3/98.

  8. 28 October-9 December 1998—Ex Crab APPLE 98.

  d. 1999

  1. 5 January-I6 February 1999—Ex GRAND PRIX 1/99.

  2. 5 January-31 March 1999—Ex OAK APPLE 99.

  3. 5 January-17 February 1999—Ex CYGENT GOLD.

  4. 17 February-31 March 1999—Ex GRAND PRIX 2/99.

  5. 31 March-1 May 1999—Ex MONO PRIX 99.

  6. 31 March-1 May 1999—Ex SHARP POINT 99.

  7. 31 March-1 May 1999—Ex PINE APPLE 99.

  8. 5 August-24 September 1999—Ex CAPE AVALANCHE.

  9. 21 October-31 December 1999—Ex GRAND PRIX 3/99.

  10. 21 October-3 December 1999—Ex CRAB Apple 1999.

  564W
  e. 2000

  1. 11 January 20 February 2000—Ex GRAND PRIX 1/00.

  2. 30 January-1 April 2000—Ex OAK APPLE 00.

  3. 21 February-1 April 2000—Ex GRAND PRIX 2/00.

  4. 21 February-1 April 2000—Ex DEVILS HORIZON.

  5. 2 April-3 May 2000—Ex MONO PRIX 00.

  6. 2 April-3 May 2000—Ex SHARP POINT 00.

  7. 2 April-3 May 2000—Ex PINE APPLE 00.

  Defence Diversification Council
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he expects the Defence Diversification Council to present its first Annual report; [115038]

  (2) if he will name the Chairman and members of the Defence Diversification Council. [115039]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Diversification Agency began to operate last year and is already providing a substantial service, particularly to small and medium enterprises. The Defence Diversification Council has not yet been established.

  Deterrent Capability
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the impact of, and reasons underlying, the change from minutes to days, as a measure of the United Kingdom's deterrent capability. [115539]

  Mr. Hoon
  There has been no impact on our ability to deter threats to our interests. As we made clear in the Strategic Defence Review (SDR), improvements in the strategic environment now enable us to safeguard our national security at a lower level of nuclear deterrent readiness.

  One element of the change in posture announced in the SDR was the decision to maintain our nuclear forces at a "notice to fire" measured in days, rather than minutes. This reduced state of alert allows greater use of ballistic missile submarines for secondary tasks. The flexibility of the Trident system ensures, however, that we can restore a higher state of alert should it ever become necessary to do so.

  Pensions
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what would be the cost of making payments, in line with the payments which would be made to the spouse of someone who had served all of their time in the armed forces after 6 April 1978, to spouses of deceased ex-service personnel(a) who married after their spouse retired from the armed forces, (b) whose spouses served in the armed forces before 6 April 1978 and (c) to both groups. [115355]

  Mr. Spellar
  The MOD could not identify from its records the number of servicemen who retired before 1978 and subsequently married or remarried. As such marriages did not create pension entitlements, records of them were not kept. It would theoretically be possible to identify from pensions records the surviving widows of servicemen who retired after 1978 and subsequently married or remarried, and to calculate the pension entitlement which would be generated if service before 1 April 1978 qualified for a
  565W
  widow's pension; however, this would require a manual search of 76,000 widow's pensions files and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review the position of spouses of deceased ex-servicemen who are not entitled to the forces family pension as part of his review of forces' pensions. [115354]

  Mr. Spellar
  The question of spouses' pensions is being addressed as part of the Review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) in which all aspects of the AFPS are being examined. The Review is scheduled to report during the summer and it would be premature to speculate about its outcome.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many spouses of deceased ex-service personnel are not eligible for a forces family pension; and for what reasons; [115352]

  (2) what is the notional total value of pensions to which spouses of deceased ex-service personnel are not entitled. [115339]

  Mr. Spellar
  No records are kept of the numbers of spouses of deceased service personnel who are not eligible for a Forces Family pension. When a serviceman dies, unless survivor benefits are payable, the pension record is closed and the personal file is archived. It follows that it is also impossible to calculate the notional total value of pensions which might be paid to the spouses of deceased ex-service personnel who at present do not receive them.

  Surviving spouses of service personnel are currently entitled to receive a widow/widowers' pension unless:
  Their partner was engaged on non pensionable terms of service.
  They have remarried or co-habit (except that widows over 60 and widowers over 65 continue to receive the Guaranteed Minimum Pension contracted out of SERPS).
  They are a widow of a post retirement marriage whose partner retired from the armed forces before 6 April 1978.
  They are widowers whose partner retired from the Service before 1 October 1987.
  Their partner has opted out of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme in favour of a personal pension plan, and their death was not attributable to service.

  Where a spouse's pension is received, it is calculated at one half the rate of the spouse's pension for service after 1 April 1973; and at one third the rate of the spouse's pension for service before that date.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many spouses of deceased ex-service personnel are entitled to only a part of the forces family pension; and for what reasons. [115353]

  Mr. Spellar
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost as each of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme's 76,000 widow's files would have to be searched manually.

  A widow or widower might receive only a part of a Forces Family Pension for any of the following reasons:

  If she is the widow of a deceased officer or other rank who married after retirement but on or after 6 April 1978. Such an individual would be entitled only to half that part of the spouse's pension which relates to service from that date.
  566W
  If he is the widower of a deceased officer or other rank who married on or after 1 October 1987. Such an individual would be entitled only to half that part of the spouse's pension which relates to service from that date.

  Where a widow, on or after reaching age 60, or a widower, on or after reaching age 65 remarries or cohabits. In those circumstances only the Guaranteed Minimum Pension contracted out of SERPS remains in payment.

  In some circumstances, the Forces Family Pension may be abated by the amount commuted under life commutation terms.

  Where a widow or widower is separated from their partner at the time of the Serviceman's death, the award of the Forces Family Pension is at the discretion of the Defence Council.

  Imphal Barracks
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the Medical Group HQ can be accommodated at Imphal Barracks; at what cost; and if he will make a statement; [115536]

  (2) when a new Medical Group HQ will be set up at Imphal Barracks, Yorkshire. [115535]

  Mr. Spellar
  The HQ Medical Group will consist of three discrete elements; a deployable 1* Headquarters, HQ Army Medical Services (AMS) TA currently based at Imphal Barracks, York, and the Field Training Centre currently based at Strensall. All the elements of HQ Medical Group will ultimately be co-located in Strensall. This co-location will concentrate the command and control and training that is required to deliver hospital support on operations. To achieve this, a re-build at Strensall costing some £1.9 million is required, and it is estimated that this will take 18 months to complete (including the procurement process). The HQ Medical Group will therefore not be able to form up in Strensall until late 2001 at the earliest. In the meantime, the new HQ element will form up in Imphal Barracks at a cost currently estimated at some £0.2 million.

  Absence without Leave
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if a standard procedure is followed when a person goes absent without leave from the armed forces. [115572]

  Mr. Spellar
  Each of the Services follows a set procedure when a person goes absent without leave, although there are slight differences of detail between the Services. After initial investigations by commanding officers to establish cases of absence, in all three Services it is standard procedure to inform the absentee's local police force, the Central Criminal Records and Information Office, and the Services' own internal provost, administrative and manning staffs of the absence. The three Services' procedures differ slightly regarding the time allowed to elapse before formal reporting proceedings commence. In the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force a period of seven days is allowed to elapse before formal reporting proceedings commence, whereas in the case of an Army absentee, formal reporting action is carried out immediately.

  Live Firing Exercises
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many live firing exercises have been undertaken by the Royal Navy in each of the last five years stating in each case(a) the name of the exercise and (b) the number and cost of rounds expended by (i) the Goalkeeper gun system, (ii) the Phalanx gun system and (iii) the 114mm gun system; and if he will make a statement. [114547]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to Defence, Security and International Relations.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  John Howes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on the meeting between Mr. John Howes of the Treasury Solicitor's Department and members of the JDS Tribunal on 2 December 1999. [115412]

  The Solicitor-General
  Mr. John Howes is a member of the Treasury Solicitor's staff. Between 1994 and 1998 he had conduct, on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry (Companies Investigation Branch), of disqualification proceedings against the former Directors of Astra Holdings plc. These were pursuant to section 8 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. Those proceedings were finally discontinued on the instructions of the DTI in 1998. Mr. Howes was not involved in any consequential proceedings before the Accountants Joint Disciplinary Scheme ("JDS") Tribunal. Moreover he did not attend a meeting with the members of the JDS Tribunal on 2 December 1999 or at any other time.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  UNGASS Meeting
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development who will be attending the June UNGASS meeting on the implementation of the World Summit for Social Development. [115147]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The composition of the UK delegation is being actively considered. The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities plans to attend for part of the discussions.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many New Deal participants have found sustained unsubsidised jobs of 13 weeks or more before having had a New Deal interview. [102104]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 9 December 2000]: By the end of December 1999, 12,520 young people had left the Gateway for sustained unsubsidised jobs having been sent a letter telling them they are now on the New Deal.
  568W
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many participants in the New Deal have been offered permanent employment to date. [101833]

  Ms Jowell
  Statistics are not collected using a category of "permanent" as this is not a term that adequately describes the realities of the modern labour market. However, we do know that by the end of December 1999, 185,250 young people under the New Deal for young people found jobs. Of these, 135,350 were sustained jobs lasting 13 weeks or more. In addition, 34,170 people under the New Deal for long-term unemployed people aged 25 and over found jobs (28,550 were sustained). A recent survey showed also that 57 per cent. of young people leaving the New Deal Gateway for unknown destinations had found a job.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what projects have been completed by the New Deal Environmental Task Force in the North-Essex Employment Service area since its inception. [115271]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 20 March 2000]: In the North-Essex New Deal Unit of Delivery, the following 10 projects have been completed by the Environment Task Force:

  Dyke clearance, pathway construction at Jaywick

  Wide area clearance at Dovercourt

  Planting, pathway construction, footbridge at Parkeston

  Laying bark paths, constructing footbridge at Frinton

  Refurbishment of lightship museum at Harwich

  Alteration and decoration of Church Hall at Harwich

  Construction of memorial gardens and play equipment at Brightlingsea

  Decorating local Arts Trust Theatre at Dovercourt

  Constructing of storage, recreational and play area for local school at Clacton

  Construction of pathways and picnic benches at Parkeston.

  There are four current projects under way as follows:

  Path laying, tree cutting, hedge clearing at Chelmsford

  Path laying, tree cutting, hedge clearing at Braintree/Colchester (two projects).

  All these projects are contributing both to increased employability for young people and to the Government's wider environmental objectives.

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have had their benefits stopped for failing effectively to pursue a New Deal option, at each benefit office in Copeland; and if he will make a statement. [115069]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 20 March 2000]: Between 1 April 1999 and 31 December 1999 (the latest date for which data are available) 1,200 young people started on New Deal and at any time there were just over 1,440 young people participating in the New Deal in the Employment Service's Cumbria Unit of Delivery. During this nine-month period, 219 sanctions were imposed for failing to attend a New Deal option in Cumbria. This figure cannot be disaggregated to constituency level. The Cumbria Unit of Delivery includes the jobcentres in Carlisle, Cleator Moor, Cockermouth, Keswick,

  569W
  Maryport, Penrith, Whitehaven, Workington, Barrow in Furness, Kendal, Lancaster, Millom, Morecombe, Ulverston and Windermere.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have taken part in the New Deal Environmental Task Force in North-Essex Employment Service area(a) in the first year and (b) in the current year to date. [115269]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 20 March 2000]: In the North-Essex New Deal Unit of Delivery, 57 young people started on the Environment Task Force in 1998; the figure for 1999 was 78. These figures have contributed towards the national total of 25,400 young people who have benefited from the work experience opportunities that the Environmental Task Force provides.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what was the financial surplus or deficit for the New Deal Environmental Task Force in North-Essex Employment Service area(a) in the first year and (b) in the current year to date; [115270]

  (2) what the cost was of the New Deal Environmental Task Force in the North-Essex employment service area (a) in the previous year and (b) in the current year to date. [115424]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 20 March 2000]: North-Essex is a private sector-led Unit of Delivery in which the New Deal for young people is led by SEETEC. Funding is on the basis of a unit cost for each participant and a monthly fee. This information, in line with all payments to contractors, is commercially confidential and cannot be released.

  Departmental Documents
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many(a) consultation documents, (b) regulations, (c) revised or corrected regulations, (d) guidance notes, (e) requests for statistical information in addition to form 618G and (f) letters from Ministers, have been sent to local education authorities by his Department since May 1997; [111671]

  (2) how many (a) consultation documents, (b) regulations, (c) revised or corrected regulations, (d) guidance notes, (e) requests for statistical information in addition to form 7 and (f) letters from Ministers have been sent to schools by his Department since May 1997. [111672]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: Since May 1997 this Department has sent local education authorities the following:

  Topic

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Consultation Papers

  Employment

  7

  12

  10

  0

  Early Years

  1

  6

  3

  0

  Further and Higher Education

  17

  16

  20

  5

  Literacy and Numeracy

  1

  1

  3

  0

  Primary Schools

  2

  3

  3

  0

  Secondary Schools

  6

  6

  5

  0

  School Curriculum

  5

  1

  5

  1

  School Discipline

  4

  6

  3

  0

  School Finance

  9

  14

  17

  5

  School Governance

  2

  5

  4

  0

  School Health and Safety

  1

  3

  2

  0

  570W

  Topic

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  School-Miscellaneous

  4

  10

  8

  School Organisation

  1

  3

  5

  0

  School Premises

  0

  1

  7

  0

  School Standards

  6

  3

  4

  0

  Special Education

  5

  1

  5

  1

  Teaching Profession

  9

  11

  7

  9

  Regulations

  35

  132

  191

  29

  Guidance

  Employment

  0

  2

  5

  0

  Early Years

  1

  4

  11

  1

  Further and Higher Education

  13

  12

  22

  10

  Literacy and Numeracy

  0

  4

  19

  3

  Primary Schools

  2

  8

  11

  5

  Secondary Schools

  9

  9

  17

  1

  School Curriculum

  0

  2

  3

  1

  School Discipline

  0

  2

  4

  1

  School Finance

  5

  15

  33

  8

  School Governance

  1

  4

  11

  3

  School Health and Safety

  0

  2

  6

  2

  School-Miscellaneous

  3

  3

  9

  3

  School Organisation

  0

  7

  12

  1

  School Premises

  5

  4

  8

  6

  School Standards

  3

  9

  26

  4

  Special Education

  6

  3

  7

  1

  Teaching Profession

  7

  17

  11

  10

  Data Collection

  Employment

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Early Years

  0

  2

  1

  3

  Further and Higher Education

  4

  4

  28

  6

  Literacy and Numeracy

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Primary Schools

  1

  1

  2

  1

  Secondary Schools

  2

  4

  1

  0

  School Curriculum

  0

  0

  0

  7

  School Discipline

  0

  0

  1

  5

  School Finance

  1

  0

  3

  3

  School-General

  4

  8

  15

  11

  School Premises

  0

  0

  0

  1

  School Standards

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Special Education

  2

  2

  3

  1

  Teaching Profession

  1

  4

  5

  2

  Letters from Ministers

  1

  2

  4

  2

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many persons were recruited into initial teacher training in 1999–2000 for secondary school teaching in(a) mathematics, (b) science, (c) languages and (d) technology; and what were the targets for that year for recruitment in those subjects. [112984]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Figures for recruitment into initial teacher training in 1999–2000 for secondary school teaching in mathematics, science, modern foreign languages and technology in England and corresponding targets are given in the table.

  Recruitment

  Target

  Mathematics

  1,307

  1,680

  Science

  2,362

  2,390

  Modern Foreign Languages

  1,469

  2,200

  Technology

  1,702

  2,860

  Notes:

  1. Figures represent head-counts; that is the total of full-time and part-time recruitment.

  2. Technology includes Design and Technology, Engineering, Computer Studies, Business Studies, Commerce, Home Economics and Needlecraft.
  571W
  3. Targets for 1999–2000 exclude 300 for Mathematics and 300 for Science under the MS600 Scheme.

  4. Recruitment data are provisional mid-year data.

  Coverage:

  Universities and other HE institutions, SCITT and OU.

  Sources:

  Intake: TTA Survey of ITT Providers

  Targets: DfEE

  As a result of the introduction of "Golden Hellos", recruitment to secondary teacher training in mathematics was 17 per cent. higher than the previous year. For science the figure was 4 per cent. and recruitment was very close to target. In both these subjects, the previous trend was a decline in recruitment. "Golden Hellos" will also apply to secondary teacher training in modern foreign languages from September 2000. In the longer term, the reforms announced in the Teachers Green Paper will improve

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Final year trainess

  Not gaining QTS

  Percentage not gaining QTS

  Final year trainess

  Not gaining QTS

  Percentage not gaining QTS

  Mathematics

  1,672

  343

  21

  1,371

  283

  21

  English and Drama

  2,042

  267

  13

  2,089

  271

  13

  Science

  2,791

  495

  18

  2,488

  451

  18

  Modern Foreign Languages

  1,792

  270

  15

  1,730

  258

  15

  Technology

  1,959

  326

  17

  1,805

  308

  17

  History

  973

  113

  12

  987

  118

  12

  Geography

  842

  67

  8

  833

  70

  8

  Physical Education

  1,467

  99

  7

  1,440

  95

  7

  Art

  908

  85

  9

  889

  88

  10

  Music

  532

  80

  15

  489

  74

  15

  Religious Education

  603

  86

  14

  605

  90

  15

  Other

  333

  42

  13

  281

  27

  10

  Total

  15,914

  2,273

  13

  15,007

  2,133

  13

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for undergraduate and postgraduate Initial Teacher Training combined.

  2. Technical includes Design and Technology, Engineering, Computer Studies, Business Studies, Commerce, Home Economics and Needlecraft.

  3. Other includes Classics, Economics, Other social sciences and Other subjects.

  4. The numbers of final year trainees not gaining QTS relate to providers final examination boards at the end of the academic year. Trainees awarded QTS at a later date—for example because they had to undertake a further period of teaching in school because of illness—were not recorded.

  Source:

  Teacher Training Agency—Performance Profiles.

  Figures available are for initial teacher trainees for secondary school teaching in each subject who trained 10 years ago and did not enter the teaching profession. These are given in the table:

  Percentage of secondary trained teachers 1 qualified in 1988 who had not entered teaching 2 by 31 March 1998 by subject specialism 3—England

  Subject

  Percentage not entering teaching

  Mathematics

  12

  English4

  8

  Science

  11

  Modern Foreign Languages

  7

  Technology5

  10

  History

  8

  Geography

  8

  Art

  13

  Music

  6

  Religious Education

  12

  Physical Education

  12

  Other

  14

  All secondary

  10

  572W
  the pay, training leadership and support for teachers and encourage more of the best graduates to join the profession.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many persons recruited in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available into initial teacher training courses for secondary school teaching in each subject(a) left their course, (b) failed their examinations and (c) failed to enter the teaching profession. [112983]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Figures for persons recruited into initial teacher training courses for secondary school teaching in each subject who left their course are not collected centrally. The table gives the available figures for final year trainees not gaining Qualified Teacher Status in England.

  1 Those whose training specialised in teaching pupils of secondary age.

  2 Those who are not recorded as entering any sector of teaching. Some teachers will be counted as not entering service because their service is not recorded. These may include teachers in the 'old' university sector, in the independent schools sector who are not members of the teachers pension scheme (TPS), in part-time service outside the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special sector who are not members of the TPS.

  3 First subject specialism.

  4 English includes Drama.

  5 Technology includes Design and Technology, Engineering, Computer Studies, Business Studies, Commerce, Home Economics and Needlecraft.

  Source:

  DfEE Database of Teacher Records.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the numbers recruited into initial teacher training courses for teaching
  573W
  in secondary schools for (a) mathematics, (b) science, (c) languages and (d) technology in each of the last 10 years. [112981]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Figures for recruitment into initial teacher training for teaching in secondary schools for mathematics, science, modern foreign languages and technology in England over the last 10 years are given in the table.

  Recruitment to initial teacher training in England over the last 10 years

  Mathematics

  Science

  Modern Foreign Languages

  Technology 1

  1990–91

  1,055

  1,549

  1,042

  1,291

  1991–92

  1,541

  2,111

  1,277

  1,937

  1992–93

  1,699

  2,148

  1,384

  2,216

  1993–94

  1,790

  2,397

  1,550

  2,160

  1994–95

  1,950

  2,918

  1,789

  2,131

  1995–96

  1,795

  2,794

  1,790

  1,854

  1996–97

  1,653

  2,937

  1,720

  1,963

  1997–98

  1,464

  2,789

  1,799

  1,982

  1998–99

  1,120

  2,279

  1,657

  1,682

  1999–2000

  1,307

  2,362

  1,469

  1,702

  1 Technology includes Design and Technology, Commerce, Home Economics and Needlecraft Engineering, Computer Studies, Business Studies, Commerce, Home Economics and Needlecraft.

  Notes:

  1. All figures before 1992–93 represent full-time equivalents. From 1992–93 onwards figures represent head-counts; that is the total of full-time and part-time recruitment.

  2. Recruitment data are provisional mid year data.

  Coverage:

  Universities and other HE institutions, SCITT and OU.

  Sources:

  England: DFE Recruitment Survey, 1990–91 to 1993–94; HESES 1994–95; TTA Survey of ITT Providers 1995–96 onwards.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many applications for entry into initial teacher training courses starting in autumn 2000 for the secondary school subjects of(a) mathematics, (b) science, (c) languages and (d) technology have been made in the current academic year to date; and how many were made in 1999–2000. [112985]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Applications for initial teacher training courses can be made at postgraduate and undergraduate level. Applications in England and Wales to undergraduate courses at 4 February and postgraduate courses at 19 February for courses starting in 2000–01 together with equivalent figures and end of year figures for the previous year are given in the tables.

  Undergraduate applications

  As at 4 February 2000–01

  As at 5 February 1999–2000

  End of year for 1999–2000

  Mathematics

  175

  247

  361

  Science

  225

  271

  342

  Modern Foreign Languages

  35

  29

  54

  Technology

  684

  726

  1,063

  Source:

  Universities and Colleges Admissions Service
  574W

  PGCE applications

  As at 19 February 2000–01

  As at 20 February 1999–2000

  End of year for 1999–2000

  Mathematics

  407

  529

  1,690

  Science

  938

  1,125

  3,450

  Modern Foreign Languages

  806

  904

  2,307

  Technology

  318

  441

  1,619

  Notes:

  1. Figures for undergraduate and postgraduate cannot be combined as applicants can make up to six applications through UCAS, but only one application through GTTR.

  2. Postgraduate end of year figures exclude applications made direct to the ITT provider.

  3. Undergraduate end of year figures exclude applications made at the clearing stage.

  4. Technology includes Design and Technology, Engineering, Computer Studies, Business Studies, Commerce, Home Economics and Needlecraft.

  Source:

  Graduate Teacher Training Registry

  These figures show that at the equivalent time last year, only about a third of final applications had been recorded for postgraduate subjects in Mathematics, Science and Technology and under half for courses in Modem Foreign Languages. Over the last five years there has been a trend for secondary initial teacher training postgraduate applications to be made later in the year.

  Fresh Start
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of recent developments in fresh start schools; and if he will make a statement. [115289]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The fresh start policy has been used to tackle schools with a long history of failure. These schools all present major challenges, and we are learning from the experiences of the first schools to identify and share the most successful strategies. The first three schools which opened in September 1998 have demonstrated improvements in examination success and reductions in truancy. We want all fresh schools to be equally successful and to change the life chances of their pupils. The alternative of continuing failure is unacceptable.

  Education Services (Islington)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the powers and functions of Islington Local Education Authority following the award of the contract for the provision of education services to Cambridge Education Associates. [115628]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 21 March 2000]: I am placing a copy of the enabling direction from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and a summary table in the Library. These detail the distribution of statutory functions across Islington LEA and the contractor, CEA, from 1 April 2000.

  Schools (Lancaster and Wyre)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the schools in Lancaster and Wyre which have had major capital improvements since 1 May 1997. [115636]
  575W
  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 21 March 2000]: Schools in Lancaster and Wyre that have had major capital improvements since 1 May 1997 are:

  Baines School

  Central Lancaster County High

  Hodgson High Technology College

  Lancaster Ripley St. Thomas Church of England Secondary

  Lancaster Royal Grammar

  Lancaster Girls Grammar

  Millfield High

  Over Wyre St. Aiden's Church of England High

  Brookfield School.

  Special Needs
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 27 January 2000,Official Report, column 310W, on special needs, what progress he has made with the setting up of an emotional and behavioural difficulties advisory group; and if he will publish the names and relevant expertise of its members. [115801]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Advisory Group on Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties (EBD) met for the first time on 28 February. It will meet regularly over the next few months and work with officials dealing with EBD and Child Mental Health Issues. The members of the Advisory Group are as follows:

  Bernard Allen, Headteacher, Southfield School, Wokingham

  Marion Bennathan, Chair, Association of Workers for Children with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties

  Kathie Bull, HMI, EBD Specialist, Ofsted

  Gerry Gamble, Chair of National Association of EBD Special Schools, head of Notton House School

  Dr. Bob Jezzard, Department of Health adviser and child psychologist

  Eleni Ionnides, Head of Children's Services, Swindon Council

  Chris Marshall (Ofsted), Senior HMI responsible for SEN

  David Moore, HMI responsible for pupil behaviour issues

  Richard Rollinson, Principal Mulberry Bush School, Whitney

  Allan Sigston, Assistant Principal Education Psychologist, Essex

  Stephen Twigg, Behaviour Support Team, Langdon School, Newham

  Trevor Williams, LEA Adviser (EBD), Lancashire LEA

  Peter Wilson, Director Young Minds.

  DfEE officials working in the Special Educational Needs Division (EBD Team) provide the chair and secretariat for the group.

WALES

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary and the Health Secretary on treatment for heart disease in Wales. [114273]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend and I are in constant discussion with the First Secretary and the Assembly Health Secretary on various health issues affecting Wales. The Budget yesterday gave the Assembly the money 576W
  needed to take the NHS in Wales to the top of the European league—an annual average real terms increase of 5.6 per cent. over the next four years.

  Economic Policy
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the impact of Government economic policy in Wales. [114274]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence).

  Rural Affairs
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary on the co-ordination of policies on rural affairs. [114275]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary on a regular weekly basis and we discuss a range of issues including the co-ordination of policies on rural affairs.

  Mountain Rescue Teams
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will meet the Secretary of State for Defence to discuss MOD involvement in the provision of mountain rescue teams in Snowdonia, the Brecon Beacons and other Welsh mountain ranges. [114276]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence regularly when we discuss a range of issues.

  RAF St. Athan and Stafford provide a rescue service for Wales. Each team consists of about 30 volunteers and five full-time members and trains regularly with its civilian counterparts for the best possible co-operation and effectiveness.

  Local Government
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the provisions contained in the Local Government Bill [Lords]. [114277]

  Mr. Hanson
  Both my right hon. Friend and I have received a number of representations about the Local Government Bill, including correspondence from interested and personal representations from representatives of the Welsh Local Government Association and of local authorities in Wales.

  Dairy Industry
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary on proposals for the Welsh dairy industry. [114278]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary on a regular weekly basis and we discuss a wide range of issues including the Welsh dairy industry. I met a delegation from the National Union of Farmers on 15 March.

  Child Abuse Inquiry
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the north Wales child abuse inquiry. [114279]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones).

  National Assembly Executive
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will amend the Wales Act 1998 with respect to the appointment of members of the National Assembly Executive. [114280]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  No.

  Farming
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of the farming industry in Wales to discuss farming in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [114281]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I last met representatives from the farming industry in Wales on 15 March when I received a delegation from the National Union of Farmers.

  Drug Abuse
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of the Government's anti-drug abuse strategy on young people in Wales. [114282]

  Mr. Hanson
  I have met the First Secretary and the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator to discuss the implications of the Government's anti-drug abuse strategy for Wales. The Assembly will be issuing a refocused strategy for Wales which will continue to place an emphasis on prevention with children and young people under 25, but will recognise the need for work with individuals of all ages.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the UK Drugs Co-ordinator to discuss the prevalence of soft drugs in Wales. [114269]

  Mr. Hanson
  I met the UK Drugs Co-ordinator and the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales on Wednesday 20 October 1999 when we discussed issues relating to substance misuse in Wales.

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales concerning the Welsh Affairs Committee report on European Structural Funds, Session 1999–2000 (HC 46). [114283]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary regularly and we discuss a range of issues. In addition, our officials have been working together to respond to those recommendations which require a joint response and the UK Government will be submitting its response shortly.

  Rural Post Offices (Montgomeryshire)
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit rural post offices in Montgomeryshire. [114284]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are both very aware of the important role played by rural post offices in maintaining the social fabric of their areas and have discussed this issue with colleagues in Central Government and in the National Assembly for Wales. I would be happy to meet with representatives of Montgomeryshire either in London or in Montgomeryshire.

  National Assembly Buildings
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what requests he has received for the provision of extra funds from the UK central Government in relation to the existence of future National Assembly buildings; and if he will make a statement. [114285]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have received no such requests. Future National Assembly buildings will be funded from the provision within the Welsh Block.

  University Students
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last discussed with the First Secretary the number of students at Welsh universities who have failed to complete their course of study. [114286]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I regularly meet the First Secretary and discuss a variety of issues, including further education.

  Local Councillors (Remuneration)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will introduce measures to increase the powers of the Welsh Assembly to set a ceiling for remuneration for local councillors in Wales. [114287]

  Mr. Hanson
  The National Assembly for Wales already has a power under section 18 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to make regulations relating to councillors' allowances.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Athletics
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what was the expenditure by his Department on the sport of athletics in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99; and what are the planned levels of expenditure in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01, and (iii) 2001–02. [113819]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: Public funding of sport is channelled through the Sports Councils. Lottery Sports Funding, under the World Class

  579W
  Performance Programme, and exchequer expenditure on athletics by Sport England and UK Sport is as follows:

  £000

  1997–98

  3,930

  1998–99

  7,060

  1999–2000

  6,597

  Note:

  Sport England's figures for Lottery funding are for 11 months. End year figure may therefore be higher.

  In addition, since the start of the National lottery Sport England has approved awards totalling £38,113,748 in respect of community athletics facilities.

  Neither Sport England nor UK Sport is able at this stage to say what will be its total planned expenditure on athletics for 2000–01 and 2001–02.

  Millennium Commission Loan
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the proposed further £28 million loan has been allocated by the Millennium Commission to the New Millennium Experience Company. [114686]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I shall write to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Percentage

  Service

  Period

  Target Percentage

  Hours per week1

  Proportion2

  End-year3

  BBC Choice

  Year to October 1999

  5

  67

  31.5

  37.6

  November 1999 to end February 2000

  10

  121

  22.6

  —

  BBC News 24

  Year to October 1999

  5

  5.6

  3.3

  9.7

  November 1999 to end February 2000

  10

  18

  10.7

  —

  BBC Knowledge

  June 1999 to end February 2000

  5

  4

  8.9

  —

  1 Number of hours per week of subtitling on each channel—average for the period

  2 Percentage of total output subtitled—average for the period

  3 Percentage of total output subtitled by end year—average for last four weeks of full year

  Lottery Receipts
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the value of Lottery receipts that have not been allocated to good causes; and what plans he has to disperse them. [115486]

  Kate Hoey
  All National Lottery income available for good causes has been allocated to distributing bodies.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the representatives of Wembley National Stadium Ltd. who were present at the meeting with his Department's Ministers on 29 June 1999 described in his Department's memorandum to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee (HC 164, Session 1999–2000, p. 90); and if he will make a statement. [115229]

  Kate Hoey
  No representatives of Wembley National Stadium Ltd. (WNSL) were present at the meeting on 29 June 1999 as described. This was a genuine drafting error in the memorandum and in no way intended to

  Subtitling
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if his Department will publish figures for the percentage of programmes subtitled on each of the digital terrestrial television channels since their launch in November 1998; [115258]

  (2) if all channels are meeting their requirements for subtitling on digital terrestrial television; and what exceptions have been made to the requirements; [115257]

  (3) in what ways his Department is monitoring the levels of subtitling on digital terrestrial television. [115256]

  Janet Anderson
  The Independent Television Commission (ITC) are responsible for monitoring the levels of subtitling on commercial digital terrestrial programme services. The Commission has made no exceptions to the requirements to provide subtitling. The BBC has a subtitling unit which monitors the output of subtitling on BBC digital services.

  I understand from the ITC that they are currently evaluating data received from commercial digital terrestrial programme service licensees for the period 15 January to 31 December 1999.

  The BBC have provided the following figures on the percentage of programmes subtitled of BBC digital terrestrial channels:

  mislead the Committee. WNSL and the English Sports Council submitted papers to my Department on 17 June 1999 and 23 June 1999 respectively, reviewing the options to increase capacity at Wembley to 80,000 for athletics events. My officials met representatives of WNSL and Sport England to discuss these in detail on June 28 1999 and the then Minister for Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, (Mr. Banks) then met representatives from the ESC on 29 June 1999 to discuss the capacity issues. It was agreed at that meeting that increasing the capacity in football mode from the start of the project was not viable, but that the design should preserve the option to be upgraded later in line with Olympic requirements. This view was subsequently communicated to WNSL by officials from my Department.

  Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals he is evaluating for keeping the Millennium Dome Exhibition open after 31 December. [115261]
  581W
  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 17 March 2000]: There are no proposals at present to continue the Millennium Experience beyond 31 December 2000.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many legally-held(a) handguns of over .22 calibre and (b) rifles of over .22 calibre have been stolen from private individuals, excluding police and prison officers, in Northern Ireland, and how many such weapons were stolen from members of (i) the armed forces, (ii) the police and police reserves and (iii) prison officers, in each of the last 10 years. [106064]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following table shows the number of illegally held handguns stolen from private individuals, the Armed Forces, the Police and Prison Officers in each of the last 10 years.

  Year

  Private individuals

  Armed forces

  Police officers

  Prison officers

  1990

  0

  6

  15

  4

  1991

  8

  5

  12

  2

  1992

  3

  5

  3

  1

  1993

  7

  1

  5

  0

  1994

  12

  6

  14

  0

  1995

  7

  2

  6

  0

  1996

  7

  4

  6

  1

  1997

  11

  1

  2

  0

  1998

  16

  2

  6

  0

  1999

  7

  1

  1

  1

  Totals

  78

  33

  70

  9

  During this period one rifle was stolen from a police officer.

  The Chief Constable has advised that the information in relation to the calibres of these firearms is not easily accessible and obtaining it would incur disproportionate cost.

  Prisoner Releases
  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the perceived paramilitary affiliation of those prisoners awaiting release under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 whose applications have been successful. [112963]

  Mr. Ingram
  To date, a total of 109 prisoners whose applications for early release have been successful are awaiting early release under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. Information is held in relation to the perceived paramilitary affiliation of prisoners, where applicable, for management purposes. It should be noted, however, that with the exception of HMP Maze where links are more clearly defined, this information is based on a combination of factors including the offence, sympathies and associates. The table provides the breakdown by perceived affiliation and is taken from statistics which are current at 21 March 2000.582W

  Perceived affiliation of prisoners whose applications for early release have been successful and who are awaiting early release under the NI (Sentences) Act 1998

  Total1

  UDA

  13

  No trace

  1

  UFF

  5

  PIRA

  51

  UVF

  14

  Loyalist

  1

  RHC

  1

  LVF

  9

  INLA

  14

  Grand total

  109

  1 As at 21 March 2000

  Mrs. Rosemary Nelson
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what factors account for the delay between the Committee on the Administration of Justice informing him of the threats made to Mrs. Rosemary Nelson and the police seeking originals of those threats; and if he will make a statement. [113473]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 10 March 2000]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 10 February 2000, Official Report, column 239W.

  Correspondence
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will respond to the correspondence received from Mrs. Laura Hamill; and if he will place a copy of that correspondence in the Library. [114646]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Northern Ireland Office has no record of any correspondence sent to me by Mrs. Laura Hamill. I received one letter written on behalf of Mrs. Hamill from Mr. Mark Thompson, Co-ordinator of the Relatives for Justice, on 22 February 2000. I will place a copy of my reply to Mr. Thompson in the Library.

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the members of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee responsible for making appointments of justices of the peace in the County Armagh area. [115407]

  Mr. Lock
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Lord Chancellor's directions for Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace in Northern Ireland states that while membership may be confidential it is open to each Advisory Committee to determine whether or not it wishes to disclose its membership to current justices or to bona fide enquirers. The Chairman and the Advisory Committees for the Divisions of Craigavon, Armagh and South Down, which cover the Armagh area, have elected that the membership of these Committees remain confidential.

  Portadown (Civil Disturbance)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what support was offered by British
  583W
  Army and Royal Irish Regiment units to the Royal Ulster Constabulary to assist in respect of the civil disturbance in Portadown town centre on 27 April 1997. [115279]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 21 March 2000]: There was no military involvement.

  Sexual Assaults
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the most recent year for which records are available, how many cases of sexual assault were reported to the Royal Ulster Constabulary; in how many of these cases the identity of the alleged perpetrator was known to the police; how many cases were referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions; how many prosecutions were brought; and how many convictions were secured. [115278]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 21 March 2000]: A total of 1,605 sexual offences1 were recorded by the Royal Ulster Constabulary for the year 1998–99. Of these, 1,221 offences were cleared, representing an overall clearance rate of 76.1 per cent.

  During the same period, 104 persons2 were proceeded against in the Crown courts. Eighty-one were found guilty and 23 not guilty. Comparable figures for the magistrates courts are not yet available.
  1 Relates to all Class 2 offences as recorded under revised Home Office counting rules introduced from 1 April 1998.
  2 Relates to primary offences only, all of which were referred to the DPP. It is not possible to determine the number of persons proceeded against in the Crown courts with a sexual offence being a secondary offence.

  Pre-school Education (Kircubbin)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what applications there are for the provision of pre-school education at Kircubbin, County Down; what funding is available for pre-school education; and if such funding would be available if pre-school provision in Kircubbin were under the control of the(a) South-Eastern Education and Libraries Board and (b) Council for Catholic Maintained Schools [115397]

  Mr. George Howarth
  An application for the provision of a free-standing community nursery school in Kircubbin has been offered capital funding of £225,000 under the EU Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation by the Department of Education.

  Following discussions with representatives of the South-Eastern Education and Library Board and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, the community group promoting the nursery school in Kircubbin decided that it should be managed as a Catholic maintained nursery school but with a cross-community Board of Governors. The funding would equally have been available had the community group chosen to follow the management model for a controlled school.

  As the deadline for expenditure of these EU funds is 31 December 2000, the funding could not be transferred to an alternative project in the Kircubbin area at this stage.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  GM Crops
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the risks attached to the exchange between plant and animal viruses in relation to GM crops; and if he will make a statement. [115034]

  Ms Quin
  We are not aware of any representations on this issue.

  In 1994 this Department commissioned a report to assess the risks to the agricultural environment associated with the development of virus-tolerant GM plants. This report identified the creation of new viruses as an area which should be investigated and we have funded a number of research projects in this area, at a total cost of £755,000. These projects have not found any evidence of the creation of novel viruses. Details of all completed projects are available from the MAFF library.

  OTMS
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the(a) total number of carcases and (b) total amount of revenue claimed from the European Union in compensation for cattle disposed of under the over-thirty-months scheme for each month since the scheme began. [114825]

  Ms Quin
  Full entitlement of EU reimbursement in respect of eligible over-thirty-months scheme (OTMS) animals is payable when the carcase is incinerated. In respect of animals which are rendered, reimbursement of full entitlement is payable once the equivalent amount of meat and bone-meal and tallow have been incinerated, although an 80 per cent. advance of the entitlement can be claimed once the animals have been rendered.

  Reimbursement by month, and the number of carcases to which reimbursement relates, is shown in the table.

  Month of claim

  Number of animals rendered/incinerated

  Amount of claim (£)

  July 1996

  5,581

  1,873,670.99

  August 1996

  5,165

  1,695,156.40

  September 1996

  5,916

  1,933,664.20

  October 1996

  7,616

  2,489,349.19

  November 1996

  435,391

  115,431,499.80

  December 1996

  5,483

  1,569,572.70

  January 1997

  235,588

  59,427,571.28

  February 1997

  142,782

  33,202,079.85

  March 1997

  19,007

  4,341,057.71

  April 1997

  27,011

  6,047,245.68

  May 1997

  64,464

  14,419,814.34

  June 1997

  54,584

  11,579,134.78

  July 1997

  55,234

  12,036,824.45

  August 1997

  70,891

  14,858,390.25

  September 1997

  68,682

  13,014,092.30

  October 1997

  379,311

  83,558,624.57

  November 1997

  71,852

  12,025,811.74

  December 1997

  57,932

  9,658,691.62

  January 1998

  8,067

  1,642,765.95

  February 1998

  142,260

  23,462,250.74

  March 1998

  77,131

  12,952,651.28

  April 1998

  77,349

  13,008,253.72

  May 1998

  51,417

  8,691,811.79

  June 1998

  63,749

  10,693,139.72

  July 1998

  51,396

  8,449,852.40

  585W

  Month of claim

  Number of animals rendered/incinerated

  Amount of claim (£)

  August 1998

  48,385

  8,104,191.12

  September 1998

  61,972

  10,221,809.76

  October 1998

  221,688

  46,272,929.96

  November 1998

  62,756

  10,272,806.75

  December 1998

  85,417

  14,083,784.24

  January 1999

  147,372

  24,697,959.10

  February 1999

  75,958

  12,913,319.20

  March 1999

  80,933

  13,807,393.47

  April 1999

  74,618

  12,546,061.20

  May 1999

  74,967

  12,408,382.97

  June 1999

  68,065

  11,074,018.67

  July 1999

  71,167

  11,384,673.89

  August 1999

  56,197

  8,997,993.17

  September 1999

  58,577

  9,446,835.73

  October 1999

  49,368

  7,945,399.51

  November 1999

  122,340

  31,192,833.45

  December 1999

  75,685

  12,252,040.94

  January 2000

  133,923

  22,070,192.22

  February 2000

  98,747

  15,727,238.56

  Total

  3,851,994

  773,482,841.36

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the location of each site currently burning meat and bone-meal produced under the over-thirty-months scheme, and the names of the companies operating each site. [115111]

  Ms Quin
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on 24 January 2000,Official Report, column 10W.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the precautionary principle has been adopted in the decision to(a) allow storage of meat and bonemeal from over-thirty-months scheme cattle prior to incineration, (b) allow the storage of meat and bonemeal from over-thirty-months scheme cattle over a long period of time, (c) allow the incineration of meat and bonemeal from over-thirty-months scheme cattle that has been stored over a long period of time, (d) choose contracts offering rendering of over-thirty-months scheme cattle prior to incineration rather than those offering direct incineration and (e) allow tallow from over-thirty-months scheme cattle to be used as fuel. [115113]

  Ms Quin
  The Environment Agency commissioned a number of assessments on the risk to human health from BSE via environmental pathways, which included the storage and processing of over-thirty-months scheme (OTMS) material. (Cattle showing clinical signs suggestive of BSE cannot enter the OTMS). The risk assessments were produced in consultation with SEAC, and were based on the precautionary principle. These showed the risks to the most exposed individual to be negligible, endorsing SEAC's advice in 1996. Copies of the risk assessments, which were published in June 1997, were placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the total costs for transporting meat and bone meal produced under the Over-30-Months scheme from storage locations to incinerators. [115112]
  586W
  Ms Quin
  Transport costs range from £9.50 and £13.50 per tonne of Meat and Bone Meal (MBM) depending on the location of the storage site and the distance to the incinerator.

  Fishing Zone Rights
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what plans he has to alter the boundaries between the English fishing zones and those for(a) Scotland and (b) Wales; [114893]

  (2) what reserved rights fishermen from England have to operate in United Kingdom fishing zones controlled and managed by the (a) Scottish Parliament and (b) National Assembly for Wales; [114891]

  (3) if he will list the responsibilities of (a) his Department and (b) the devolved Executives in respect of the delineation of fisheries zones in United Kingdom waters; and if he will make a statement. [114892]

  Mr. Morley
  The licensing arrangements put in place following devolution leave unchanged the rights of all UK fishermen to fish throughout British Fishery Limits.

  The Scottish Zone of British Fishery Limits was established by the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 [SI 1999/1126] made under the provisions of Section 126(2) of the Scotland Act 1998. There is no Welsh zone, but as a result of the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999 [SI 1999/672] the National Assembly has devolved responsibility for fisheries matters in Wales out to the limit of adjoining territorial waters.

  There are no plans to change these arrangements.

  Liquid Condensate
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 10 March 2000,Official Report, column 868W, if he will make a statement on the practice of spreading of liquid condensate on land in Staffordshire; when he intends to announce new proposals; and what public consultation is proposed in relation to the Committee's recommendations. [115087]

  Ms Quin
  We are actively considering controls on the spreading of condensate from the rendering of ruminant animals to land. Once proposals are ready, we will consult on them.

  DNA Degradation
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has been given on the conditions necessary for the degradation of DNA, particularly in food matrices; and if he will make a statement. [115499]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 20 March 2000]: DNA is a normal part of the everyday diet. It is degraded to varying degrees during processing and cooking etc. according to the conditions applied. It is also degraded by the digestive processes of the gut once consumed.

  Fishing Quotas
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 7 March
  587W
  2000, Official Report, column 581W, on fishing quotas, what was the nature of the United Kingdom response to the Commission opinion. [115574]

  Mr. Morley
  In allocating quota to producer organisations and other groups in 1992 and subsequent years adequate provision was made for the return to the UK fleet of vessels which had been previously de-registered as a result of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988.

  Animal Welfare (Transport)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times section 18(2a) of the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 has been invoked in the last six months; and if he will make a statement. [115274]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 March 2000]: To date, we have been notified of 404 notices issued under Article 18(2) of the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 by inspectors of the Ministry or local authorities during the six months to 29 February 2000. Figures are not kept to show under which part of Article 18(2) these notices are issued.

  Cap Afrique
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department's officials discussed the weather and sea conditions with the Master of the Cap Afrique on the night of 2 March; and if he will make statement. [115241]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 March 2000]: The weather and sea conditions on the night of 2 March were not discussed with the Master of the Cap Afrique. This is a matter for concern, given that the weather conditions were such that they ought to have triggered discussions between Ministry staff and the Master. The standing instructions to staff are being revised so as to tighten procedures on future occasions.

  Tuna Licences
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to announce the arrangements and criteria for the allocation of tuna licences for the current year. [115629]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 March 2000]: An announcement on the arrangements and criteria for the allocation of tuna licences for the year 2000 will be made shortly.

HEALTH

  Health Authorities and Trusts
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many elected members of local authorities have been appointed(a) chairman and (b) non-executive director of (i) health authorities and (ii) trusts since 1 May 1997, indicating the party affiliation in each case. [114366]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: The information requested is given in the table.
  588W

  Councillors appointed to the boards of National Health Service trusts and health authorities by political party since 1 May 1997

  Political party

  National Health Service trusts

  Health authorities

  Conservative

  Chairs

  6

  1

  Non-Executives

  3

  4

  Liberal

  Chairs

  5

  0

  Non-Executives

  27

  8

  Labour

  Chairs

  35

  6

  Non-Executives

  234

  43

  Other

  Chairs

  0

  0

  Non-Executives

  8

  2

  Total since 1 May 1997

  318

  64

  This represents approximately 12.3 per cent. of those appointed to the boards of National Health Service trusts and health authorities since 1 May 1997.

  NHS Appointments
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the political affiliation of non-executives appointed to NHS bodies, in each of the last three years for which figures are available, broken down by body, health authority, region and in total, (b) the names of those whose political affiliation has changed during this period and (c) the political affiliation of those who have left non-executive posts in the same period; and if he will make a statement. [114211]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: The Department does not collect information on the political affiliation of those appointed to National Health Service bodies. In accordance with guidance from the Commissioner for Public Appointments, information is collected on political activity undertaken by chairs and non-executives at the time they apply for a National Health Service appointment. Details of those board members who have undertaken political activity for different parties is published in the Department of Health Public Appointments Annual Report. Copies of the 1996, 1998 and 1999 reports are in the Library. The 2000 report will be published in May. Information on board members who have declared political activity and who have left non-executive or chair posts at National Health Service trusts or health authorities in the last three years is given in the table.

  Number

  Conservative

  133

  Independent

  10

  Labour

  98

  Liberal Democrat

  25

  Other

  10

  589W
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total number of appointments to health authorities, trusts and other NHS bodies he has made in Greater London since 1 May 1997 indicating the total number who have declared a Labour Party background, their names, and Labour Party activities. [114772]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 16 March 2000]: Information on candidates appointed to National Health Service boards and any political activity declared is recorded in the Department of Health Public Appointments Annual Report for 1999, copies of which are available in the Library. The 2000 report will be published in May.

  ETU recipients (allowed cases) by pilot area, sex and average weekly award, October 1996 to September 1997

  Number of participants

  Average weekly ETU (£)

  Pilot area

  Male

  Female

  All

  Male

  Female

  All

  All areas

  11,195

  12,253

  23,448

  26.43

  23.67

  24.99

  Scheme A

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,914

  1,909

  3,823

  25.10

  21.90

  23.51

  Barnsley, Castleford, Pontefract, Wakefield and Dewsbury

  1,253

  1,393

  2,646

  26.66

  21.99

  24.20

  Southend

  432

  568

  1,000

  24.48

  22.00

  23.07

  Wales

  1,299

  1,402

  2,701

  26.16

  23.41

  24.73

  Scheme B

  Sunderland

  3,136

  3,235

  6,371

  26.79

  24.35

  25.55

  Doncaster

  1,605

  1,989

  3,594

  27.17

  24.90

  25.92

  Bournemouth

  868

  796

  1,664

  27.79

  25.88

  26.88

  Scotland

  688

  961

  1,649

  26.32

  24.31

  25.15

  ETU recipients (allowed cases) by pilot area, sex and average weekly award, October 1997 to September 1998

  Number of participants

  Average weekly ETU (£)

  Pilot area

  Male

  Female

  All

  Male

  Female

  All

  All areas

  15,966

  16,310

  32,276

  27.47

  24.51

  25.97

  Scheme A

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,586

  2,547

  5,133

  26.35

  22.81

  24.59

  Barnsley, Castleford, Pontefract, Wakefield and Dewsbury

  1,684

  1,717

  3,401

  29.35

  23.61

  26.45

  Southend

  471

  679

  1,150

  26.94

  23.02

  24.63

  Wales

  2,218

  2,027

  4,245

  27.91

  24.50

  26.28

  Scheme B

  Sunderland

  4,506

  4,244

  8,750

  26.92

  24.90

  25.94

  Doncaster

  2,343

  2,737

  5,080

  28.08

  25.39

  26.63

  Bournemouth

  1,060

  1,080

  2,140

  28.66

  26.46

  27.55

  Scotland

  1,098

  1,279

  2,377

  26.41

  25.08

  25.69

  ETU recipients (allowed cases) by pilot area, sex and average weekly award, October 1998 to September 1999

  Number of participants

  Average weekly ETU (£)

  Pilot area

  Male

  Female

  All

  Male

  Female

  All

  All areas

  15,579

  16,400

  31,979

  27.44

  23.98

  25.66

  Scheme A

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,563

  2,624

  5,187

  26.60

  22.97

  24.76

  Barnsley, Castleford, Pontefract, Wakefield and Dewsbury

  1,634

  1,659

  3,293

  29.91

  23.20

  26.53

  Southend

  471

  669

  1,140

  28.61

  23.28

  25.48

  Wales

  2,149

  2,035

  4,184

  29.66

  24.93

  27.36

  Scheme B

  Sunderland

  4,201

  4,248

  8,449

  26.16

  23.79

  24.97

  Doncaster

  2,459

  2,682

  5,141

  27.18

  24.21

  25.63

  Bournemouth

  1,052

  1,128

  2,180

  29.12

  26.41

  27.72

  Scotland

  1,050

  1,355

  2,405

  24.57

  23.87

  24.17

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Earnings Top-up Pilot
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each year of the earnings top-up pilot, the relevant local authority area in England and Wales and the total number of individuals, indicating their(a) gender and (b) average ETU award, who participated in the pilot. [115109]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.
  591W

  ETU cases disallowed, October 1996 to September 1999

  Year

  Number disallowed

  1996–97

  5,801

  1997–98

  6,635

  1998–99

  7,485

  Notes:

  1. Based on 100 per cent. caseload figures.

  2. Figures are unrounded.

  3. Figures represent the sum of all participants in each given period. Claims are only counted once in each year, although there will be a degree of double counting between years where a participant has been receiving ETU over more than one yearly period.

  4. Detailed figures for disallowed cases of ETU are not available, as gender and pilot area are not recorded.

  Source:

  Earnings Top-Up Statistical Enquiry, February 2000.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the arrangements for the evaluation of the effects of the Earnings Top-Up pilot. [115107]

  Angela Eagle
  A report providing a description of the programme of research to evaluate the effects of the Earnings Top-Up pilot was published in May 1996 and placed in the Library. Interim findings from the evaluation were published in the Department of Social Security Research Series in March 2000 and final results will be available in early 2001.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will extend Winter Fuel Payments to people with disabilities who are not in receipt of Income Support. [115047]

  Angela Eagle
  Following the European Court of Justice ruling Winter Fuel Payments were extended to both men and women aged 60 and over and the need to be in receipt of a qualifying benefit was removed. As before, payments are restricted to people who are ordinarily resident in Great Britain. As long as they satisfy the qualifying conditions, disabled people will be eligible for a Winter Fuel Payment, like anyone else in the same position.

  As well as Winter Fuel Payments, we also provide Cold Weather Payments towards additional heating costs for vulnerable groups on Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance. Disabled people, regardless of age, who are in receipt of Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance which includes a disability premium, are among those eligible for Cold Weather Payments. There are no plans to change these eligibility rules.

  Family Credit (Norwich)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Norwich were in receipt of(a) Family Credit and (b) the child care allowance in each of the last five years. [115096]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the tables.592W

  Numbers of Family Credit recipients in Norwich local authority area August 1995–99

  Thousand

  Year

  Number

  August 1995

  1.6

  August 1996

  1.8

  August 1997

  2.0

  August 1998

  2.1

  August 1999

  2.0

  Notes:

  1. Case load figures are taken at a point in time for which the month is August.

  2. Sample size is 5 per cent. As the numbers are based on a relatively small number of sample cases the estimates are subject to a high degree of sampling error, ie for an estimate of 2,000 the true value will lie somewhere in the range 1,628 to 2,382.

  3. Family Credit was replaced by Working Families Tax Credit in October 1999.

  4. Local authorities are assigned by matching the postcode against the 1999 version 1 of the postcode directory.

  5. Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred and expressed in thousands.

  Source:

  Family Credit 5 per cent. sample of awards.

  Family Credit recipients benefiting from the child care disregard, Eastern Government Office Region August 1995–99

  Thousand

  Year

  Number

  August 1995

  1.3

  August 1996

  1.8

  August 1997

  2.0

  August 1998

  2.4

  August 1999

  3.1

  Notes:

  1. Case load figures are taken at a point in time for which the month is August.

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

  3. Family Credit was replaced by Working Families Tax Credit in October 1999.

  4. Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred and expressed in thousands.

  SERPS
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of contributors to SERPS and their dependants who have suffered financial or other hardship as a result of the misleading information issued between 1986 and 1996 on changes in the provision of inherited SERPS. [115369]

  Mr. Rooker
  No one should have suffered financial loss as a result of the information issued as the change was not due to come into effect until April 2000 and is now intended to be postponed for two and a half years until 6 October 2002. The inherited SERPS scheme will provide redress for those people who were wrongly informed and who, had they known the true position, would have made different arrangements.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the nature of the evidence referred to in the NAO report on SERPS (HC320) about the noting by his Department of the absence of information about changes to inherited SERPS in a draft leaflet on the changes to retirement pensions; and if the investigations
  593W
  referred to in his oral statement of 15 March 2000, Official Report, column 307, established whether Ministers' attention was drawn to this fact; [115368]

  (2) if the investigations referred to in his oral statement of 15 March 2000, Official Report, column 307, established whether Ministers had (a) sight of or (b) responsibility for the 1987 revision of the DSS leaflet, "Your Retirement Pension" (NP32), concerning the 50 per cent. reduction in inherited SERPS. [115371]

  Mr. Rooker
  The failure to include the correct information about SERPS inheritance provisions in leaflets was an extended failure over a period of time. The National Audit Office and the Ombudsman have reviewed the available evidence and concluded that there is no documentary evidence that enables them to conclude one way or the other about the cause of the omission. All Ministers must inevitably bear a measure of responsibility for the leaflets issued by the Departments in which they hold office.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the average weekly change, as a result of the changes to SERPS in the Social Security Act 1986, in inherited pension received by a surviving spouse whose partner dies after 5 April 2000 rather than before. [115373]

  Mr. Rooker
  The changes referred to are to be postponed by two and a half years until 6 October 2002. There will therefore be no average weekly change in inherited pension for people whose spouse dies after 5 April 2000 rather than before.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the investigations referred to in his oral statement of 15 March 2000,Official Report, column 307, established whether Ministers had (a) sight of and (b) responsibility for the leaflet contained in the DSS briefing pack publicising the 1986 reforms that mentioned the 50 per cent. reduction in inherited SERPS. [115372]

  Mr. Rooker
  The National Audit Office reviewed the available evidence and has published its report. This particular leaflet had a signed foreword from the then Secretary of State. All Ministers must inevitably bear a measure of responsibility for the leaflets issued by the Departments in which they hold office.

  My hon. Friend is aware that Ministers in the current Administration do not have available to them papers from the previous Administration, although both the NAO and the PCA had access to all the papers on which to base their reports.

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the difference in the cost of benefit payments is between an automatic credit transfer transaction and payment by giro; and if he will break down the cost difference between payments to the agencies concerned. [115483]

  Mr. Rooker
  Payment by girocheque is over 130 times more expensive than payment by automated credit transfer (ACT).
  594W
  The overall average total unit costs to the Benefits Agency are in the order of £1.36 for each girocheque and 1p for each ACT transaction. These figures include the production processing and distribution costs as well as the transaction charges paid to paying agents.

  A breakdown of the costs to the individual components cannot be disclosed as some of this information is commercial in confidence.

  Pensions Indexation
  Jean Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the responses received during the recent consultation exercise on pensions indexation and investment-linked annuities. [116204]

  Mr. Rooker
  We asked for views from the pensions industry, employers and the public on whether it would be right to relax the current indexation rules for money purchase pension schemes, to allow schemes to offer investment-linked annuities to any members who might wish to choose this option as an alternative to a traditional indexed annuity. Investment-linked annuities enable the annuitant to benefit from growth in a range of underlying investments after retirement, though this goes hand in hand with a risk of possible falls in pension income if investment performance is poor.

  The principle of introducing this greater flexibility for occupational scheme members was widely welcomed. The balance of opinion was against the introduction of mandatory guarantees to protect the level of pension paid by investment-linked annuities, because this would hamper product design and could have a significant effect on the potential growth in the annuitant's future income. A mixed response was received to the question of whether investment-linked annuities should also be allowed to be bought from "protected rights" elements of funds (that is, any part of the fund which has accrued in place of rights in SERPS).

  We have tabled an amendment to the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill which will have the effect of allowing funds in occupational schemes subject to the "Limited Price Indexation" requirement to be used to purchase an investment-linked annuity. Protected rights will not be covered by the amendment, however. We intend to give further detailed consideration to the issues that arise for protected rights before deciding whether to make any changes to the indexation rules which apply to them. We shall also give careful consideration to the comments which many respondents made on the wider question of the application of indexation requirements to occupational money purchase pension schemes.

  I am arranging for copies of the responses received in the consultation exercise to be placed in the Library.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what assessment he has made of the performance of contractors operating housing benefit administration; and if he will make a statement; [115650]
  595W
  (2) what assessment he has made of the quality of service for housing benefit claimants resident in Hackney and Islington since IT Net was contracted to provide the service; and if he will make a statement. [115651]

  Angela Eagle
  Local authorities have a statutory duty to administer the Housing Benefit scheme. We are aware that a small minority of authorities has chosen to contract out support functions for their benefit services and that some have experienced difficulties as a result. It is a matter for the local authorities concerned to draw up and manage robust contracts with their suppliers and to take appropriate steps where contractors are failing to meet their obligations.

  From this April, Best Value performance indicators will be the main yardstick against which local authorities' performance will be judged. The indicators we have set for Housing Benefit delivery are designed to ensure that authorities provide their communities with a faster, more accurate service which is more secure against fraud, and which provides value for money and takes account of the views and needs of clients. Local authorities will be required to set challenging targets for improved performance against these indicators year on year.

  We are committed to working with local government to modernise and improve public services so as to ensure they are efficient and of high quality and are responsive to the needs of local people. However, we will not hesitate to act where necessary to protect the interests of local people. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently announced that where the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate identifies persistent failings in the Housing

  Housing benefit administration

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Local Authority

  LA estimated costs1

  DSS specific grant2

  LA estimated costs

  DSS specific grant

  Barking and Dagenham

  496

  307

  654

  329

  Barnet

  1,869

  507

  2,086

  520

  Bexley

  506

  300

  457

  313

  Brent

  3,670

  862

  3,820

  872

  Bromley

  1,778

  473

  1,680

  490

  Camden

  3,291

  846

  3,169

  851

  City of London

  232

  30

  263

  33

  Croydon

  1,998

  646

  2,050

  627

  Ealing

  3,745

  676

  4,177

  692

  Enfield

  2,571

  451

  2,382

  499

  Greenwich

  4,739

  609

  3,881

  660

  Hackney

  5,600

  1,036

  4,529

  1,114

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,935

  604

  2,832

  623

  Haringey

  5,428

  954

  5,634

  913

  Harrow

  985

  291

  1,191

  298

  Havering

  915

  268

  1,021

  250

  Hillingdon

  1,538

  336

  1,143

  343

  Hounslow

  1,104

  417

  1,235

  416

  Islington

  3,814

  747

  3,050

  783

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3,690

  523

  3,090

  525

  Kingston upon Thames

  485

  160

  484

  154

  Lambeth

  5,052

  1,009

  3,679

  1,050

  Lewisham

  6,167

  919

  7,227

  942

  Merton

  664

  300

  684

  296

  Newham

  7,363

  997

  7,691

  1,023

  Redbridge

  1,932

  386

  2,538

  414

  Richmond upon Thames

  976

  225

  853

  223

  Southwark

  3,915

  936

  5,447

  962

  Sutton

  1,209

  225

  1,190

  233

  596W
  Benefit service that is being provided he will use his statutory powers to direct the authority concerned on the standards it is to meet and the timescales for achieving them.

  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate is due to conduct inspections of the benefit services provided by the London boroughs of Hackney and Islington during the summer.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what advice he has given to housing benefit administrators concerning the processing of applications(a) that are more than six months late and (b) that have been lost by the processing agent. [115649]

  Angela Eagle
  Local authorities have an independent statutory duty to administer the Housing Benefit scheme in accordance with the legal framework set by Parliament. The Department issues general guidance to all authorities on the law governing the scheme through the Housing Benefit Guidance Manual and supplementary circulars. Where Housing Benefit claims are delayed or lost it is for the local authority concerned to decide what action to take in the light of the circumstances of each individual case.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state(a) the total cost of housing benefit administration, (b) the subsidy provided by his Department and (c) the net cost to each London borough for (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1998–99; and what is his estimate for the current year to date. [115648]

  Angela Eagle
  Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.
  597W

  Housing benefit administration

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Local Authority

  LA estimated costs1

  DSS specific grant2

  LA estimated costs

  DSS specific grant

  Tower Hamlets

  2,275

  680

  2,658

  725

  Waltham Forest

  1,639

  624

  1,897

  663

  Wandsworth

  2,096

  782

  2,101

  756

  Westminster

  4,886

  723

  4,986

  712

  1 The total expenditure on administration costs used in the calculations are those reported by the authorities to the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) on the RO4 form. Costs reported by Local Authorities can vary widely. The reasons for the differences include the different mix of caseload, their relative complexities to administer, and also the different components included in the total costs expenditure, for example, the treatment of overheads.

  2 DSS specific grant only, calculated using a grant allocation formula agreed with the Local Authority Associations. These figures do not include additional funding made available to authorities for anti-fraud work. DETR also pay subsidy for Housing Benefit administration as part of the Revenue Support Grant arrangements.

  Notes:

  1. Information is not yet available for Local Authorities' reported costs for 1999–2000.

  2. It is not possible to show the net cost for each London borough as the DETR also make provision for Housing Benefit administration costs within the Revenue Support Grant arrangements.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on (1) what date he expects local authority verification of the validity of housing benefit applications to commence; [115646]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the cost of verification of the validity of housing benefit applications to local authorities; and what additional resources they will receive to accommodate this. [115647]

  Angela Eagle
  Local authorities have a statutory duty to administer the Housing Benefit scheme and we are committed to working with local authorities so as to ensure that local services are efficient and of high quality and are responsive to the needs of local people.

  We have provided local authorities with the Verification Framework (VF) which is a good practice guide about the secure and accurate administration of Housing Benefit. It sets out the information which must be verified before benefit is paid, specifies what is acceptable as evidence and what checks must be made during the life of a claim. An additional £100 million was made available over three years to help all local authorities implement the VF.

  Additionally, from this April, Best Value performance indicators will set challenging targets for local authorities. The indicators we have set for Housing Benefit delivery include new measures of the average time taken to process new claims and notifications of changes of circumstance, and the percentage of renewal claims processed on time.

  Disability Benefits Unit
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many complaints about the conduct of medical examinations have been received by the Disability Benefits Unit in the past 12 months. [115654]

  Angela Eagle
  The Disability Benefits Unit has received a total of 190 complaints concerning medical examinations.

  Child Support Agency
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will investigate the time taken by the Child 598W
  Support Agency to deal with the case of Mrs. Janet Potter, a constituent, whose details have been supplied to him; and if he will make a statement. [115652]

  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 Faith Boardman to Helen Jones, dated 23 March 2000:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about your constituent, Mrs Janet Potter, and the way the Child Support Agency has handled her case.
  As individual cases are a confidential matter I have written to you privately.

  Pensioners
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to amend the rules with regard to downrating of the state retirement pension for pensioners who go into hospital for six weeks or more. [115808]

  Mr. Rooker
  Rules about the payment of benefits to people in NHS hospitals have been part of the Social Security system for over 50 years. We have no plans at present to revise the rules regarding the payment of Retirement Pension to people who remain in NHS hospitals for longer than six weeks. We continue to keep these rules under review.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Kosovo
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many members of the Kosovo Protection Corps have been arrested for committing human rights abuses; and when they will be prosecuted. [115525]

  Mr. Vaz
  We are aware of recent reports about alleged misdeed involving some of the 18,000 applicants to join the Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC), who had previously been members of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). The UN Mission (UNMIK) has overall responsibility for
  599W
  the KPC, including recruitment and dismissal procedures. UNMIK takes measures, including dismissal, against misdeeds committed by KPC members.

  "Your Britain, Your Europe"
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will add to the websites listed in "Your Britain, Your Europe" literature details of those groups opposed to the organisation's whose sites are listed. [115566]

  Mr. Vaz
  The "Your Britain, Your Europe" roadshow leaflet included details only of the official websites of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the EU institutions. We did not include details of any non-governmental organisations or pressure groups.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the purpose of the "Your Britain, Your Europe" questionnaire; how many have been printed; how many have been distributed to date(a) in total and (b) to persons not of voting age; and if he will make a statement. [115573]

  Mr. Vaz
  The "Your Britain, Your Europe" leaflet included a questionnaire designed to gauge public interest in Europe. During the "Your Britain, Your Europe" roadshow we distributed almost 7,000 copies of the leaflet to members of the public, companies and educational institutions.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mechanisms exist for the promotion of public awareness in the United Kingdom of the institutions of the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [115828]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will publish a "UK in Europe" millennium brochure later this year, tracing Britain's involvement in Europe since the 1950s. Late last year, I visited 10 English cities in five days as part of a "Your Britain, Your Europe" roadshow to promote public awareness about the benefits of our membership of the EU. A variety of websites, including those of the FCO, the European Commission and the European Parliament offer information about the EU institutions. The UK Network of European Relays also offers information through various regional centres across the country. From 1 September 2000, the national curriculum will include an element on Europe and the European Union for secondary school pupils.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those former(a) Ministers, (b) senior armed forces personnel and (c) heads of state, who have visited the United Kingdom since 1 May 1997, about whose human rights records he received representations prior to their visits. [115545]

  Mr. Battle
  The FCO does not hold information on the entry of all people into the UK. Therefore, the FCO might not be aware of, for example, a private visit by a former Minister to the UK. To then find out whether the FCO received any representation on human rights grounds over any such visit would also demand a considerable amount of research at disproportionate cost.

  Investments
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries have entered into agreement with Her Majesty's Government for the protection and promotion of investments; and when each agreement came into force. [115711]

  Mr. Hain
  Her Majesty's Government have entered into 93 Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements. Of these, 84 are in force and nine are awaiting entry into force. There are 22 OECD member states with which an Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement is not required. Protection of investments is generally considered to be satisfactory under the domestic legislation of OECD member states.

  The countries which have signed an Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement with the UK and which are in force are (date of entry into force in parenthesis):

  Albania (30 August 1995)

  Antigua and Barbuda (12 June 1987)

  Argentina (19 February 1993)

  Armenia (11 July 1996)

  Azerbaijan (11 December 1996)

  Bahrain (30 October 1991)

  Bangladesh (19 June 1980)

  Barbados (7 April 1993)

  Belarus (28 December 1994)

  Belize (30 April 1982)

  Benin (28 November 1987)

  Bolivia (16 February 1990)

  Bulgaria (24 June 1997)

  Burundi (13 September 1990)

  Cameroon (7 June 1985)

  Chile (21 April 1997)

  China (15 May 1986)

  Congo (9 November 1990)

  Cote d'Ivoire (9 October 1997)

  Croatia (16 April 1998)

  Cuba (11 May 1995)

  Czech and Slovak Republics (24 October 1991, amended 26 October 1992)

  Dominica (23 January 1987)

  Ecuador (24 August 1995)

  Egypt (24 February 1976)

  Estonia (16 December 1994)

  Georgia (15 February 1995)

  Ghana (25 October 1991)

  Grenada (25 February 1998)

  Guyana (11 April 1990)

  Haiti (27 March 1995)

  Honduras (8 March 1995)

  Hong Kong (12 April 1999)

  Hungary (28 August 1987)

  India (6 January 1995)

  Indonesia (24 March 1977)

  Jamaica (14 May 1987)

  Jordan (24 April 1980)

  Kazakhstan (23 November 1995)

  Kenya (13 September 1999)

  Korea (4 March 1976)

  Kyrgyzstan (18 May 1998)

  601W

  Laos (1 May 1995)

  Latvia (15 February 1995)

  Lesotho (18 February 1981)

  Lithuania (21 September 1993)

  Malaysia (21 October 1988)

  Malta (4 October 1986)

  Mauritius (13 October 1986)

  Moldova (30 June 1998)

  Mongolia (4 October 1991)

  Nepal (2 March 1993)

  Nigeria (11 December 1990)

  Oman (21 May 1996)

  Pakistan (30 November 1994)

  Panama (7 November 1985)

  Papua New Guinea (22 December 1981)

  Paraguay (23 April 1992, amended 13 June 1997)

  Peru (21 April 1994)

  Philippines (21 February 1981)

  Poland (14 April 1988)

  Romania (10 January 1996)

  Senegal (9 February 1984)

  Singapore (22 June 1975)

  Slovenia (12 May 1999)

  South Africa (27 May 1998)

  Soviet Union (3 July 1991, now applies to Russian Federation)

  Sri Lanka (18 December 1980)

  St. Lucia (18 January 1983)

  Swaziland (5 May 1995)

  Tanzania (2 August 1996)

  Thailand (11 August 1979)

  Tonga (22 October 1997)

  Trinidad and Tobago (8 October 1993)

  Tunisia (4 January 1990)

  Turkey (22 October 1996)

  Turkmenistan (9 February 1995)

  Uganda (24 April 1998)

  Ukraine (10 February 1993)

  UAE (15 December 1993)

  Uruguay (1 August 1997)

  Uzbekistan (24 November 1993)

  Venezuela (1 August 1996)

  Yemen (11 November 1983).

  The nine countries which have signed Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements with the UK, which have yet to enter into force are:

  Brazil

  Colombia

  Costa Rica

  E1 Salvador

  Lebanon

  Morocco

  Nicaragua

  Sierra Leone

  Zimbabwe.

  602W
  The 22 OECD member states with whom an Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement is not required are:

  Australia

  Austria

  Belgium

  Canada

  Denmark

  Finland

  France

  Germany

  Greece

  Iceland

  Ireland

  Italy

  Japan

  Luxembourg

  Netherlands

  New Zealand

  Norway

  Portugal

  Spain

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  USA.

  Sudan
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Canadian Foreign Minister regarding exports to Sudan; and if he will make a statement. [115720]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not had the opportunity to meet recently with his Canadian counterpart.

  We have studied the Canadian report on Sudan and are discussing the issues it raises with the Government of Sudan.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Chinese and Sudanese Governments concerning reports that Chinese personnel have been involved in the displacement of Dinka and Nuer peoples from Heglig and Bentin areas; and if he will make a statement. [115723]

  Mr. Hain
  We are deeply concerned about the reports of human rights violations in Western Upper Nile. The recently published Harker report (available on the internet at http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca\foreignp\3110168-e.pdf) addressed many issues including displacement. We have already taken this up with the Government of Sudan bilaterally and through the EU.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the(a) Government of Sudan, (b) European Commission and (c) United Nations, regarding the recent bombings in Sudan. [115714]

  Mr. Hain
  We are aware of several reports of aerial bombing in the Sudan. We have raised specific cases and the more general issue with the Government of Sudan
  603W
  bilaterally and through the EU. At last year's UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR), an EU co-sponsored resolution on Sudan was agreed by consensus which calls on the Government of Sudan to
  stop immediately the indiscriminate bombardment of civilian and humanitarian centres which runs counter to the fundamental principles on human rights and humanitarian law.

  We expect the EU to co-sponsor a resolution at this year's UNCHR.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he plans to take to develop special economic measures to tighten export controls to Sudan; and if he will make a statement. [115712]

  Mr. Hain
  There is an EU arms embargo which we rigorously implement and expect to remain for as long as the civil war continues. There is no policy to halt commercial interests in the Sudan and we give full and frank advice to interested companies.

  Banana Dispute
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assessment he has made of when the banana dispute between the European Union and United States of America will be concluded; [115564]

  (2) what meetings have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the European Commission as part of efforts to resolve the banana dispute; [115562]

  (3) what meetings are planned by his Department to resolve the banana dispute between the European Union and the United States of America; [115561]

  (4) what recent meetings have been held between Her Majesty's Government and the EU Commission in connection with the banana dispute with the United States. [116000]

  Mr. Vaz
  Throughout the banana dispute numerous meetings have taken place with the European Commission, other EU member states, the US, Caribbean governments and Latin American banana producing countries. We will remain in close touch with all the parties and continue to press for a rapid solution to this dispute which also addresses the needs of vulnerable Caribbean banana producers.

  Most parties have indicated they could accept the basic framework for a solution set out in the Commission, with differences outstanding on the details. On 20 March the EU Agriculture Council noted latest developments and encouraged the Commission to continue its discussions on these details with third countries in an effort to find agreement as quickly as possible. The exact date by which a solution to the dispute can be found will depend on when those details can be resolved.

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Conker) of 14 March 2000,Official Report, column 142W, if the new case by case approach to consideration of export licences for dual use
  604W
  goods would allow the import into Montenegro of dual use goods which might benefit the internal security forces of the Montenegrin authorities. [115592]

  Mr. Vaz
  We will not approve any applications to export dual use goods to the FRY where those goods could benefit the armed forces, security forces or similar entities of the government in Belgrade. All other applications, including those where the goods in question could benefit the Montenegrin internal security authorities, will be considered consistent with the national export licensing criteria announced in July 1997 and those in the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.

  Austria
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to establish on whose behalf the Portuguese presidency of the EU was speaking on 13 March when it rejected Austria's request for the normalisation of relations within the Council of Ministers. [115496]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 20 March 2000]: In confirming the position of the other EU member states on 13 March in relation to their measures against Austria, the Portuguese Prime Minister was speaking in an informal capacity as a coordinator for the 14 member states.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultation took place between the Portuguese presidency of the EU and other EU Governments prior to their statement on 13 March rejecting Austria's request for the normalisation of relations within the Council of Ministers; and if Her Majesty's Government agreed the wording in advance. [115497]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 20 March 2000]: In addressing the press on 13 March, the Portuguese Prime Minister was speaking in an informal capacity as co-ordinator for the 14 member states and reflecting the view of HMG that the measures of the 14 EU member states against Austria should continue to be implemented.

  Flag Cars
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason a Grand Marquis has been bought for use as a flag car in Caracas; who has use of this car; what was the cost of this car; and if he will make a statement. [115737]

  Mr. Battle
  The Embassy in Caracas first explored the purchaser of a Rover 75, which is used as a flag car at several other overseas posts. However, this model was only able to take lead-free petrol which was not available at the time in Venezuela. A decision was then taken to purchase a Grand Marquis at a cost of £18,422.

  The flag car is reserved for official use by the Head of Mission. He is expected to use his private car for non-official (i.e. private use) purposes. The flag car may be used by the Charge when Head of Mission is not at post.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many flag cars have been purchased for the official use of ambassadors and high commissioners since 1 May 1997; how many of each model have been purchased; and at what total cost. [115736]
  605W
  Mr. Battle
  The following table shows how many flags cars have been purchased for the official use of Ambassadors and High Commissioners since 1 May 1997, how many of each model and the total cost.

  In addition the FCO purchased one Rolls-Royce on special concessionary terms.

  Model

  Number

  Cost (£)

  Cadillac

  1

  19,835.28

  Daimler

  1

  34,500.00

  Land Rover Discovery

  23

  541,244.94

  Ford Mondeo

  1

  14,350.72

  Ford Grand Marquis

  1

  18,422.36

  Jaguar S Type

  4

  88,269.65

  Jaguar Sovereign

  10

  502,409.51

  Jaguar XJ6

  2

  47,302.00

  Jaguar XJ8

  15

  481,071.99

  Opel Omega

  1

  21,232.36

  Range Rover

  30

  966,938.68

  Rover 620

  1

  13,862.17

  Rover 75

  6

  88,591.97

  Rover 820

  2

  26,211.22

  Rover 825/Sterling

  13

  1,126,372.67

  Toyota L/c Vx

  1

  20,557.41

  Volvo S80 F

  1

  19,253.40

  Volvo V70

  1

  21,200.00

  Total number/cost of flag cars purchased since 1 May 1997

  114

  4,051,626.33

  Friends of Europe Conference
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the official representatives from the Government who attended the Friends of Europe Conference on 9 March in Brussels. [115585]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Ambassador and an official from our bilateral Embassy in Brussels attended the Friends of Europe conference on 9 March.

  Caribiner PR Company
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those(a) Government projects and (b) projects organised in the UK by agencies of the European Community, which have used the services of Caribiner PR Company. [115567]

  Mr. Vaz
  Since its foundation in 1997, Caribiner has co-organised 34 events (including Summits, conferences, visits by Heads of State and press conferences) with Government Departments. With regard to events organised for the EU institutions, I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the offices of the European Commission and the European Parliament.

PRIME MINISTER

  Visits
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last visited the Lewes constituency. [114303]

  The Prime Minister
  Regrettably I have been unable to do so, but I hope to be able to visit the hon. Member's constituency at some point in the future.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 22 March. [115384]

  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.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Synchrotron
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment he has made of the impact on(a) the North West economy, (b) science in North West universities and (c) science and technology in the North West of the decision to place the diamond synchrotron investment at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire; [115042]

  (2) what account he took in coming to his decision on placing diamond synchrotron investment of the impact on joint science and technology projects between Daresbury and North West universities. [115105]

  Mr. Byers
  The synchrotron is a national facility that hosts scientists from across the country. I had to consider a wide range of issues before announcing this important decision and this included the implications in the long-term for the Daresbury laboratory and the North West. That is why I announced a number of steps to ensure the science base in the North West remains strong. We shall continue to work with partners in the region to bring forward a package of measures.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations he has received in favour of placing the diamond synchrotron investment at Daresbury; and from whom. [115040]

  Mr. Byers
  Our records to date show that we have received approximately 500 letters from individuals in favour of placing the new synchrotron project at the Daresbury Laboratory in Cheshire.

  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has had from French scientists who are synchrotron users in support of Daresbury as the site for Diamond. [115134]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 17 March 2000]: Records to date show 10 cases of ministerial correspondence from scientists with addresses in France in favour of placing the new synchrotron project at the Daresbury Laboratory in Cheshire. Most of these are not French scientists, but scientists of a different nationality who are currently living in France. It is not possible from our records to obtain the nationality of individuals.

  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has had from scientists with an international reputation in support of Daresbury as the site for Diamond. [115135]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 17 March 2000]: Records to date show about 200 letters from individuals at academic institutions in favour of placing the new synchrotron

  607W
  project at the Daresbury Laboratory in Cheshire. Of these letters about 70 were sent from scientific institutions outside of the UK. Of the letters that were sent from UK institutions about 50 were sent by Professors.

  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he and his Ministers have had with the French Government in relation to the siting of the Diamond synchrotron project; and if he will publish the papers associated with the meetings. [115132]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 17 March 2000]: My noble Friend Lord Sainsbury has met with the French Science Minister, Mr. Claude Allegre, on a number of occasions on which issues relating to the synchrotron project have been discussed.

  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he and his Ministers have had with the Wellcome Trust in relation to the siting of the Diamond synchrotron project. [115131]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 17 March 2000]: I met representatives from the Wellcome Trust on 27 October 1999 and 10 February 2000 to discuss the synchrotron. My noble Friend Lord Sainsbury also discussed the synchrotron at a meeting with the Wellcome Trust on 27 October 1998, 23 September 1999 and 1 March 2000.

  The Wellcome Trust and I exchanged written correspondence on this issue on:

  24 September 1999

  4 October 1999

  7 October 1999

  11 October 1999

  15 October 1999

  1 November 1999

  2 November 1999

  11 November 1999

  22 November 1999

  23 November 1999

  17 January 2000.

  My noble Friend Lord Sainsbury received correspondence from the Wellcome Trust on the 21 January 2000.

  In recent months, my noble Friend Lord Sainsbury has had a number of telephone conversations with the Wellcome Trust, during which the synchrotron was discussed.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the Wellcome Trust concerning the location of the diamond synchrotron investment. [115041]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth).

  MedicAlert
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the effect of the second change to London telephone numbers on the charity MedicAlert; and if he will make a statement. [115119]
  608W
  Ms Hewitt
  Numbering is a matter for the Office of Telecommunications (Oftel). The first change to London telephone numbers in the past five years was in April 1995, PhOneday, on which all geographic codes were changed to begin 01. The second change to London numbers, due on 22 April, will mean that local numbers in London begin with a 7 or an 8, preceded by the new code 020. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received 12 representations about the effect of the second change to London telephone numbers on the charity MedicAlert, and the Department as a whole has received about 60. Oftel has put in place parallel running for old and new numbers, and "changed number announcements", as well as ensuring that the current change has been publicised sufficiently to minimise the costs to charities such as MedicAlert.

  Signals Broadcasts
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the combined power output of all the signals broadcast from the telecommunication masts at(a) the north site and (b) the south site on Old Blandford Road at Harnham Hill, Salisbury; and what assessment he has made of the potential risk to human health. [114804]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 16 March 2000]: The responsibility for monitoring the level of power densities produced by telecommunications masts rests not with the Government but with the operators of the masts in accordance with their duties under their Health and Safety Work etc. Act 1974. The Health and Safety Executive expects operators to prevent access by members of the public to areas, usually within a couple of metres of the antennas, where power densities may exceed guidelines for restricting human exposure to electromagnetic fields issued by the National Radiological Protection Board.

  The Government are aware of public concerns with regard to reports of possible adverse health effects associated with telecommunications masts. It has initiated an Independent Experts Group on Mobile Phones, chaired by Sir William Stewart, to look at the issue. The Group is due to report in the spring.

  Power Lines
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the implications for British energy policies of power lines proposed to be built from Lakenby to Shipton by Bellingborough; what impact they will have(a) on the local industry and (b) on the future of power stations; and if he will make a statement. [115538]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Each case for an overhead line is considered on its merits. The need for this particular overhead line was spelt out in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Taylor) on 26 March 1998,Official Report, columns 220–21W, and in the referred to departmental letter. Systems need to be planned to meet robust standards in order to provide reliable supplies of electricity to homes and businesses.

  European Spallation Source
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions have been held
  609W
  within Government about the siting of the European Spallation Source which will replace the ISIS neutron machine at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory. [115133]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 17 March 2000]: The European Spallation Source (ESS) is not a replacement for ISIS; ISIS will continue to operate independent of the site selected for the ESS.

  The Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), which operates the ISIS facility at RAL, is the UK partner in a 10-nation consortium that is developing plans for the ESS.

  Astra Case
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the contents of file bundles 120, 121, 140 and 141 in the Astra case. [115410]

  Dr. Howells
  The references refer to file bundles created by the Companies Act inspectors and contain the inspectors' own copies of Astra company documents and their own working papers. The inspectors' work on these files and other matters is contained in their report published in June 1993.

  Electricity Transmission
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of(a) the extra electricity transmission losses and (b) their cost, which will result from new build homes in the South East. [115406]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No such estimates have been made.

  Post Offices (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the impact on the number of post offices in Gloucestershire of the provisions of the Postal Services Bill. [115701]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Postal Services Bill is primarily about the letters and parcels market and is not itself expected to have an effect on the number of post offices in Gloucestershire or elsewhere.

  The Government are committed to ensuring that post offices are equipped and re-designed to face the future, and that they are thereby able to continue to play their role as an essential part of the country's social fabric. The Bill, therefore, has a requirement (at Clause 31) for the new regulator, the Postal Services Commission, to provide (in consultation with the new Consumer Council) advice and information to the Secretary of State about the number and location of public post offices and their accessibility to users of postal and other services. There is also provision (at clause 32) for the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance to the Commission on social and environmental matters. It is envisaged that these will include access criteria for public post offices.

  The PIU in the Cabinet Office is carrying out a study on the post office network to identify the contribution made by post offices to the vitality of local communities; to consider how the post office network can best contribute to the Government's objectives for the future;
  610W
  and in the process to formulate objectives for the post office network, including recommendations on access criteria. Conclusions are expected in the spring.

  Gas and Electricity Consumers
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the Government's policy on gas and electricity consumers' advocacy, complaints and representation in each region. [115500]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 21 March 2000]: The Utilities Bill would establish a statutory Gas and Electricity Consumer Council in place of the existing Gas Consumers Council and Electricity Consumers' Committees. The Council would have access to information in its own right; assist consumers, provide advice and information to regulatory authorities, Government and others whose activities may affect the interests of consumers; and be the chief access point for complaints about energy companies. It would have the function of keeping itself informed of consumer matters and the views of consumers throughout Great Britain.

  The Bill recognises the changed circumstances of energy supply since the existing arrangements were put in place. In February, a consultation document seeking views of interested parties on two possible models for the new Council was issued by the Gas and Electricity Consumers Council Task Force. The first provided for regional offices in each of Wales, Scotland and England; the second for five regional offices, one each in Scotland and Wales and three in England. Both models could support regional panels to provide advice and mediate in cases referred by regional offices. The consultation period ends on 29 March 2000 and recommendations will then be made for Government to consider.

  Automated Teller Machines
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will provide a regional breakdown of the 3,000 new automated teller machines to be installed in post offices which were announced by the Prime Minister. [115855]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that contractual and commercial arrangements with potential partners for the provision and installation of new automated teller machines have yet to be finalised. Consequently, no decisions have yet been taken on the locations of the new machines.

TREASURY

  State Aid to Industry
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent communications he has received from the European Commission concerning the breach, or potential breach, of the terms of any EU legislation concerning state aids or taxation benefits for(a) firms in Northern Ireland, (b) shipbuilding and (c) motor

  611W
  manufacture or assembly, stating the topic and purpose of each communication. [115251]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under their general powers to monitor state aid, in June 1999, the Commission requested information on a Selective Financial Assistance grant to a company in Northern Ireland. The UK supplied the required information, demonstrating that the grant had complied with the terms of state aid approval of Selective Financial Assistance.
  612W
  The UK has not received any recent correspondence from the Commission concerning the breach of the state aid rules as they apply to shipbuilding.

  In December 1999, the Commission opened a formal investigation procedure into part of the proposed aid package for the BMW/Rover plant at Longbridge, Birmingham. This procedure is a normal part of the state aid notification process where the Commission requires all information including from third parties in order to assess the case.

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.

European Defence: Policy Scrutiny
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they envisage as the roles of the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union in the scrutiny and accountability of the emerging European Security and Defence Initiative.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, we are committed to the continuing scrutiny of defence policy in Europe by national parliaments. Under the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the European Parliament is kept regularly informed of the development of the Union's foreign and security policy.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful Answer. Does she agree that if the objective is to have closer integration in our approach to foreign and security matters in the European Union, it is most important that parliamentarians within the member countries should be able to come together, as they do in the Western European Union, deliberate on a common analysis and decide how they can be more effective in their job of holding governments accountable in their own parliaments?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is useful if Ministers can come together. The work done in that regard has been most useful and we commend it. However, we must now consider how to move forward. Nothing in our new plans indicates that the opportunity to discuss and agree the issues will be diminished.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the difficulties about the European Security and Defence Initiative is the way in which it has bee n represented in some parts of the United States' press and Congress? Headlines such as "A threat to NATO's future", which recently appeared in a publication of the American Enterprise Institute and was seen by certain American Senators, are, I regret to say, fed by statements made by some Members of the other place, in particular the shadow Defence Secretary. Does the Minister agree that the wider the debate and discussion within the European
266
Parliament, and between it and the US Congress, the sooner we are likely to see that the ESDI is intended to strengthen NATO and not to divide and weaken it?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I wholeheartedly join the noble Baroness in stating that it is of great importance that the truth about the issue should be made plain. I also join her in finding reprehensible those who seek to distort the policy into something which it is not. The Government are convinced that security and defence should remain under the scrutiny of national parliaments. We are planning for that in the future.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am happy to hear the Minister's comments. The whole project is meant to be intergovernmental and to include those members of NATO who are not members of the EU, thereby strengthening the European end of NATO as a resource to help us all. In the light of that, should not proper scrutiny rest with the Houses of this Parliament, as the noble Baroness emphasised? Is it not difficult to see where the European Parliament comes into the matter at all? This is a NATO development and a resource to help strengthen the NATO resources available to the United States and to the European powers.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is clear that the European Parliament will not have a significant role in this regard. It has no role in decision-taking on common foreign and security policy issues and the Government will aim to ensure that it has no role in defence decisions either. We believe that there will be a strengthening of NATO. We know that our US partners are very happy with the development. The words of Strobe Talbott have been quoted in this House on a number of occasions.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that matters might be clarified if the Government stopped denying that this is a European army? Does she further agree that if the force ever had to go into action—and a large force is being allocated for the purpose—it would require a commander-in-chief who would need a staff, intelligence, logistics, air support and, in certain circumstances, naval support? If that is not a European army, can the noble Baroness tell us what it is?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, let us be absolutely plain. This is not a European army. When the allies joined together for joint action in other forums in the world war no one suggested that that was a joint army. Each of us contributed resources and coordinated with the other in order to ensure that the allies won.
I shall say again, in case the noble Lord does not understand, that this is not a European army and it will not be so. The Government are determined that we should retain control of our Armed Forces. I can

267
assure the noble Lord that other countries feel just as passionately about their officers as we rightly feel about ours.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, as we are in a mood to be absolutely plain, does my noble friend agree that there is a real distinction? One is strengthening the European part of NATO, with which we all agree; the other is the separate aim of creating an autonomous European Union military capacity. If we do not start to recognise that, frankly, we shall not understand what is at issue.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I believe that I have said all I can say, that I have said it very plainly and that I cannot say it any more plainly. However, it is absolutely clear that we must find a modus operandi for working together in order to increase our capacity to respond efficiently to the challenges which Europe faces. We need to do that in order to ensure that we deploy our servicemen in theatre in the most effective way to protect ourselves and our European partners. For many years we have joined with our European friends in their hour of need. We shall continue to do that; and we shall do it more efficiently if we do it together.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if any expenditure whatever is made on common foreign and security policy that comes through the mechanism of the European Union budget, then the European Parliament in general and its budgetary control committee in particular have a specific responsibility for scrutiny of such expenditure?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Parliament may carry out scrutiny and it may also be in receipt of information. However, the most important point is that it does not have decision-making capacity. That capacity remains with national parliaments where, rightly, it should rest.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, we heard very clearly what the Minister said about our Armed Forces, and we agree. However, is she aware that there is more to this question than armed forces and that last year the French President described the United States as a hyper-power and criticised what he called America's "increasingly unilateral" farm policy? What specific assurances can she give that our EU partners, particularly our French partners in the St. Malo Declaration, respect our commitment to NATO and the preservation of its prerogatives and that they will do nothing to undermine it?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have no reason to believe that our French partners will seek to undermine NATO. They have not done so to date and there is nothing currently before us to cause us to believe that they will do so in the future.

Oil Prices
2.44 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they plan to take action in relation to the rising price of oil.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, as your Lordships know, the oil market has been very volatile of late, with prices rising from 10 dollars per barrel of oil in February 1999 to over 25 dollars per barrel currently. The Government monitor the market closely because significant changes in oil prices could, if prolonged, impact adversely on the UK economy. However, whether oil prices are low or high, the Government remain committed to the operation of free, open markets, where price is determined by fundamentals and not by regulation or intervention.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. However, the substantial increase in oil prices to which he referred has already had a serious impact on the international economy. It was one of the major factors which led the USA to raise its interest rates the other day, with more rises to come and possibly with similar action elsewhere. Bearing in mind the enormously adverse impact that the oil price increases had in the 1970s, have the developed countries since then produced strategies (both short and long-term) to deal with the possible recurrence of that situation? In particular, does the noble Lord recall that the International Energy Agency, of which the UK is a founder member, has as a specific remit:
"To maintain and improve systems for coping with oil supply disruptions"?
I should like to ask what it has recommended in the present situation.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, so far as concerns our own economy, I believe that it is of interest that oil is far less important to UK industry in the year 2000 than it was in the 1970s. It is now mainly used for transport. In addition, energy intensity has fallen since the 1970s. Despite the significant rise in oil prices over the past year, that has resulted in a very modest increase—less than half of 1 per cent—in the RPI. I believe that it is also worth noting that on 6th and 7th March the price seemed to peak and we are now beginning to see it come down. Today, it stands at approximately 25 dollars per barrel. I believe that that indicates that the markets are probably anticipating that when OPEC countries meet on the 27th they will increase their production schedules. Therefore, either way, we are very far from a position where we need to intervene or to take regulatory action of the kind that I believe the noble Lord has in mind. I should add that it does not seem long since I answered a question at the Dispatch Box about what the DTI would do to help the oil industry to cope with very low prices.
Lord Elton: My Lords, surely the Government have taken a series of actions in relation to the rising price

269
of oil, culminating in yesterday's action in the Budget. Diesel fuel costs over 50 per cent more in this country than it does in the Republic of Ireland. That causes considerable distortions of trade across the Border.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that that is a separate, although rather interesting, question. Obviously, it relates to the tax issue. However, the tax increases which were announced yesterday are simply in line with the rate of inflation.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, as I do not have too many opportunities to congratulate the DTI, perhaps I may congratulate my noble friend on proposing to do nothing at all about the price of oil. Would he care to list, or perhaps place in the Library, those areas where the DTI has it in mind to interfere?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that that is an ever-decreasing list of areas.

Roadworks
2.48 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will require all those whose operations have the effect of denying or partially denying use of the highway to normal traffic to exhibit at the site notices stating who they are, what is the purpose of the work they are undertaking and for how long it will continue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, with a few minor exceptions, for roadworks carried out by utilities and telecommunications companies an on-site information board must name the responsible organisation arid a contact telephone number. The board may also contain other information, such as a description of the works, the name of the contractor, and the expected completion date. A code of practice which covers that process is currently being revised.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that Answer. The code of practice certainly needs revision. Is he aware that there is a growing impression that anyone with a mind to do so, and some shadow of an excuse, is free to go along, choose a piece of highway or street and occupy it; dig a hole in it at leisure; leave it for a while; go back to it and fill it in again? Do the Government not believe that the time has come—this is not a party point in any way—when it really would be appropriate for someone to reimpose a measure of control over what now appears to be total licence?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept that the impression gained by the noble Lord and many others is not a million miles away from the way that he described it. But that is not the reality. An undertaker's licence is
270
required. I do not refer to "undertakers" in the sense that we all fear, but in the sense of telecommunications and utility companies.
One of the problems is that a few years ago, when there was a single telecoms company, not many companies were entitled to have access in that way. The latest estimate suggests that there are about 80 such licence holders who have code powers to dig up the roads. The local authorities in central London estimate that whereas 10 years ago there were about 10 such companies, there are now about 30. That may well explain some of the conditions with which the noble Lord is familiar on the streets of London.
It is important that better co-ordination is introduced. The local authorities in London are attempting to achieve that and, as your Lordships will know from previous questions, we have just completed a consultation process on how we can better control this matter.
Lord Peston: My Lords, as a Keynesian economist, I suppose that I should not object to the fact that a large chunk of the labour force is digging holes; that a second large chunk is filling them up again; and a third chunk is looking on, supervising. But perhaps my noble friend can help me in order for me to retain my sanity. Am I right that in London there has been an enormous proliferation of so-called "minor" roadworks which have caused major disruption during the past year and that the number seems to have grown tremendously without, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, pointed out, anybody seeming to be responsible?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that anybody has those statistics. Certainly in relation to central London, there is a general impression that there has been a lot of activity. That relates primarily not to the highways authorities, which are the direct responsibility, in the main, of the local authorities, but to utility companies and, in particular, to the proliferation of cable companies which, under their licences, have the right to require access to under-road sites.
It is a changed situation from that which existed a decade ago. The local authorities are attempting to achieve better co-ordination, but the situation may require legislation. Our consultation process was directed at that and we are now considering the responses.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied with the provisions of the New Roads and Street Works Act?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the provisions of the New Roads and Street Works Act would, if triggered, allow us to charge for over-stay but not on a daily basis. We were addressing the issue of whether we need more substantial powers in order to allow the highways authorities to charge for the total period. There was a

271
mixed response to the consultation. If we were to go further than the provisions of the current Act, we should require primary legislative authority.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, with reference to one of the Minister's earlier answers, when are the results of the consultation and the new code likely to be published? Does he acknowledge that one effect of all this new underground cabling is to make very much more expensive the activities of local authorities in trying to modify the roadways? It is much more expensive to interrupt a fibre cable than to interrupt an ordinary, old-fashioned type of cable. Can anything be done to make sure that statutory undertakers channel their cables, pipes and so on through the same channels so that everyone knows where they are and it is easier to manage the highway above and around them?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is an attempt to get together the various bodies which have the right to access below ground so that they can operate their cable lines and access to that cabling on a co-ordinated basis. However, that does not entirely answer the noble Baroness's question because we should need further powers to ensure that they all follow the same line and that everything is co-ordinated. It is partially the case that access is more expensive, but there have been other improvements in the maintenance activities of highways authorities, both the Highways Agency and the local authorities, which offset that cost. Therefore, the main problem is not in relation to highway maintenance but in relation to utility access, particularly in our central city areas.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will my noble friend comment on why it is that at this time every year roads and pathways are dug up, certainly in London, by local authorities which, all the year round, claim that they have no money to spend on anything and yet, suddenly, in March, they have money to spend on roads? There is hardly a road in one piece throughout the whole of north London at the moment and those works all involve local government money. Where has it come from?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend is not entirely correct to say that those are works by local authorities and highways authorities. As I indicated earlier, they are works carried out by utilities companies. The particular phenomenon at the moment is the cable companies which are providing a cable network within central London. That is what is causing the particular problem.
It is true that a substantial amount of maintenance work is being carried out by local authorities. The usual complaint in relation to local authority road maintenance is that there is not enough of it, rather than that there is too much of it. I hope that in the local transport plans we shall put that right. That should be
272
done on a planned and systematic basis which runs for five years and does not concentrate expenditure at one time.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the noble Baroness's question about the timing of the consultation exercise?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that I did not deal with that question. The consultation exercise ended on 31st January. We are currently assessing the replies and we hope to be able to make an announcement shortly. That will entail us looking at the prospects for legislation.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider publishing a list of those who hold the licences or enjoy the licence to which he referred earlier, the names of the chairmen or various heads of those concerns, and their telephone numbers?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I might consider that along with my DTI colleagues were it not that I think it might encourage or provoke the noble Lord into criminal activity. I should prefer, therefore, not to do so.

Asylum Seekers
2.58 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why Glasgow City Council last week sent 58 Romanian refugees back to Wandsworth after only one week in Glasgow; and whether this is consistent with the Government's policy on dispersal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I understand that the decision by Glasgow City Council to return the asylum seekers was taken on the grounds that some of them should not have been sent from London as they were required, as a condition of their temporary admission to the United Kingdom, to report on a regular basis to a London office of the Immigration Service. The incident in Glasgow was regrettable but does not affect the Government's plans to disperse asylum seekers under the national asylum support scheme.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he not agree that this whole complex and difficult situation is compounded by the fact that last year, while tens of thousands of applications were rejected, only 7,000 people were sent back? Where are the others and who is accommodating them?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord makes reference to a subject which I know exercises many of your Lordships and certainly exercises the

273
Government. The number of removals last year was a record 7,650. That fact is widely known. As to speculating where other asylum seekers may be located, we have good and accurate records but it is undoubtedly the case that there are some who have disappeared within the system. That much is commonly known too. It is extremely difficult to estimate precisely how many of those seeking asylum have disappeared but the Government have been and are determined to keep abreast of this problem. We inherited a system which was not—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I know that Members of your Lordships' House have perhaps taken against the way we are conducting ourselves. But the simple fact is that we inherited a system which was a shambles. We are still working that system. We have tried to tackle it and to get on top of it. We have introduced legislation which will be effective in getting to grips with the problem. I should have expected Members opposite to support the firm, tough action that the Government are taking.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, will the Minister accept that xenophobic attitudes towards asylum seekers now prevail and that there is a need to arrest such attitudes? Will he further accept that politicians could give a lead? Most asylum seekers are not beggars. They are law-abiding people. Will the Minister accept that one of their greatest difficulties is that they cannot work in this country? Will he review that position to ensure that those asylum seekers who are in this country for three months or longer are able to work to earn some kind of living, rather than having to live without adequate means?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government believe that we must deal with and treat asylum applicants with humanity and decency. That much is clear. We had a useful debate in your Lordships' House on precisely that issue only a few weeks ago. As to whether those seeking asylum should be able to work, that is a matter which all governments need to keep under constant review. We do not wish to develop a dependency culture in this country, but we must he fair. We must be tough in the way we exercise our immigration and asylum powers and controls, but we must be firm and stand steadfast against prejudice and bigotry in the system.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that those of us who live in Scotland were ashamed by the spectacle of the refugees being returned on a 400-mile bus journey to London after only a few days in Glasgow? It was entirely due to a lack of communication and understanding on the part of both local authorities in Glasgow and London. Can I have some assurance that there will be no further instances of bureaucratic cock-up in respect of these
274
poor people, many of whom were carrying young children? It has caused great misery to those unfortunate refugees.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the arrangements to which my noble friend refers were voluntary dispersal arrangements. They were not put in place by Her Majesty's Government. They were made between Glasgow and the London consortium of authorities, principally, in this case, the London Borough of Wandsworth. It was highly unfortunate and regrettable in the extreme that there was a lack of, or breakdown in, communication. The circumstances surrounding the decision of council officials in Glasgow to return the asylum seekers to London are, in a sense, understandable, but such situations must not prevail in the future. I am confident that the arrangements we are putting in place for the statutory dispersal scheme will ensure that such a breakdown in communication—a failure, in this instance—does not occur in the future. The situation did not result from government action; it arose between two local authorities as part of the current voluntary arrangements. On that point, I believe that we should leave the matter.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, does not the Minister realise that the incident in Glasgow is merely one illustration of the chaos of the dispersal policy as a whole? It is part of the wider chaos of the Government's asylum policy. Will the Minister confirm that in December the Home Office expected by now to need 10,000 units of accommodation for that policy but that up to last month it had acquired fewer than 1,500 units; and that 1,000 of those involved have refused accommodation and have withdrawn themselves from support? Those were the figures last month. Does the Minister have any that are more recent?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot today provide new information to the noble Lord, but when it is available, I shall, of course, do so. The noble Lord says that the system is chaotic. I cannot agree. The Government have put in place a system of statutory dispersal which will take effect from 3rd April. It is in all of our interests to give support to that system so that we can increasingly bring order to the chaos the Government inherited—a situation we intend to put right. We are working a system we inherited. We are putting measures in place to tackle the problem. It would be in all our interests if the House supported the Government in taking firm and effective action.

Business
3.5 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, after the first debate this afternoon, my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on NHS reform and modernisation.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of Baroness Chalker of Wallasey set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of Baroness Park of Monmouth to two hours.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Africa
3.6 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallaseyrose to call attention to the opportunities and challenges in Africa and the ways in which the United Kingdom can enhance economic growth both in that continent and at home; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am most grateful that we are holding this debate today on the opportunities and challenges of Africa. I am particularly grateful to all noble Lords who have put down their names to speak.
Five weeks ago, over 100 businessmen and women heard the FCO Minister for Africa, Peter Hain MP, directors from Standard Chartered Bank and representatives from Macmillan's the publishers and Unilever's Africa Business Group speak positively about the future of Africa. The Minister herself was a guest at the lunch to hear the discussion. All three companies have constructive business in and sound plans for Africa. The growing markets of Africa are a challenge and an opportunity, not only for those in Africa but for all at home who can assist them.
First, perhaps I may declare my interests. In addition to my current Africa-related non-executive directorships of Unilever plc, the Freeplay Energy Group and Landell Mills Ltd, at the end of 1998 I formed a small advisory company, Africa Matters Ltd., to advance the sharing of knowledge, transparent governance and business development in Africa.
When, three months ago, I first asked for this debate, I thought of the remarkable successes of Mozambique over the past eight years. Despite the tragic effects of the recent floods, with more than 10,000 hectares of productive land destroyed in the past four weeks, Mozambique remains one of the best examples of how a country can progress to sustained growth after years of civil war. That is because it has open accountable government and it is committed to business partnerships.
In Mozambique we have witnessed eight years of real achievement, especially in the south, since the end of the civil war. Now the country's friends must help it to achieve new growth, probably faster than the first time round. The opportunity to rebuild the infrastructure, re-establish agricultural production
276
and re-develop the power and telecommunications networks in the most modern ways now known is one of the greatest opportunities open to business. That means business in this country as well as in Mozambique. If development assistance donors will partner the business and financial communities to build up the human capacity there, the country will be a positive lesson not only for her neighbours but also for development everywhere.
Not only did Mozambique achieve 4.7 per cent growth on average between 1988 and 1998, but Botswana averaged also 4.8 per cent over that period with some highs in double figures in the past 25 years. Uganda averaged 6.9 per cent, Ghana 4.3 per cent and Burkina Faso 3.1 per cent. All those countries had governments which began to focus on building up the capacity of essential sectors to train key workers, start essential privatisation and allow the private sector to grow and work alongside government.
If business sees unequivocal determination of a government to tackle its future, challenge by challenge, business is usually willing and able to partner that government in overcoming the daunting impediments to growth. Aid will still be needed and Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, last week summed it up neatly in the third Commonwealth lecture when he said:
"yet for all that we have done to help Africa overcome its conflicts and false starts and lost decades, I am afraid to say it has not been enough. Africa needs more: more assistance, more technology, more investment, more access to world markets, more cooperation and partnership".
How right he was.
No one agrees more with that than the retiring Commonwealth Secretary-General, Chief Anyaoku. He has helped to return so many of the Commonwealth nations to a fuller understanding of the need for democracy, good governance, sound finance and business development. He has stimulated some important initiatives, such as the establishment of the Commonwealth Association for Corporate Governance, to convince leaders of the essential requirement to carry out their business and government tasks without corruption and within constitutional rules. We wish the Chief and his wife great good fortune in their new life, and a little more time in their village.
We are fortunate in his successor, Don McKinnon, who, like me, was a member of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Team to restore democracy in Africa. He will carry on the essential Commonwealth work into the new millennium. He will be a firm supporter of the growing Commonwealth Business Council, led by Lord Cairns, Cyril Ramaphosa and Dr Mohan Kaul, which promotes the very essence of the partnering concept that business and government are developing across 54 nations.
The business examples of Unilever, Standard Chartered and Macmillans are instructive. I am grateful to them for the information that I shall now share with your Lordships. Besides the oil and minerals industries, Unilever is the number one investor in Africa. Unilever produces in 12 countries

277
and sells consumer goods for personal care, for the household and for food across nearly all other African countries. Its turnover in Africa is above the Unilever average, and it employs over 50,000 people. It also owns plantations in five nations. In Kenya its 19,000 employees benefit from medical care and schooling, which also embraces some 100,000 family members, with a hospital, four clinics, 34 nursery schools, 22 primary schools, two doctors, 65 nurses and many teachers.
In Ghana and South Africa, on-going training is supplemented by the Unilever Foundation for Education and Development for postgraduate training through the Nelson Mandela Scholarship scheme which carries with it job guarantees afterwards.
The service of Macmillans, the publishers, on educational books in Africa is a particularly constructive story. It generates over £25 million of profitable turnover with bases in 14 countries. Macmillans have invested 25 years building those companies, which operate just as publishing companies do in the developed world.
Christopher Paterson of Macmillans is fond of saying, that for business success in Africa one needs nerves of steel with a long-term perspective, a "go anywhere, do anything" attitude and good personal relationships. My judgment is that every task takes rather longer to complete in Africa than in Europe, because often planning is not well thought through and systems are less reliable. However, the issues faced are very similar and with good personal relationships, well-trained and loyal staff, the rewards are there for the efforts invested.
Standard Chartered Bank, although active in much of the developing world, has made a special contribution to Africa for over 100 years. It operates in 12 sub-Saharan African countries, including Sierra Leone. It employs 5,500 people, spends over £100 million a year there, has assets over £1.5 billion, remits all profits, and makes a pre-tax profit of £100 million. As Standard Chartered is the first to say, it is doing well because its customers are doing well. Along with Guinness, BAT, BP, Shell and so many more, Britain's corporates play a huge role in developing Africa, but there are just not enough corporates yet involved. It is amazing to find that the banks remain underlent and we need to remember that there is plenty of debt capacity to support the much needed capital for business.
Although I have always been a fervent, committed advocate of the cancellation of government-to-government debt, debt has a role to play in business. Borrowing has a role to play provided it is done within well-known and well-calculated limits and the risks are clear for all to see.
Turning to the positive side—a factor that is often forgotten—investment brings far more to Africa than just capital. It brings urgently needed technology and management, too. At present Africa gets just 1 per cent of the world's foreign direct investment (FDI), and half of that goes to South Africa, Nigeria and north
278
Africa. Yet investment in Africa brings one of the best rates of return. Standard Chartered Bank reports that for the African region collectively, the return on equity is in excess of 30 per cent. That means that there is real scope for greater investment, and true benefit for the investor. I shall turn to South Africa a little later.
Although it is true that there are always inherent risks, we can begin to minimise those risks through the greater involvement of businesses in addressing the key issues of good governance and tackling corruption. Alone governments cannot, and nowadays should not even try to, provide the infrastructure, but they should gain much from partnerships in planning, delivery, maintenance, upgrading of power, water supply, rail, telecommunications and roads, all of which are essential for education and business.
New initiatives such as African Lakes' e-touch Internet booths are an imaginative development for a few countries. If those and similar schemes are developed, there will be a much-needed communications improvement across Africa, from which millions may begin to benefit.
I repeat that no company should be under any illusion about the extent of the task involved in building up business in Africa. There are severe skill shortages, but there are enormous opportunities for building business through skill sharing, as well as developing equipment and technology. Active investment in a factory or agricultural production produces real multipliers. For one person employed, an extended family of 10 or more is supported, creating new economic activity.
The benefits of training spread fast, particularly where elementary education is a priority. Training helps to stimulate local industries to become suppliers to the main investment. Those suppliers need suppliers themselves. More and more governments are being persuaded to focus on and to introduce best practice action, especially at local levels.
Nearly every development donor is involved in some way in building management and technical capacity in all sectors in the developing world. However, it is crucial that newly trained people get hands-on advice in the application of that capacity. Mentoring by firms is common, particularly by smaller supplying firms.
BESO (the British Executive Service Overseas), of which I am president, is one of over 30 international mature volunteer organisers sending help to small and medium enterprises and to areas of skills shortage across the developing world. For over 25 years that practical skill transfer has brought new insights and applications to thousands of organisations and businesses in the developing world. Business people with real experience can make all the difference to a small start-up, a local hospital or even agricultural development.
However, for capacity building in business to be truly successful, a nation's education has to be soundly based, with the proper commitment of a government's own resources. Much is done to assist this by corporate support, but it cannot succeed unless education is a

279
financial and organisational priority of government on a much wider basis. The use of the Internet and satellite broadcasting will become more useful to education, as will our wind-up radios. But it is e-commerce ingenuity that may help us to overcome some of the education deficits, provided the country's infrastructure is upgraded. At present that is just not so. It must be able to provide the power and improved communication facilities that are needed for far greater numbers.
South Africa's great infrastructure advantages do not exclude it from any of the challenges of education, healthcare or the need for greater investment for the mass of the people. In its recent research, A.T. Kearney found that informed current investors are far more positive about their futures than those who, alas, build up negative perceptions of South Africa from the outside. In South Africa, unlike other countries, it is not so much the market size which attracts investment, rather its stable and business-friendly environment, developed infrastructure and abundant natural resources. Those factors are given as the principal drivers of investment.
The proper development of natural resources, particularly that of minerals, will remain one of Africa's best hopes for investment, growth and employment for years to come. However, companies and governments must have predictable, regulated, orderly and transparent mining regimes with proper regard for health and safety and for the environment, as well as sound corporate social policies. I hope that UN Ambassador Fowler's work to stop the very small proportion of diamonds that come from conflict areas will be seen in proportion. Some 96 per cent of diamond production comes from non-conflict areas. Noble Lords will not need me to explain how many jobs are at stake in that 96 per cent of production.
Service industries, finance, marketing and tourism are all new key areas for investment in Africa. However, healthcare remains a great mountain for most African countries to climb, including South Africa. Tackling HIV and AIDS is still a very major task, which is being much helped by the activities of various business concerns.
Good governance is an absolute must for these countries and will be one of the greatest challenges across the world. But corruption will only diminish when good government and corporate codes of business become the norm. Those will come only when bribers from the north—in the main from the developed countries—stop bribing. That is why it is essential that the UK fully implements the OECD rules against corruption, a matter on which we are being very slow at the present time. By having strong rules, with instant dismissal for offenders, companies can show the way, but governments must help to police the whole system of governance. That requires each and every one of them to put their own houses in order as well.
Perhaps I may end by saying this. Many in Africa are trying hard to improve their performance and to change the world's mistaken perceptions. There are
280
some terrible exceptions to this in the political management of Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola and others. But the builders of Africa—whether President Mbeki in South Africa or President Obasanjo fighting corruption and years of mismanagement in Nigeria, or, indeed, Zambia, which is at last beginning to privatise its mining industry —are making greater efforts to modernise and develop than I have seen over the past 20 years. Those efforts will create employment, prosperity and growth. However, until peace and stability are restored to the war-torn nations, business cannot play the effective role that it wishes to do. Good management can bring positive change, but it requires more leaders, more business and more investors. It also requires them all to pull in the same, positive direction. Then the opportunities will be realised. I beg to move for Papers.
3.23 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate and I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, on putting down this Motion which gives us an opportunity to have a wide-ranging debate about Africa.
I should like to concentrate on South Africa, although I am conscious that we shall deal with the entire continent in this debate. However, South Africa is the area I know best. Anyone who has visited that country cannot fail to be impressed by the strong sense of nationhood felt by her people. It is amazing to see, given the brutal background of that nation. The vitality and optimism for the future shown by South African people leaves a lasting impression on any visitor. However, equally strong is the realisation that South Africa faces major challenges as well as opportunities.
Perhaps I may concentrate on two specific areas in my contribution. The noble Baroness rightly spoke of skills shortages throughout the continent. I should like to talk about education initiatives in South Africa which will help to provide solutions to those shortfalls. The noble Baroness mentioned several household name companies in her contribution. Many are helping in the work on education that needs to be done, not in a patronising fashion but working as partners where both the companies concerned and South Africa can benefit from such efforts. Indeed, those benefits are also felt by the United Kingdom as a whole.
I should like to talk about an education effort that has not received much publicity but is contributing in a helpful manner. Since 1997, the Warwick Manufacturing Group, attached to the University of Warwick, has been working, at their invitation, with the South African Government. Together, they have set up a partnership that has links in both the private and the public sectors. South Africa's electricity generating and distribution company, Eskom, has set up a technology leadership programme that works with Warwick to secure University of Warwick accreditation for both degree and master's courses. This is not a form of distance learning or a franchise.

281
Training is given on the ground by tutors from Warwick working in South Africa. Students also come here to study at the university. The first awards were made in 1998. Tutors in South Africa are now working on the next stage of the master's degree courses.
Eskom is also working to secure its own interest in providing effective management for the future, because it will be a major challenge to provide electricity to every home in South Africa. The company has sent 30 women on its chief executive officers' course being run at Warwick. Those women have been earmarked as potential senior managers in engineering and will provide the leadership of tomorrow.
In 1997, the then Deputy President, now President of South Africa, limbo Mbeki, launched the Project 2000 Campaign, a project that aims, over a four-year period, to train 2000 senior managers to advanced and degree-level on courses designed in co-operation with the University of Warwick. It was a matter of great credit to the United Kingdom when the president said that Professor Bhattchayya of the Warwick Manufacturing Group had provided them with an effective affirmative action programme that would empower future managers and would also extend their capabilities in using competitive management practices in the developing private sector.
That kind of partnership in education will be increasingly useful, as will extending such opportunities info the more disadvantaged areas, such as the University of Zululand in Kwazulu/Natal and Transkei in the Eastern Cape. Today, 800 managers are attending training courses, which is not only good for South Africa, but also good for the work being done here in education. Partnerships of this kind benefit everyone involved.
An area in which I have a particular interest and on which the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, did not touch in her contribution is that of housing. I am glad to have the opportunity to mention this subject in today's debate. Housing is a big challenge for any nation, but from my own observations, it will be an enormous challenge for South Africa. In that country there is a developing sector of social landlords who need professional management skills. The noble Baroness mentioned good governance as part of the strategy required to avoid corruption. That applies as much to social housing as it does in business. The social housing sector in this country is working in a low-key fashion with the South Africa Housing Foundation, which has set up around 50 initiatives.
Regrettably, Britain is not providing the level of resources for projects of this kind as are Holland and one or two of the Scandinavian countries. Nevertheless, we are working on the ground in South Africa, sending over professional managers to work with the local managers in this sector.
I am pleased to be launching later today, under a charity that is already registered, an appeal asking the lending sector—the banks and social housing—to extend bursaries. We are not asking them to give money that we hand on, but to create bursaries
282
whereby we can work with and train in social housing skills, in the United Kingdom, the future young professionals from South Africa. They can then take those skills back and utilise them. That is a positive way forward. It will not change the world overnight. But the need is great for those who are not used to paying rent; who do not have electricity or water. There is a great deal that needs to be done, and quickly.
We are delighted to be working in this sphere. It is an enormous challenge and it is not the kind of stuff that hits the headlines. It is positive rather than negative in the sense that we often tend to read negative stories in the UK. So I welcome this debate. I am sure that all those taking part in it will learn a great deal from it. I look forward to listening to the other contributions so that I, too, can learn and have an input into education and in the development of a housing partnership in which we will be working with, rather than patronising, the people of South Africa. They desperately need to gain from what we have learnt, and then be able to apply it in their own country.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, for introducing this debate and for persisting in her demands to ensure that it takes place. Also, I congratulate her on her eloquent and comprehensive review of the opportunities now available in Africa. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, I want to concentrate on two issues. However, before I do that I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, who will be replying for the Government, in that, if the debate runs for the full three hours, I may have to leave before the end. I apologise for that. It is a longstanding engagement which was difficult to escape from. But were I and other noble Lords to be swift, I should not be faced with that dilemma.
The two issues I should like to address are, first, the question of the macro-conditions which will promote economic development in Africa; and, secondly, the need for a thriving base in society in terms of a free, prosperous, secure people who represent markets and economic potential for companies which might invest.
In relation to the macro-conditions for investment and enterprise, yes, open markets and liberalisation help. But when I attended the Afro-American Summit in Ghana last year as one of a small number of representatives of international business in a meeting with 16 heads of state, it was clear from the businessmen there that the greatest single obstacle to inward investment is something to which the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, referred; that is, corruption. It inhibits responsible, good, long-term players from investing in Africa.
Conversely—we should recognise this; it may be true also for Angola—corrupt regimes have an almost magnetic attraction for pirate companies; for cowboy companies (to mix my metaphors); for people who want to operate on short-term horizons in a thoroughly opportunistic way and who are not

283
prepared to make long-term commitments. Those types of people are often attracted by corrupt regimes which facilitate their swift entry. So there is a double hazard in corruption: it deters the best investors and attracts the worst.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, was a Minister, she addressed the issue of linking British assistance of all sorts to good governance. That remains of crucial importance in Africa. Perhaps when the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, replies she can say whether the Department for International Development is persisting in the policies initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, in terms of that linkage, and if so, how. It is of crucial importance in Africa.
At the micro-level, it is clear that Africa contains a large proportion of the world's most disadvantaged, most poor and least educated people. Business certainly has a role to play as a partner for social development of one sort or another. Indeed, the company of which I was until recently a director and which I still advise, Rio Tinto, which has long-term investments in southern Africa, believes it is the role of companies in Africa to get involved in the development, both social and economic, of the communities where they invest. So business can help in creating capacity, in training and in some of the ways already outlined by the noble Baronesses, Lady Dean and Lady Chalker.
But something further is needed; that is, an opportunity for ordinary people to participate in the informal economy on a scale which is not possible at present. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, said that borrowing has a role to play. It does, but at the micro-level also. We have seen promising experiments in South Africa, Tanzania and other parts of east and southern Africa in the use of micro-credit and micro-finance. One with which I have a close acquaintance is the venture in Kwazulu-Natal of Richards Bay Minerals, which is a subsidiary of Rio Tinto, in pavement banks. They started initially in converted containers. That has been extremely successful cumulatively. It is now part of a larger economic development experiment.
Those banks have been lending small amounts, from £7.50 up to £150, often on quite a short-term basis of a month or two; in fact, the average repayment period in those early experiments, which started in 1994, was 10 days. The money was being overwhelmingly used by hawkers, vendors and traders who would buy their essential stock and obligatory cart and be able to take craft and agricultural products to market. In that way they were brought into the informal economy as small enterprises.
Most striking of all is how much micro-finance such as that benefits women in particular. I believe that women are the great unharnessed opportunity of Africa. The vitality and energy of African women have to be seen to be believed. There is a lot of energy and potential for leadership in the emerging countries of Africa. Micro-credit is one way to allow small business people to realise opportunities which they would
284
otherwise not be able to do. In fact, the experiment I talked of has succeeded, over six years, in creating 3,500 jobs and 830 new micro and small businesses—one can visualise how small the businesses must be.
So I recommend maximum support by the Department for International Development and for companies operating in South Africa to act as bankers and enablers of micro-credit. First, it helps to give people a taste for economic life, for self-management, for money management, for how to meet obligations that are a prerequisite of commercial life. Secondly, it definitely helps sustainability. We had in your Lordships' House a few weeks ago an interesting debate on sustainable livelihoods. Micro-credit is often the means by which people can define for themselves sustainable livelihoods. It is particularly important as a means of enabling women with the confidence to play a full role in that informal economy. Micro-credit has been successful in India, the Far East and in other parts of Africa.
Most striking of all is the fact that the apartheid regime in South Africa really discouraged two forms of activity by the black population. It discouraged people being artisans—that takes us back to the issue of trading capacity—and discouraged black people from knowing how to mend motor cars and windows and learning how to do plumbing. It thought that such jobs ought to be reserved for the white workers of South Africa. The regime also discouraged entrepreneurs—and thus the very possibilities that micro-finance and micro-credit can open up.
Therefore, in creating capacity and recycling credit at the base of the economy—not just simply at the top with the grand investors and the major banks—I hope that Her Majesty' Government will continue to pursue at that rather humbler level all the opportunities that micro-finance and micro-credit make available. In my opinion, the future of Africa economically lies on the whole with more micro activity and rather less grandiose schemes.
3.40 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, for having given us this opportunity to debate the current challenges and opportunities facing the African continent. During her long period as Minister of State responsible for overseas development, the noble Baroness played a key role not just in promoting democracy in many parts of Africa, but also in the implementation of the many economic reform programmes on that continent. Sadly, however, the African continent has been written off as a lost cause by many commentators. I was therefore pleased that the wording of the noble Baroness's Motion addresses the positive opportunities and challenges in Africa.
For obvious reasons of my background, having spent most of my life living in South Africa, I wish to focus my remarks on the political and economic challenges and opportunities affecting not just South Africa but also the entire region of southern Africa. I say "political" because the economic success of any

285
country in Africa is obviously inextricably connected to the political stability of that country. Although there are certainly many positive aspects to speak about in southern Africa, it would be naive of me to paint a purely Dullish, upbeat picture of the region, especially in the, light of the regional conflicts as a result of the civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the devastating recent floods in Mozambique, the seemingly endless civil war in Angola, and the recent collapse of the Zimbabwean economy.
Under the leadership of Nelson Mandela, South Africa achieved the political miracle through his policy of promoting reconciliation. South Africa now needs to achieve a similar economic miracle by enhancing economic growth and creating more jobs. Since the political transformation in 1994 there has been a strong emergence of a black middle class. The central difficulty for President Thabo Mbeki is how he can preserve the position of the newly empowered middle classes while generating a huge increase in jobs for those outside the charmed circle. As has already been mentioned, the poor overall education and skills level—a legacy of the apartheid years—has not helped his cause. Unemployment, excluding the informal sector, is estimated at around 40 per cent of the labour force, with the obvious result that crime has become endemic and a major concern for foreign investors and for locals living in South Africa. Labour economists are increasingly worried about the breakdown in the relationship between growth and jobs. But I believe that President Thabo Mbeki is firmly committed to speeding up the economic reforms and boosting economic growth.
South Africa has implemented prudent macroeconomic policies keeping inflation firmly under control and reducing the budget deficit. It has achieved a fairly stable currency as a result of these measures. In addition to the stable economic environment, the country has an excellent transport, communications and financial services infrastructure. Britain has certainly played a key role as one of South Africa's main trading partners and recently assisted South Africa in the delicate European negotiations on the Free Trade Agreement, giving it wider access to sell its goods in these markets. Sadly, these negotiations have been long protracted and, I believe, have left many South Africans feeling very disenchanted with the process of encouraging South Africa into such markets.
For South Africa to succeed—certainly if the country is to benefit from and contribute to a regional revival—peace needs to be restored in southern and central Africa. Further, the country needs to attract a lot more foreign direct investment. When I say "foreign direct investment", I see this as long-term investment rather than short-term capital flows into the bond or equity markets. South Africans have become increasingly aware of how inefficient much of their industry is, especially formerly heavily protected sectors such as the motor car industry. In the area of infrastructure, more public/private partnerships are needed in southern Africa. The World Bank is trying to facilitate this.
286
I turn now from South Africa to Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe's military intervention in the civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has cost the country dear and plunged the economy into one of the worst financial crises in its history. This has resulted in an escalation of social unrest. The lack of transparency and democracy over the past two decades has led to rampant corruption in the country. I just hope that the forthcoming general elections will he free and fair. Many commentators are concerned by vote-rigging tactics and the lack of checks and balances. Although I have tabled a Question on the subject for next week, I would appreciate it if the Minister could elaborate on what measures Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure that these elections will be free and fair.
It is important for Africa that Zimbabwe recovers from this crisis. It has had an obvious knock-on effect for several British companies, such as Standard Chartered, Barclays Bank and BAT, which have billions of dollars invested in the country. Many countries have halted new aid to Zimbabwe because of its human rights violations, government corruption, economic mismanagement and its military involvement in the Congo. Much of this aid was targeted at rural development, education, health and sanitation programmes, which are essential for those living in poverty. On the positive side, the country—and the economy—has huge scope for growth in agricultural exports, notably tobacco, the mining sector and tourism, combined with the highest literacy rate in Africa, as well as a well-trained workforce. The potential for economic recovery, should there be political stability, is huge for Zimbabwe.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, spoke of the tremendous achievements in Mozambique after so many years of civil war. After all the encouraging economic reforms over the past few years enhanced by foreign investment and privatisation, Mozambique has suffered a calamitous setback as a result of the recent devastating floods that will particularly affect many parts of the rural economy in the south of the country. Roads and bridges close to the Limpopo and Incomati rivers have been washed away and maize fields submerged. The floods have also destroyed a lot of the crops in the eastern part of South Africa, which supplies much of the food for Maputo and the surrounding area. For Mozambique to revive the economic recovery at the same pace as before the floods, the transport infrastructure will need quickly to be repaired and peasant farmers supplied with food until the next harvest.
There are reasons to be optimistic about the future of Mozambique, despite the fact that 11 million of its 16 million people are living below the poverty line. The northern provinces, which have more fertile land, were not affected by the recent floods. Many Mozambicans have not yet moved beyond subsistence farming lo take part in the modern industries of aluminium smelting, tourism and the financial services sector that are driving the current economic growth. I hope that as a result of the recent crisis there will not just be an increase in aid flows, but also much more debt relief for the country.

287
Finally, President Thabo Mbeki's vision of an "African renaissance" is based on the uncontroversial idea that hard work, economic growth, democracy and the fight against corruption will help the continent to realise its undoubted potential. It is patently clear that Africa's economic development is inextricably linked to political developments and peace. I support Her Majesty's Government's endeavours, and particularly those of DfID, to promote this ideal.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey on promoting this debate. I applaud not only her past record in government but also the work she now does in the field of African development. When I travel south of the Sahara her name is a byword for sympathy, understanding, empathy and creative optimism in helping the African nations to develop in extremely adverse circumstances.
I add a few words of praise in a completely nonpartisan spirit for the present holder of the office of Secretary of State for International Development. Clare Short brings great vigour and optimism to her job and seeks to call to our attention the vast importance of development in the poorest parts of Africa and elsewhere and the vast difficulties that exist. As is always the task of holders of that office in any government, she tries to mobilise serious, dedicated and widespread support for the development cause.
Clare Short has made a number of excellent speeches. Indeed, many others have made speeches. If speeches were the currency of development, Africa would become rich, so many speeches and words have been generated. Unfortunately, Africa is not becoming rich, but poor. Many parts of Africa are poorer now than they were in 1960 and are still going backwards. It is also a very violent place. Some noble Lords may have read the chilling and devastating book by the leading American journalist, Robert Kaplan, The Coming Anarchy, in which he describes in detail what is happening in many African countries. That description is remote from the kind of glossy picture sometimes portrayed by elite groups at the UN and other international agencies.
Sierra Leone, although it is temporarily stabilised, is the poorest country on earth. The Ivory Coast used to be rich from cocoa exports but has taken a dive as its forests have been stripped. Somalia has no government at all. Kenya, where I went with starry eyes in the 1960s to help with the Federation of East Africa, was an efficient and prosperous state but has sunk down and down into greater difficulties, corruption and chaos. AIDS is gripping poor Zambia; Zimbabwe has AIDS and bad politics, as we have just heard in the telling and informed speech of the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso. There is war in Congo Brazzaville and in Angola. Even South Africa, which I greatly admire and love, is a violent country with a murder rate six times that of the United States and five times that of Russia. Central Johannesburg is
288
becoming almost uninhabitable. These are steps backwards, not forwards. We must contrast the positive side, which my noble friend Lady Chalker stressed so strongly, with the reality of some dreadful developments.
What are the problems? There is no doubt that the whole globalisation process produces good and bad, tensions and opportunities, and is doing so in some of the poorer societies and nations of Africa. The old idea that pouring billions of pounds worth of aid into Africa would achieve something has proved totally wrong. The billions have gone in; development, in general, with marvellous exceptions, has not occurred. The whole school of development economics is fundamentally wrong in terms of what drives development. The model of people such as W W Rostow and the generation of economists who looked at economic factors but failed to look at the constitutional and legal factors and the underlying questions of good governance, which have been rightly mentioned, was simply wrong.
Much nearer the mark was the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, a Member of this House who was much derided at the time for saying that the key to economic growth lay in the historical dimension of what had happened previously and in the customs and the constitution of the country concerned. By taking account of that, one would understand what made growth happen; if one simply poured in money, one would not. He argued that,
"understanding of antecedents was critical to the understanding of the current social phenomena and how development would proceed".
He was right. Those who derided him were wrong. It is not more and more aid that will move these African countries forwards rather than backwards; it is far greater concentration on basic things wrapped up in the phrase "good governance". I refer to respect for property and property rights so that you can invest without having that investment removed from you. I refer to law and order and the confidence of knowing that some roaming, illegal gang will not come along at night to slaughter your family and take your possessions. I refer to political stability—government that is soundly advised and with the legal system entrenched. I refer to reasonable freedom from corruption. One cannot be too strict about that as there will always be a degree of corruption. One cannot eliminate it entirely. That is one important starting point which I think we have to accept if we are to see progress in Africa. We must be careful with the word "democracy". The word flows easily from the lips of many lecturers and elite groups, but there is democracy, pseudo-democracy and the trappings of democracy. We may find better prospects for the future in the model of Uganda today. President Museveni attended the Select Committee in the other place which I had the honour to chair. When eager young MPs asked him why his country did not have democracy, he replied, "How long did it take you to achieve a proper democratic system—300, 400, 500 years? What do you expect in Uganda?" If it is only pseudo-multi-party democracy, with soldiers chucking grenades into the middle of it, that does not

289
lead to development but to more chaos and more difficulty. We need to be careful as regards preaching about democracy being the answer and the model for Africa to follow tomorrow morning.
My noble friend Lady Chalker is totally right to say that Africa needs private investment, the return of flight capital and debt relief. Somehow, capital has to be injected back into Africa. There is much private investment in emerging countries—244 billion dollars last year. However, as my noble friend rightly reminded us, the vast proportion of it does not go to Africa. How do we get that flowing again? I believe that the roots of the development must be humble and focused on the smaller owner, the smaller processor, the smaller factory and the smaller farmer. I always admired the model of what was once known as the Colonial Development Corporation and which later became the Commonwealth Development Corporation. I admired that model over the years from the days when Evelyn Baring was chairman. It adopted the right approach to small-scale, private enterprise development. We should forget the big, glamorous schemes and the giant aid flows and get on with small-scale development in the form of agriculture, processing and distribution. My noble friend is absolutely right to say that that is what is needed.
Access to markets is extremely important. I am shocked by the way in which the American trade unions at present are blocking African textile exports to the United States. I am shocked to see how many other people who generally preach virtue and development when their own specific interests are threatened put obstacles in the way of exports from the poorest parts of Africa into the great markets of Europe and the United States.
Perhaps I may quickly run through my list of world institutions. Can they do more? The World Bank seems still not to have its tasks properly focused. Much too much effort is going into concessionary lending to Argentina, Mexico, Brazil and China—all countries with huge access to private capital. If we need this institution, why is it not concentrating much more on the poorest countries?
Why is the IMF playing around in this area so unsuccessfully when it should be limiting its activities, as the Melzer report rightly recommends, to liquidity crises and short-term situations? It is getting into a muddle about its role and stepping onto ground which should be covered by the World Bank.
As to the United Nations, splendid and excellent work is done by its agencies hut, again, it seems to be losing its focus. The UN should be defining and upholding the rules of international order and continuing with its works of mercy. Yet it appears ready to invade the sovereignty of nation states and to try to umpire between good and evil in ways which usually end up with the poorest suffering. We need to see change in all those areas if the African development pattern is to take off.
I conclude with one brutal and awkward question: does Africa really matter at all to our electorate? We have to ask that question because development policy
290
must win support in our country at large. No amount of wishful thinking and idealism can get round that fact. I believe that in the end Africa is strategically extremely important in terms of our precise national interest. Disease, war, migration and environmental destruction all threaten our cosy societies, threaten Europe and threaten global stability.
We will be saved, not by the world government or even more aid, but by what Kofi Annan called, in his Commonwealth lecture last week, "solid frameworks of law". If we can work out how to get from here to solid frameworks of law in the small and medium-sized states of Africa, we will have secured a better path to development than anything a thousand economic remedies or theories can offer. It is the realists, the investors and the hard-headed businessmen rather than the idealists and the foreign aid enthusiasts who can and will bring this about.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, it is a pleasure and a privilege to take part in this debate which was introduced so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. I appreciate following the noble Lord, Lord Howell because he mentioned my former colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Bauer. I want to link the remarks attributed to the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, with some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. They are pertinent.
Let me begin with the question asked by the noble Lord: does Africa matter to us? I think I do not care; Africa matters to Africans. We should worry about Africa not because it is in our interests or to our profit—or even because it is to our detriment that Africa may spread disease—but because many people live there. Their well-being should matter to us regardless of whether or not we do business with them. We shall do business with them, but we should take an interest in Africa because many Africans live there.
For far too long and throughout the Cold War, we have tolerated misgovernance in Africa. We aided and abetted bad governance—we gave lots of money to people like Mobutu—and we should not now suddenly shake our heads and say, "The mess you have made is nothing to do with us. When are you going to behave yourselves?"
I remember that in the 50s, when I began to study development economics, Africa was not a poor country; Asia was. People in Asia looked with envy at Africa—at Ghana, Nigeria and Kenya—and thought, "Aren't the Africans lucky? They have lots of land, lots of natural resources and not much population". We thought that they had all the institutions that had been given to them by western countries. Asia was the big worry. I remember people saying in the mid-60s, "If only India and China could feed themselves, there would be very few problems left".
It is interesting to think of how Asia has taken care of its own problems, and Africa has not. I think that, fundamentally, the key lies in the way that Asia has looked after agriculture and rural development, and Africa has not. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said in that respect. Many years ago,

291
Peter Baher reminded us that agriculture in Africa, especially in west Africa, is women's business. Trade is women's business. Many development agencies when they first went to Africa forgot this—they did not know—and so men were given agricultural grants. But men did not know much about agriculture; they had never had experience of it before.
One way of reviving African economies is to go back to the rural development issue, where again micro-credit helps. There we will find that African people have natural habits of entrepreneurship, especially African women. It would be a great opportunity for Africa to revive those trading practices and exports. After all, west Africa used to be a major exporter of agricultural products. But those economies have been smashed up by people who thought them unfashionable. We now know that those people were wrong. They followed the wrong ideology of starting industrialisation and transferring the surplus from rural to urban areas; and they indulged in certain fashions, as newly independent countries do.
However, we have to admit that at that time we were part of the problem but not part of the solution. We now have to examine our own role and say to ourselves, "Should we do too much? Should we not allow Africa the opportunity to look after itself? Helping, yes, perhaps; but not again laying down the law as to what it should do this time. We did it last time and we got it wrong".
I should like to concentrate on the theme which, to me, is the most important key to development in Africa. I refer to export-oriented rural development and micro-credit. In that context, one of the major concerns is not only democracy but decentralisation. It was because of a concentration of power in the urban areas and capital cities that a massive misallocation of resources took place. Once again, we should take the message of devolution of power and decentralisation to Africa—I am sure that DfID is doing so—and of giving women their proper role in local politics.
There are good examples of that. In India, seats are reserved for women at the panchayat level. It has been a long time coming. It has not been easy because men do not readily give up power. It is important that we push the idea of a combination of decentralisation, devolution of power, micro-credit, and rural development to revive Africa's fortune. It is obvious to the people concerned that that is the way out; it affects their livelihoods and they hardly need telling. We need basically to get out of their way and to help them to achieve what they can.
Many noble Lords have said that from the mid-50s onwards—almost 50 years ago now—the big failure in Africa was a failure of governance. A few years ago, Basil Davidson, a long-standing student of Africa, wrote a book entitled Black Man's. Burden—I recommend it to noble Lords—in which he pointed out that nationalism cost Africa dearly through the setting up of small nation states. Those nation states, indulging in their own fancies—as they were wont to do—cost Africa a lot of valuable surplus which was not reinvested. That was combined with the wrong
292
theory; namely, that all business, especially private business, was somehow "anti-people", and that did not help either.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that issues of governance are again prominent. I should not go so far as to say that Africa does not need democracy; I still believe that democracy is a good thing. We do not insist, for example, that, because the railroad happened in Western countries, Africa should go through all the stages that those countries went through before having railroads. We encourage everyone to have the latest technology. Why, when it comes to politics, Africa needs 500 years to develop democracy, I do not understand.
Centralised democracy at national level is not enough. What are necessary are vibrant connections at local as well as national level. To use another clich00E9;, the quality of civil society is very powerful. One African country I have visited more than any other is Sierra Leone. I used to go there as an external examiner in the days when the Fourah Bay college was a great university and external examiners were honoured and the red carpet was rolled out for them.
Since then, I have seen Sierra Leone falling apart in the most amazing way. In the late 1970s, it was not the poorest country in Africa. It was a properly governed, good country; it had a good infrastructure and so on. The most surprising thing I found on revisiting the country was that there was no newspaper. In Freetown, it was not possible to get hold of a tabloid or a broadsheet which was readable. All that was occasionally available was some grubby thing with four pages. That should have triggered some idea as to where the problem lay. There was no civil society, no standard channels by which people could operate outside the political system. The political system monopolised all social life.
Africa is much more in need of the forces of civil society, which would act as a counterbalance to politics. Politics of itself, and the monopoly of power in Africa, have done a great deal of harm. However, I am sure that enough things are happening in Africa for Africa to take care of itself.
4.12 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, whom I still regard as probably our best secret weapon in Africa.
Africa has come a long way. My father walked from South Africa, where he arrived at the age of 20, to what was then Nyasaland, now Malawi, in 1896—over a century ago. I arrived in 1922, at the age of eight months, by sea at Beira in Mozambique and travelled up the newly built railway to the Zambezi, then, as now, in flood. My journey from southern Tanganyika to the coast at the age of 11 to go to school in England took 10 days, first walking, then by lorry through a plague of locusts, then by train. We had to stop to collect the wood to fuel the train. We lived in a house built of mud and wattle. We had no electric light, running water, telephone, radio or car, and I spoke the local African language almost before I spoke English.

293
Law and order was kept by one district officer and one or two Askaris (native policemen), and justice was given in the courts. Years later, I heard Robert Gardiner tell an audience of young Zambian diplomats that although they should now grasp and enjoy their independence, they must never forget that it was to the British that they owed the rule of law which had replaced tribute to the witch doctor and the chief.
I believe that the British tried, as did the French in a different way, to leave an infrastructure to govern each country as they withdrew. I believe also that, under pressure from both political correctness and financial stringency, and perhaps a degree of disgraceful indifference, we left too soon. But the real disaster which has destabilised the centre of Africa was the disgraceful vacuum left by the Belgians when they gave independence to the Congo, where I served for a year before independence and for over a year afterwards. There were at independence 12 graduates in a country the size of India. No civil servants and no members of the professional class (doctors, teachers, lawyers, accountants) were available to administer a vast and rich country in the modern world. Unilever and Shell alone produced people with experience, some of whom became Ministers. One from Shell, alas, was eaten in a tribal war at the very outset of independence.
The leaders who emerged, many of them, at the beginning, men of quality and principle, Mobutu included, struggled, but anarchy and chaos ensued, and the UN presence, when it came, was a disaster too—wrongly conceived. Three days after independence and after meeting Ministers from Nigeria and Uganda, two of Lumumba's Ministers came to me to ask whether they could after all change their minds and whether the country could become a British colony. I had to say no. Six months earlier, a delegation of former Eoka men from Cyprus, who had settled in what was then Stanleyville, now Kisangani, demanded that the British should take over the Congo. I expressed some surprise that that should come from men with their background, but they said firmly that the British could be relied upon to run an independence in a tidy way.
I later served in Zambia for four years. That country too, sadly, although it had a number of good civil servants and professional men, including barristers, and one very profitable industry, copper, which later failed, did not have the infrastructure to run an effective economy in the modern world. President Kaunda told me as late as 1992 that he had always had to reshuffle the same five or six able people in the key jobs of chairman of the bank, secretary to the Cabinet, and so on, and that in the end they had usually defected to the much more lucrative private sector. I knew many of those men. They were my friends. And, alas, it is true: it was very tempting for them. That, quite apart from party pressures, had made it almost impossible to administer the complex and sophisticated regimes required by the IMF and the World Bank.
294
It becomes all the more tragic that another country which, after a long and debilitating war, entered independence with an excellent infrastructure, a well-educated population and the capacity to flourish economically, Zimbabwe, should now he in such dire straits. The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, has spoken about this, but I should like to say a little more. I have family connections there, third-generation Zimbabwean citizens, tobacco farmers, who bought their land well after independence and who are committed to the country for good or ill. When I was serving in Zambia at the time of UDI, I also made many friends in both the ZANU and ZAPU groups in exile, and was several times denounced on Salisbury radio as a friend of terrorists.
At the Lancaster House settlement it was recognised that land reform was essential and proper, but also that there should be compensation from the government for land acquired for resettlement by African farmers. The Land Acquisition Act 1992 laid down the right to compensation and for appeals against arbitrary acquisition. It was in any case intended originally to apply only to derelict farms or farms held by foreigners or absentee landlords. Some land was acquired subsequently by the government, but without proper schemes to train and fund the Africans whom they wished to settle there and grow tobacco or raise stock. Thus they failed to be viable and the land either lay unused or had in any case been given to politicians and others to whom the government owed favours. Over the years, the farmers union has trained many Africans in its farm development colleges as farm managers and has worked with small farmers so that a corpus of people with the necessary skills to run a modern enterprise is gradually being created. The union believes in a programme of land reform which would contribute to job creation and stability and which would develop the rural areas. It believes also that the government should enable Africans trained in this way to acquire title to their land.
However, in 1997 the government moved to serve acquisition orders on over 800 individual farms. Since they announced that there would be no compensation, since the economy depends for some 44 per cent of its foreign currency on the revenue from agriculture, and since, not least, agriculture employs a very large proportion of the people (over 250,000 farm workers would be thrown out of work), that proposal seriously destabilised the country. Donors such as the IMF, the World Bank, the EU and indeed HMG subsequently sought and received many reassurances that there would be proper compensation, even if it had to be phased. Since then, as we all know, those promises have been broken several times and international aid and loans have been frozen. Zimbabwe's funds are daily depleted to pay for the war in the Congo and, indeed, for President Mugabe's own excesses, and with no money to pay for the import of fuel the country is fast running down. Perhaps the saddest thing is that Zimbabwe has more in its favour than almost any other country in the region: a well educated population; plenty of entrepreneurs, white and black;

295
until now a relatively flourishing economy; good race relations, and a white population who are citizens, not settlers in an alien land; a courageous press and effective trade unions; a respected judiciary, which is not afraid to challenge the state; and a population both sensible and sophisticated enough, despite much tribal hype, to vote in a referendum against the party line and for the interests of the country. They have recognised that the so-called "veterans", very few of whom are old enough to justify the title, are the president's bully-boys. On the farms that they have invaded, under party instructions, the African workers themselves are rejecting them. The Europeans are behaving calmly and with good sense under pressure. It would be a tragedy if a country with so much to offer both its people and Africa in general should go down.
It is a country in which all the conditions for economic prosperity exist. I respect the firm way in which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been dealing with Mr Mugabe, but I hope to welcome action, stimulated internationally, both to end the wickedly wasteful war in the Congo and to enable a good, effective multi-racial economy in Zimbabwe to thrive as it deserves to do. No country is an island: disaster in Zimbabwe in terms of unemployment and turbulence will mean serious destabilisation in the neighbouring countries, not least Botswana, South Africa and Zambia. I cannot believe that we and the Commonwealth do not have both the power and the interest to exert real pressure on the man responsible, and to provide an international presence at the election, as the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, suggested. The people could not have made it clearer that they wish to reject the policies of the man responsible.
We ought not to forget either that if it is not made possible for the natural leaders of Zimbabwe, such as the African trade union leaders, to have an effective voice in the affairs of their country, the president could well bring back the army and install yet another pernicious African military regime which could repeat the atrocities perpetrated in Matabeleland some years ago. That would be a terrible end for a good country which deserves better.
I conclude by endorsing what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, about the power of the women of Africa. They are indeed remarkable. I can remember being in despair in Accra on one occasion because I needed to get to Togo and the High Commission had assured me that it was totally impossible—no aeroplanes, roads under water, no way of getting there. I went to the market and asked a mammy, one of the large African market women, "Do you have a mammy wagon going to Togo?" "Yes", she said. I said, "Can I come?" She looked at me and said, "Fine", so I climbed on the lorry. I was put in the front, of course, as the guest of honour, and my suitcase was banished under the goats, the cheeses and the people in the back. I recall that the wagon had written on it some slogan such as, "God is with us". We needed it; the wagon had no brakes$ However, we got to Togo and
296
the ambassador was probably as surprised as the High Commission, but I was not at all surprised. African women can do anything.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity given to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, to debate this important matter this afternoon. I also particularly welcome the remarks of my noble friend Lady Dean concerning the valuable work of the Warwick Manufacturing Centre, particularly in postgraduate training, in South Africa. The work of that centre and Professor Kumar Battacharia is a very good example of what can be achieved in terms of the practical promotion of excellence in that continent.
I found myself somewhat surprised to be so fully in agreement with the points made by my noble friend Lord Desai about the relative confidence that he has in the continents of Africa and south Asia. Twenty years ago, when I was a junior Minister in the Ministry of Overseas Development, I was very optimistic about Africa and very pessimistic about South-East Asia. Twenty-five years later, the relativity of my thinking has changed somewhat, despite the threats of nuclear proliferation in South-East Asia and despite the beacons of hope which exist in Africa. The beacons of hope are clearly there, but they are very much offset by some of the often preventable and self-inflicted tragedies, some of which we have heard about this afternoon, such as the tragedies of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone and Angola. There are, of course, other areas which we have not discussed. I refer particularly to the bitter disappointment of certain areas such as the Magreb and parts of the Mashraq, where the European Union early in its development had devoted so much energy to the negotiation of agreements.
I believe that parts of Africa have clearly been successful. However, other parts of Africa give cause for deep, continuing and perhaps even deepening concern. They are riddled with conflict—ethnic and religious clashes, tribal conflicts, conflicts over post-colonial borders—and those conflicts are frequently compounded by the existence of corruption. In addition, I believe that there is cause for concern which has recently been highlighted in the very important but equally depressing report of the International Committee of the Red Cross, entitled War, Money and Survival. It suggests that,
"Prolonged internal violence in countries with rich natural resources but corrupt or weak governments may best be understood as battles for money or resources".
The flavour of that report is to be found in an excellent article which was published in the Economist of 4th March, which states:
"Wars in such countries serve some participants well. Violence provides a cover for the extraction and smuggling of resources, and armies, either private or national, give the means to control workers, transport and territory. War itself can be the means of getting rich (for example, in trading arms or by fighting as a mercenary) or of survival (bands of ill-educated young men

297
recruited into arrives in Sierra Leone … make guerrilla warfare a way of life). Such participants may continue to exploit a war rather than win it and end it".
I believe that that somewhat depressing scenario is evident across much of the continent of Africa.
However, the world must not and cannot give up the commitment and the objective of concerning itself with the economic growth of Africa. In my opinion, the trade opportunities for that continent and with that continent must be developed and fostered. We have some responsibility in that respect. For example, the Uruguay Round was not a round which showed any concern fix the continent of Africa. To suggest that everybody benefits from trade liberalisation is, in my opinion, the worst sort of cop-out. In relative terms, Africa did extraordinarily badly by comparison with us, with the European Union, with the United States, with Japan. If poverty is a relative concept, that means that the fate of Africa was worsened by the Uruguay Round, and all the signs for the current WTO negotiations are that Africa is not placed to fare any better. We there fore have to accept responsibilities in addition to standing back and criticising the appalling tragedies as they unfurl before us.
However, Africa is well placed to benefit from two current changes. There are obvious benefits to be gained from the increasing commitment to debt relief. There is also a benefit to be gained from the new European Union/ African, Caribbean and Pacific agreement, the successor agreement to Lomé0 IV, which has just been negotiated, facilitating market access for the least developed countries.
On the subject of debt relief, I merely mention that debt relief should not be seen by anyone, as I am sure it is not in your Lordships' House, as an end in itself. If debt relief is to serve a useful purpose, the financial benefits that accrue from it must be properly deployed and used to the right ends. Poverty reduction and elimination, the development of education and literacy, and the capacity to compete in trading terms with the world must be the beneficiaries of the financial resources that flow from debt relief.
As to market access, it is perhaps appropriate that in this debate we should regret both the delay in and the dilution of the European Union/Republic of South Africa trade agreement. Agreement should have been reached at the Cardiff Summit. It is to the shame of the EU that, for petty advantage on marginal products, that agreement was so long delayed. It shames us all that for those marginal benefits the Republic of South Africa was left without a trade agreement, despite the fact that EU heads of state and government had invited Nelson Mandela to Cardiff in the expectation of such an agreement.
That is now behind us and we have the new European Union/ACP agreements, which are substantially better than those that they replaced. The EU has given a unilateral commitment that essentially all products will be both duty free and quota free. I draw particular attention to the words "essentially all" and hope that when my noble friend replies to the debate she will give some inkling of current Whitehall thinking on what they mean. I hope that they mean
298
precisely that, and that the Government will seek to ensure that the minimum number of exemptions are inserted into those agreements.
Goods exported by LDCs can now come here. The clause which discriminated between least developed and non-least developed LDCs has been removed from the agreement. There is also an extremely important proposal relating to simplified goods of origin in the agreement. Although the EU has traditionally been the most generous in the supply of preferential terms, those terms apply only to the LDCs within the framework of the Lomé Agreement. For all other LDCs in Africa which are dependent on the generalised scheme of preferences for access to the European Union, that scheme does not give as good access to markets. We must ensure that they have the capacity to compete and have access to our markets on the same terms as those now available to countries which are the beneficiaries of EU/ACP agreements.
In this very useful debate we have focused on a number of points. The final test is how we help Africa to promote its own economic growth, which must be achieved. One thing that we can provide is tariff-free and quota-free market access to all LDCs. The "essentially all" means exactly that: the minimum number of exceptions that are humanly possible—and even those must be worked out of the system.
I again welcome the debate and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, on giving us the opportunity to debate the matter this afternoon.
4.34 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I join all other noble Lords in warmly congratulating my noble friend Lady Chalker on initiating this debate and inspiring us with her wealth of knowledge and experience. I focus on two areas: one a place of hope, albeit very precarious; the other a place of increasing despair. I refer to Nigeria and Sudan.
I begin with Nigeria from which I returned yesterday. I had the privilege of meeting the president and several ministers of state and of visiting Kaduna, the scene of recent horrific riots. The elections last year saw a welcome return to democracy and the reinstatement of Nigeria as a member of the Commonwealth. President Obansanjo subsequently set out his government's priorities, which include fundamental economic reform, an anti-corruption drive, and poverty eradication. The president needs and deserves strong support of every kind to achieve those objectives.
The ministers to whom I spoke emphasised the need for debt relief. Sadly, they also expressed concern about Britain's apparent lack of commitment to investment in economic development. They feel very disappointed by the lack of investment by British companies compared with other countries, including many in the European Union. Particular concerns were expressed about the need for investment in the construction, telecommunications, energy and oil industries. British companies have not only failed to invest relative to other countries but in many cases have pulled out.

299
These are difficult days of transition for Nigeria which has suffered so much under undemocratic and brutal rulers. As the president and his government strive to maintain democracy and curtail corruption, they need help with economic development. It is hard to sustain democracy when people have empty stomachs. I was, therefore, saddened to hear Ministers express disappointment over Britain's record. I ask the Minister what steps are being taken by the DTI actively to encourage investment. Will more active measures be taken to help Nigeria in these critical days?
I follow my noble friend Lady Park with a brief personal anecdote which may make a point more strongly than generalities. Just two days ago I travelled by car from Kaduna to Abuja. When we were in the bush about 100 miles from either city, and away from any village or settlement, our car broke down, the bearings of both back wheels having disintegrated. There we were in the middle of the bush with absolutely nothing. Suddenly, three young men who appeared from nowhere proved themselves extremely competent mechanics. They removed the rear wheels from the car and suddenly produced from nowhere replacement wheel bearings for our Honda. One would be hard put to find such brilliant service if one's car broke down in Britain. In the bush we found an example of local Nigerian skill, competence and enterprise.
With that illustration, I return to more general points. The Nigerian ministers identified other priorities, including poverty alleviation and healthcare. The former can be assisted by economic development; priorities for the latter include assistance with immunisation, malaria and communicable diseases. I ask the Minister whether DfID will assist in satisfying those very urgent needs.
I turn to the recent tragic events in Kaduna and elsewhere in which hundreds of people, both Christians and Muslims, were killed and many homes and properties were burnt. Tension remains extremely high. One member of our group was involved in a very frightening incident which nearly developed into a lynching. The tensions and riots are associated with moves to implement Sharia law in the northern states. I met leaders of both Christian and Muslim communities, all of whom agreed on the need for dialogue to promote understanding and peaceful co-existence; but deep divisions still remain. One imam, the national co-ordinator of the Muslim-Christian Dialogue Forum, confirmed the continuing commitment of Muslims to introduce Sharia law in the north. One Anglican bishop who was deeply committed to working for peaceful co-existence spoke of his fear that Nigeria would disintegrate under these pressures.
Although the Nigerian leadership has commendably averted the present crisis, there are indications that it may well recur. As we were told, Muslims still want to implement Sharia law and there may be strong international support from other Islamic countries for them to do so. For example, when Sharia law was
300
introduced into Zamfara State, envoys from countries such as Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt and Libya were reportedly present at the ceremony and offered financial support. Although Muslim leaders give assurances that its implementation will not affect non-Muslims, experience in countries such as Pakistan shows that its penal code has wide-ranging repercussions; for example, in that country countless citizens have suffered from misuse of the blasphemy code.
We were also told by many Nigerians, rather disturbingly, that they believed the motives for implementing Sharia law were not only religious but also political. By exacerbating unrest, they may create political instability which is intended to unseat the president. Therefore, the president and his democratically elected government need strong support as they address the challenges that confront them in this difficult, sensitive and complex situation.
I turn briefly to Sudan. Following the reply given by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, to my Starred Question on 13th March, I am concerned that the Government's policy of critical dialogue may be long on dialogue and short on effective criticism. For example, in the response to that Starred Question the Minister apportioned blame equally to the National Islamic Front Government and to the Opposition. That perception could not be further from the truth.
I do not claim that the opposition forces, including the SPLA, are angels. War is war. But the opposition forces do not have an agenda of ethnic cleansing of civilians from their homelands; they do not callously and deliberately bomb civilian targets such as schools and hospitals; and they do represent the previous democratically elected government. Moreover, in our experience, whenever the opposition regained control of an area, they worked hard and fast to establish a civilian authority and civil society. Many Arabs and Muslims from the north whom we meet when they come south to trade and graze cattle in the dry season tell us that they prefer being in SPLA areas because human rights are respected and they feel safe there.
By contrast, the NIF regime, now called the "government of Sudan", was not democratically elected. It represents no more than 5 per cent of the Sudanese people. It took power by military coup and retains it by terror and subjugation. Countless Muslims in the north have been unlawfully arrested, detained, tortured and executed in prisons, and ghost houses. When I visited the NIF leaders in Khartoum in 1993 to hear their viewpoint, there was overt commitment to Jihad against the peoples of the south and the Nuba mountains. The word "Jihad" has many meanings, but the NIF's interpretation is full-scale war with massive military offensives against innocent civilians, with massacres, scorched earth policies, and the abduction of thousands of women and children into slavery.
These policies have been documented not only by us in Christian Solidarity Worldwide but by many other people and organisations, including UN rapporteurs. Recently in the oil-rich lands the government

301
attempted ethnic cleansing of tens of thousands of Africans from their traditional homelands. This has been documented in the Harker report to the Canadian Government. There have been many independent witnesses to recent bombings of hospitals and of a school in the Nuba mountains. A government spokesman even confirmed that the school was their intended target. Right now, while we talk today, government forces are undertaking a massive offensive in Hamesh Khoreb in the Kassala region in eastern Sudan where the Beja Muslim people live.
Economic investment in areas controlled by the government of Sudan only encourages that brutal regime and enhances its capability to carry on killing its own people. This is particularly the case with investment in the exploitation of the massive oil reserves. The government are siphoning off 450 million dollars a year to fuel that war and to purchase weapons to kill their own people. Will the Government please press for a total oil audit?
The situations in Nigeria and Sudan are totally different. Nigeria desperately needs economic investment to accelerate development and to underpin its still fragile democracy. I hope that Britain will improve its record there. By contrast, Sudan is looking for economic investment to improve its pariah image and to help to finance its war against its own people.
I conclude by asking whether the Minister will give assurances that the Government will not encourage the government of Sudan, directly or indirectly, economically or politically. Last Monday the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, quoted a figure of 1.5 million people who have suffered in that war. That is a huge under-statement. Up to 2 million have died; and 5 million have been displaced in recent years. Please will this Government—they have expressed an honourable commitment to human rights and an ethically-based foreign policy—look again at the evidence and not be guilty of doing business with a regime which has the blood of millions on its hands?
4.44 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, does Africa a great service in tabling this debate. Her enthusiasm is infectious. I am grateful to her, and delighted to support the case for improving opportunities for that great continent which still receives only a fraction of the attention it deserves from our politicians and business sector.
My particular concern is for the poorest, and how they can benefit. I know that the economic strength of a nation should ultimately improve the life of everyone, but that trickle-down argument is now discredited. It is equally important that measures must be pro-poor; that is, directed towards the needs of vulnerable sections of society. Those inevitably include a range of political as well as economic objectives, as spelled out in DfID's latest enormous consultation document entitled, Economic Well-being. If policy statements could feed people, 1999 was a bumper year and we shall certainly have enough to go round.
302
People see aid policies as humanitarian and often ask how they can make a difference to the economy. Alongside IMF-inspired reforms there have to be targeted human development programmes. Many of these can directly address small businesses especially in the informal sector, bringing income into the poorest purses. As the noble Lord, Lord Holme, and others have said, there are a number of practical ways in which small injections of aid can stimulate local economies such as the use of micro-credit, loan schemes on the Grameen model, new marketing techniques, education and training, and the strengthening of local institutions. Many of these programmes are run by NGOs in partnership with the local community and government. The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, mentioned housing. I can think of many examples of rural African entrepreneurs starting up with this kind of funding. The CDC was mentioned. Some multilateral agencies like the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) have an excellent record in bringing skills arid finance into the poorest regions—not as outsiders, but by involving people directly in their own development.
Despite their new commitment to private enterprise, I do not believe that this Labour Government are enamoured of the IMF's adjustment policies in Africa which, although they have moderated, seem to have increased rather than alleviated poverty in the short term. But however bullish our own aid department, Africa has a very low priority in Downing Street. The Government will have technical answers to this debate; and I know there are a host of diplomats and aid workers who are committed to helping Africa, but we also have to ask whether the will is there to improve our trade and investment in Africa.
After all, our trade with sub-Saharan Africa has changed very little, despite some improvement in our imports from South Africa which accounts for nearly half of all our trade. Investment figures are only a guide: they hide the hideous inequalities and injustice of trade which can benefit unelected authoritarian regimes like Sudan, or play one side of a nation against another, such as in Angola. Yet there are British companies which have continued a long tradition of working in Africa, and they should be encouraged.
As a wealthy nation able to give away £3 billion in an afternoon, there can be no doubt about our ability to respond to a country in crisis. We are one of the foremost countries in humanitarian aid. Even with a limited aid budget, we have been faithful to post-conflict countries like Uganda, Sierra Leone and Mozambique, especially where the political conditions are right. But taking a harsher, City view, Africa north of the Limpopo hardly even figures in our economic vision. We regard sub-Saharan Africa as a bloc more like Soviet Central Asia or some far away war-torn region than the vast continent of nations and cultures which has influenced the entire western world.
From our island we have been in the habit of seeing the Anglo-Saxon culture as dominant for at least two centuries. But from another perspective, it has been Africa and the Caribbean which have supported our wealth, our lifestyle and our trade, let alone influenced

303
our culture, cuisine and music for at least that period of time. Many of us in Britain come from Africa, or have lived there. Indeed, we increasingly acknowledge that it was from Africa that our civilisation emerged in the first place.
So how can we repay our debt to Africa in an economic as well as historical sense? The cancellation of unpayable, unsustainable and immoral debt is crucial, but it is a very slow process, especially when linked with poverty alleviation, as we are seeing even in Mozambique. The HIPC initiative, however welcome when it is announced, regularly, by the Chancellor never seems to be adequate. Hopes now lie with the Japanese as they take the chair at the next G8 summit. But can the Minister say something about the Paris Club decision last week? Did Her Majesty's Government, following their new-found entente cordiale in Abidjan, make a formal protest that the decision on Mozambique has been deferred yet again despite the pleas of that stricken country?
Education is critical to the expansion of opportunities, as will be apparent at the World Education Forum in Dakar in April. There can be little hope of increasing family income or limiting the scourge of AIDS if girls are not given more access to secondary education and more status in the local economy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, said so tellingly last week, higher literacy must lead to lower infant mortality, and hence to better health and economic potential.
I saw for myself a year ago in Uganda that education was receiving higher priority and had already made an impact on the incidence of AIDS. In Mozambique, in 1996–98, the primary school enrolment rate went up from 62 per cent to 71 per cent even while hundreds more classrooms were being built. Let us hope that those classrooms are still standing and that classes are continuing today.
I was unable to attend last week's debate, but I read the encouraging statement of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, that,
"achievement of those [education] targets … is feasible if the political will is there".—[Official Report, 15/3/2000; col. 1590.]
I only wish that the same could be said of the 2015 poverty targets which on present trends seem unlikely to be met.
I also hope that we listen more to Africans talking about Africa. I had the pleasure of knowing Chief Anyaoku for a brief period. I am sure that many in the House have appreciated the ability, determination and good humour with which he has led the Commonwealth over many years. The United Nations Secretary-General paid tribute to him at the Commonwealth Day lecture last week. As we have heard, he said that Africa needs more assistance and more technology. One thing he pointed out from an UNCTAD study is that investment in Africa brings a higher return than does any other region, while more than 25 countries have undertaken far-reaching structural economic reforms. Yet Africa received only 5 per cent of all FDI to developing countries.
304
The Central African Republic, Guinea-Bissau, Niger, Botswana, Namibia and of course Nigeria are just a few examples of countries where the internal situation has improved. South Africa still has a strong economy, with all the obvious reservations and legacies of apartheid.
Seen over a longer time-scale, there are many differences in the rates of growth in sub-Saharan Africa. Real per capita income in the region as a whole barely grew between 1970 and 1998. But out of the 48 countries, nine achieved an annual average growth of 3.1 per cent over that period. The noble Baroness mentioned even better examples.
This good news about Africa—and there are many examples of success—is drowned in a continual story of conflict, corruption and misappropriation. I suggest that it is up to our Government to liberalise trade and encourage the private sector, rather on the lines mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson. I am sure that the Minister will say that the United Kingdom is doing a lot in many directions; and it is. But she must admit that we have no real lasting commitment to Africa or even a political initiative to compare with the United States' recent initiative, although we must have at least as many historical reasons and connections for doing so.
4.53 p.m.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for initiating today's debate. I have known her for very many years and she is very much admired and loved on all sides in South Africa. My contribution today is due entirely to the fact that I have had the good fortune to spend annual holidays of a few weeks in South Africa over the past 15 years. I hope that I do not present a too negative picture of the situation there as I see it.
Since 1994, when Nelson Mandela was released—and I do not think that President de Klerk received enough praise for his courage in making that decision—the country has indeed progressed very slowly towards its aim of a rainbow society. Education, however, in some areas is virtually nonexistent because of the difficulty in recruiting teachers for schools in the townships. The police are under severe pressure because of very low salaries and instances of corruption in the force have greatly increased, as one has seen over recent months. The health service is under a great strain, again because of low wages and because many nurses and doctors are leaving the country in search of better rewards. Groote Schuur, the renowned hospital, is a shadow of its former glory, but I suppose that applies to many other hospitals built many years ago.
There appears to be quite a divide in opinions among young people as to whether they should seek their fortunes overseas or remain in their beloved homeland. Much, I feel, depends on how far affirmative action is taken. There are numerous stories of successful university graduates who are white not even getting an interview, while a less qualified black person is employed, sometimes resulting in, for

305
instance, through no fault of their own, the black student having to drop out of medical school half way through the course. That must be a terrible waste of resources.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Cape coloureds—mixed race—feel discriminated against more now by Mbeki's government than they were under apartheid, and frustrated so that they understandably often resort to violence. Violence has been mentioned by previous speakers. The gun culture among the young gives rise to great concern on all sides. That is a priority for the government to tackle and they are doing so. It is the main obstacle to the country achieving more inward investment. People read about it and they hesitate before they invest.
I do not entirely agree with my noble friend Lord St John of Bletso on one point. The roads are generally well maintained, but public transport around the Cape is sadly neglected and those trying to get to and from work find it more and more frustrating, especially over weekends. Illegal immigrants—there are thousands flocking to the Cape in search of employment—add to the problem of the lack of low-cost housing. This year I did notice a considerable advance in building since a few years ago. Four years ago, the electricity, water and the roads were laid on, but nothing happened. This year I have seen a number of houses at those sites.
Three concerns were specifically addressed to me during my last visit: first, there was the insistence by the Europeans on the removal of grappa and ouzo labels; secondly, the sale by the UK of gold; and, thirdly, what they considered to be the very slow reaction of Her Majesty's Government to disaster in Mozambique. South Africa has made great strides in helping her very patient people—they are very patient—to lead better lives.
I hope that on my next visit in 2001 the improvement in the lot of all South Africa's citizens will be more apparent. We all realise the enormous challenges which face that nation and they will undoubtedly look to us for help and advice. I trust that we will not fail them.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for this opportunity to speak about Africa. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, drew attention to the slow growth of democracy and said that we were expecting too much of Uganda. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, asked why people should bother about Africa. Apart from the answers that he gave, we should concern ourselves because western Europe bears a very heavy responsibility for the conditions which exist in Africa.
I have lived in the Bristol area since 1941 and am conscious of the appalling depredations of the slave trade over many years. For a long time, Africa was known as "the Dark Continent". In the 1960s, I heard a lecture by Professor Thomas Hodgkin which he called "The Pre-colonial Stereotype". I hesitate to use the word "intellectual" in terms of myself, but his
306
demonstration of the western European idea that Africa was behind the times and subject to all kinds of absurd notions was a revelation to me. It was built up by the need to justify the colonisation of Africa which was carved up for the use of the European nations.
The British, to their credit, tried to prepare countries for eventual independence. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Park, mentioned Belgium disgracefully totting up the balance sheet, discovering that it was moving into the red and pulling out of Africa. I am grateful to her for her correction, because I had noted that there were 13 graduates in the indigenous population. However, I am more than happy to accept the fact that I exaggerated and to take her figure of 12. The record is not good because we also left those countries with arbitrary frontiers, often drawn with a ruler on a map in the Colonial Office in London. We did not provide the best possible start for development.
There are large Muslim populations in the north, and large Christian populations in sub-Saharan Africa. In that connection, the Labour Party recently discovered the existence of the Memorial Hall in Farringdon Street because it loudly proclaimed that that was where the Labour Party was founded. You could have heard people expatiating on that if you lashed out several hundred quid for a posh feed, which no doubt my noble friend Lord Desai did. However, I resisted.
I have been familiar with the Memorial Hall since I was a small boy because it was the centre of the Congregational Church of which my father was a minister. It was also the site of the LMS. Elderly people in your Lordships' House will think of the LM S as the London Midland Scottish Railway, but it was not to us. To us, it was the London Missionary Society. I used to go around with my little box shaped like a hut—even that was patronising—collecting coins for the cause. We used to collect the ship halfpennies to go towards the cost of maintaining the supply ship, "John Williams", which used to ply between the Pacific islands where we had missionaries working.
As a result, we had Christians in Africa, many of them from the missionary works. I believe that, as a nation, we ought to play a bigger part in sustaining them. From time to time, I have mentioned the welcome contributions from the Bishops' Bench about persecuted Christians abroad. I believe that with such a substantial built-in block vote in your Lordships' House—it is about 26—that is one of their functions. I believe that more could be done by our friends on that Bench about the problems which such people face. In many cases, they are serious.
There are approximately 130 million Muslims in north Africa. In sub-Saharan Africa, 275 million people, or 48 per cent of the population of Africa, are supposed to be Christian. The interface between the two religions is the centre of much trouble, particularly in Nigeria and Sudan which were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox.

307
I shall weary the House once more by quoting the 1997 US State Department report. Its author, Paul Marshall, stated that,
"in the last five years there has been persecutions of Christians in 40 countries. By persecution I mean there may be physical beatings, imprisonment, church burnings, maybe death, I don't just mean discrimination".
We must realise that people of our faith are the most persecuted in the world and we must do what we can to help those African communities. The UN rapporteur, Gaspar Biro, said much the same about the conditions in the Sudan. We must try to reconcile the two great religions in order to remove the causes of difficulty.
From time to time, there are serious atrocities in some African countries, but, with our record of the German death camps and the more recent revelations about France which were made during the Papon trial, western Europe is hardly in a position to lecture them about it. Therefore, we must realise that we are in no position to cast the first stone.
When assisting development, we must be careful not to appear to be striking a fresh neo-colonial phase. The people are very proud and independently minded and they are conscious of past history. Therefore, it is most important to ensure that we do not give the wrong impression. Even when we are discussing fossil fuels and the need to restrain their consumption, they may say, "You have had several hundred years of establishing a good standard of living by burning things in the most polluting circumstances and now you are lecturing us". Therefore, we need a new approach that is free from any taint of neocolonialism.
I echo what was said by a previous speaker that in the Commonwealth we have a wonderful example of multi-racial co-operation among all kinds of different nations but with a common theme. Only this morning, there was a debate in another place about the importance and significance of the Commonwealth. That organisation should be one of the main spearheads in our encouragement of development in Africa, which we all want to see.
5.7 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Chalker in introducing the debate—for that I am grateful—said that good governance is a must. There are, and have been, exceptions and, sadly, it is an aspect for which Africa has not been well known. Indeed, even when the old guard has gone, some of those taking on the role of senior politicians are proving to be slightly worse than their predecessors. It is sad that politics is a career which the very best in Africa seem to shun.
I want to focus the first part of my remarks on Zimbabwe. That will not surprise your Lordships because I took part in an earlier debate on that country. I am very disappointed, as I am sure is the rest of the world, that President Mugabe is responsible for the systematic rape of a dying paradise. The current crisis in Zimbabwe, as in many African countries, has
308
three basic elements: the crisis with regard to the availability of foreign exchange; the crisis in government financing; and the debt crisis. The first is caused by poor export performance and the withdrawal of multilateral and bilateral support. The next is caused by excessive government expenditure and the high interest rates on domestic debt. The last is caused by the huge growth in debt during the past 20 years.
The total revenue of the government in Zimbabwe is estimated at 93 billion dollars. Their total expenditure is 142 billion dollars. That is a deficit of 49 billion dollars, or nearly 15 per cent of GDP and one-third of total expenditure. The interest on the domestic debt is now running at 5 billion dollars a month, which is a completely unsustainable level. The shortage of foreign exchange is estimated at 14 billion dollars, and that is before the funding of the Congo war is taken into account. That is estimated to cost the Zimbabwean economy 1.5 billion dollars a month in foreign exchange—not a happy situation.
The result of that was brought to our attention by the brave and thorough survey of urban and rural voters carried out between 14th January and 9th February for the Helen Suzman Foundation. That showed that 68 per cent of Zimbabweans believed that life for them and their families had got worse over the previous five years, and 63 per cent expected it to continue to worsen over the next five years. By far the most important issues for voters were rising prices and unemployment, followed by the fall in the value of the Zimbabwean dollar. Only 31 per cent of Zimbabweans said that they were confident that the government were telling them the truth, and 68 per cent said that they had not much, very little or no confidence in the government.
On top of that is the matter of the farming crisis. Nearly 700 farms have now been invaded by Mr Mugabe's young, paid thugs. They are not war veterans. Those farmers are Zimbabwean citizens and many bought their farms post-independence. Not only have they been threatened, abused and attacked, but so have their farm staff. The beatings and the brutalising have been and remain a terrifying experience, the like of which we cannot possibly imagine in our closeted life in this country. There has been no reference in the press to the huge damage to the natural habitat and wildlife that is also occasioned in the invasions of the farms. I have received a report that the situation for many is now worse than it was 20 years ago. We should congratulate the farmers and all the black staff who have been abused on the restraint that they have shown in the face of almost impossible circumstances and huge provocation. Long may their good sense prevail to take the heat out of the situation.
A ray of light in Zimbabwe comes from the strength and independence of the courts. I hope that the noble Baroness will update us on the current situation. I understand that the courts ruled in favour of the farmers and that all the squatters and those who invaded the farms had to be off the land within 72 hours. Those 72 hours are up. Can the noble

309
Baroness tell us the situation in the country, and whether it is true that the government are trying to return to the courts to reverse an unfavourable decision?
That is all gloomy, but I turn now to what I consider to be a chink of light. Some of your Lordships have said that for years Africa has been seen as a "black hole" with no great future. However, I believe that there are now good opportunities. It is remarkable to consider that Africa had a steady annual economic growth during the 1990s, in marked contrast to many other areas of the world where the economies perished during that period; for example, east Asia. I know that it came from a different base, but Africa had a steady growth. The IMF forecasts that the growth for sub-Saharan African countries will be 5.5 per cent—the highest in the world. That represents potential hope for Africa.
I should like to touch briefly on particular aspects where there has been a marked and radical difference from what has occurred in the West. I refer, for example, to the telephone system. In Zimbabwe, it takes approximately 14 years to obtain a land line. However, suddenly people have mobile telephones and access to communication, as happened during the recent referendum. People communicated by mobile telephone and, for once, they had a reliable means of communication.
In banking and account handling, they have leap-frogged past the cheque stage. Many never had cheques and have moved straight into smart-cards. That represents a great opportunity for them. E-mails have also leapt across boundaries and gone past the hopeless telephone systems. In every village in Kenya and throughout Africa one finds e-mail and fax centres springing up. There is a company called "e-touch" in Kenya which started in business at the end of last year. It already has 25,000 people on mobile communication and expects that number to reach 50,000 by the end of the year. That is a growth rate of 2 to 3 per cent per day—the fastest in the world. I know that it is a small company, but at least it is there and giving people the opportunity to conduct business and to communicate in a way that previously had been impossible. That will change the economy and the democracy of Africa. Just as television helped to break down the stubborn Eastern bloc countries in the 1980s, so this technological revolution will undermine the government's attempt to keep their electorate and their people in the dark.
Africa is not short of good, bright people. There are plenty of good businessmen out there. However, they need help from the West and the developed world, but not in the sense of governments interfering in and nannying the state. That has never worked and it will not work now. However, as many noble Lords have said, what the people really need is education, education, education. If we provided the opportunities for them to be educated, I believe that they would have a really great future.
I have time to say one thing more about Zimbabwe. Am I alone in this House in being ultra-cynical, or is it possible that if a white president tried ethnically to
310
cleanse half his farming population because it was a different colour, he would receive a different reaction throughout the world? Surely big debates would be held in the United Nations about that. Will the Government call a Commonwealth conference to suspend Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth for its anti-humanitarian behaviour and will they also raise the matter in the United Nations? It is so important. I do not believe that what is happening in Zimbabwe is so different from what happened in Kosovo. However, we are reacting in a totally different way.
5.16 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I too add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, for introducing this debate and for the huge contribution that she has made in Africa. I hope that she will forgive me if I say that she is the best Cabinet Minister we never had. I should like also to say what an extraordinarily knowledgeable and interesting debate this has been. I believe that that is because so many Members of this House have direct, first-hand experience of the continent of Africa.
The noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord St John of Bletso, both referred to the fact that a difficulty arises from the perception of Africa as what is often described in the United States as a "basket case"—a continent that has been written off. I believe that that is partly because over the years Africa has attracted bad publicity and little credit is given in the media to its real, if very painful and difficult, achievements. The one exception to that has been South Africa, where for many years the single example of Nelson Mandela attracted a sympathetic medium. That is why, even today, South Africa is often exempted from the overall perception of Africa as a continent of despair.
Noble Lords have referred to many good points, and I shall come to those. However, I shall add one or two more problems to the list and refer, first, to commodity prices. Even today, approximately 30 per cent of sub-Saharan Africa's GNP is in exports, most of it raw materials and other commodities. Historically, commodity prices today are at their lowest level in real terms for 150 years. The problem is that that is unlikely to bounce upwards because the manufacturing and other processes of modern advanced economies use far fewer raw materials and far less energy than they once did. Therefore, Africa cannot look for its salvation simply to the processes of global growth.
Secondly, one problem within Africa to which we have not referred in great detail today is the relatively ruinous effects of extensive deforestation and overgrazing, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, north of Zambia and Zimbabwe. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, referred to the devastating reduction of the forests of the Ivory Coast. That is one example among many others which could be given. I must say that in my gloomier moments, when I read about that, when I hear from my daughter in Malaysia that even now she cannot put her children outside because of the level of haze from the burning of Sumatra, when I fly

311
over the Amazon and see fires reaching over a vast expanse of Latin America, I ask myself for how long we in the developed western world can continue to twiddle our thumbs and see the environment as a problem for our grandchildren and their grandchildren.
I shall not pursue that except to say that the fate and fortunes of Africa are necessarily bound up in our fate and fortunes. We shall be victims of a great illusion if we suppose that we can simply wash our hands of that great continent.
As regards the agricultural problems, I do not know how far the flooding in Mozambique is due—I suspect it is a good deal—to the churning out of the areas around the great rivers further north but I understand that one reason for the scale of the devastating floods was deforestation and the degradation of land further to the north of Mozambique. That is a thought which we should all bear in mind.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, cheered me up by speaking about the speed at which mobile communications are taking hold in countries like Kenya. I am sure he is right about that. My worry is that it is a relatively thin layer of the new African middle class, and in some countries an even smaller élite, which is benefiting from the advantages of information technology.
The noble Earl was absolutely right to remind us that the foundation stone of an information revolution is always education. Perhaps the most disturbing point to make is that the United Nations Development Programme forecasts that there will be in Africa by 2015 not 45 million children who are not even in primary school but 75 million. It is the only part of our globe where the proportion of children out of primary school, let alone secondary school, is growing rapidly. In Asia, the figure is falling dramatically; in Africa, sadly, it is slowly rising.
One reason for that, to which a number of noble Lords have rightly referred, is the scale of the devastating internal wars in Africa. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, told us about the Sudan. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, mentioned the Congo in that context. The terrifying aspect is that, throughout the centre of Africa, such wars are raging and are literally devouring the resources that are needed for education and health.
However, I agree, to some extent at least, with the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, who pointed out that the western world is not wholly without a share of responsibility. It is important to recognise that, throughout the Cold War, both sides used Africa as a surrogate in a war which they never conducted themselves. Wherever you look in Eritrea and Ethiopia, Angola or Mozambique or many other parts of Africa, you will see the devastating consequences of their having been used in that way and warlords having gained control over governments.
I now want to make two positive remarks in this short speech. The first concerns corporate social responsibility, of which the noble Baroness, Lady
312
Chalker of Wallasey, is one of the world's leading advocates, and she is absolutely right. I give three quick examples of what is meant by corporate responsibility.
In Angola, even today, the embers of war are still easily ready to flare. One reason for that is that UNITA has been used by certain companies as a way of retaining control of the diamond areas. Even today, UNITA hangs desperately on to those areas which are the best hope that Angola has of major steady development.
The major company in the diamond industry—and I do not accuse it in any way of financing UNITA—is De Beers. The great thing that De Beers could do, in a spirit of corporate responsibility, is to insist upon all diamonds carrying certificates of origin so that they can be inspected closely to ensure that they are not coming from those sources which are using the money only for buying arms and for destroying a generation of young Africans.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, spoke eloquently—and I could not agree with her more—of the desperate need to support that marvellous African, Dr Obasanjo, in Nigeria in his efforts again to try to build democracy against all the odds, and the odds are terribly high. Dr Obasanjo is attempting to deal with corruption, with religious and other differences and the power of the military. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said, he needs all the help he can get. Part of that help must come from the oil companies, and this is my second example of corporate responsibility. Almost the only major presence today in Nigeria is the oil companies. Two things follow from that: the need to reject absolutely systems of bribery and corruption, making it plain that, in doing so, the oil companies are supporting Dr Obasanjo's appeal to his people; and, secondly, the need for a greater sense of environmental responsibility than has sometimes been shown in the past. Putting it bluntly, in some cases, the oil companies have a great deal to answer for in terms of allowing oil to run into the ground and destroy possible agricultural areas.
Thirdly, still on the subject of corporate responsibility, I believe that the companies in South Africa have a responsibility with regard to the training not only of a narrow middle class—and I agree completely with what the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, said about the importance of management education—but also with regard to the adoption of community education schemes within the townships to give those children some sort of help.
Last, on the subject of governance, I could not echo more strongly what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Tomlinson and Lord Desai, about the World Trade Organisation, the EU Mediterranean Project and the situation with regard to the Uruguay Round. They are absolutely right. The governments of the West have not pitched in to the extent needed in order to offset the weakness of African governments in dealing with major interests which are brought to bear on them.

313
Our responsibility is not to intervene, not to recolonise and not to tell African governments what to do. But in the great international fora of the world, whether that be the WTO, the UN or, above all, in the monitoring of the sale of arms, only powerful western governments can undertake responsibility. I believe that to be the price which we owe to Africa for the exploitation of many centuries past.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lady Chalker on securing this key debate at such an apposite time for the discussion of African politics and economics. I congratulate her also on her ongoing, effective work on behalf of so many African people.
In the time available, it is impossible to do justice to that vast continent and to deal with all the challenges that it presents. We could easily spend this timed debate discussing any one country in Africa and still merely scratch the surface of the issues as regards a continent containing an estimated 12 per cent of the world's population —some 642 million people.
It has been most heartening to hear, not least from my noble friend Lady Park, of Africa's success stories, which are rarely trumpeted. I doubt that it is a well-known fact that democratic institutions, however fragile or flawed they may be, as noted by my noble friend Lord Howell, now form the basis of government in the majority of African nations, while 11 African countries are publicly committed to fighting corruption and working towards a binding anticorruption convention. Those countries, which are quietly working for peace, for economic reform, for human rights arid for constitutional and democratic rule offer us glimmers of hope and the promise of what Africa's future could hold.
Mozambique, the first country to be mentioned by my noble friend Lady Chalker, although the most recent African nation to be brought to its knees by disaster, is one such country. It lifted itself out of the chaos of civil war to achieve remarkable sustained levels of economic growth, combined with democratic government. Last year, it recorded double-digit growth. As the UN Secretary-General said, it is bitterly ironic that the EIU has singled out Mozambique as likely to have the highest growth rate in Africa this year. We know from Mozambique's example that it can be done and we must find the key to unlock similar progress in other African countries.
The debate has painted a tale of two Africas, but it is the story of deprivation, despair and disaster that we hear most often. Intensive efforts are needed to resolve the conflicts from the Red Sea to the Atlantic ocean; in the Democratic Republic of Congo; the diamond-fuelled conflicts in Sierra Leone and also in Angola—as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, noted; the territorial war of Ethiopia and Eritrea; and conflicts in Sudan and Burundi. From north to south, east to west, the African continent regrettably is embroiled in civil and regional wars which take a horrifying toll on innocent civilians. The destruction visited on the continent cannot be overestimated.
314
As we have heard, even those African nations which we hope have put behind them a painful and difficult past, such as Nigeria and South Africa, have a long and difficult journey ahead. In the transition from apartheid to democracy, South Africa continues to provide an engine for African growth and stability, thanks to the vision of its leaders. But South Africa still has far to travel in building a just and stable society. Large, strategically located and a major oil producer, Nigeria now needs all the help it can obtain in its struggle to establish a viable democratic system, to jump start the economy, to fight corruption and to resolve regional unrest.
I listened carefully to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth and my noble friend Lord Caithness. I too wish to devote some of my remarks to Zimbabwe and to the Government's policy on that country, which is economically devastated as a result of the moral bankruptcy of its leader. I do so with a heavy heart, more in a tone of deep disappointment than in anger. I ask the Minister to what extent she considers that the circumstances which prompted Pakistan's suspension from the Commonwealth—namely, violations of the Harare principles—apply also in the case of Zimbabwe. At the time of the Harare Declaration, Zimbabwe was not only a member of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, set up to sit in judgment on the ways in which countries adhered to the principles; it was in the chair. It was replaced only last November.
Yet Robert Mugabe is not observing even the basic principles behind the Harare Declaration. This is a country which sends money and support to a war in the Democratic Republic of Congo rather than feed its own citizens. It is a country which prevented opposition parties gaining access to the media during the referendum. It is about to give consent to a Bill allowing interception of electronic mail and other communications. It is a country where journalists are arrested because they write the truth, not government propaganda, and where others are tortured. It is a country where the President threatens to kill his political opponents, condones the illegal seizure of farms and instructs the squatters to stay put; and it is a country which raids diplomatic bags and then claims that we are paranoid.
We have called for a suspension from CMAG. The Government have given no response. We have called for an audit of bilateral aid, in view of the suspension of EU aid, following the Court of Auditors' report that that aid was being misdirected. The Government have given no response. We believe that the innocent people of Zimbabwe should not suffer as a result of the crimes of their government. That is why properly audited bilateral aid and funding for NGOs should, and must, continue. But the international community needs a lever by which proper respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law can be encouraged in Zimbabwe. The democratic world and the stability of southern African can no longer afford the policies

315
pursued by Robert Mugabe. It is for that reason that I now call upon the Government to request that Zimbabwe be suspended from the Commonwealth.
I hope that the Minister will support that call. Will she say how else the Government intend to convey to the Government of Zimbabwe the clear message that their behaviour during the referendum was wrong; that their behaviour now is wrong; that the land seizure programme is illegal; that the ambitions of the kleptocrats and cronies must be curbed; that the destruction wrought on Zimbabwe's economy must be reversed; and that Robert Mugabe's system of government is fundamentally corrupt?
Last week, in London, the UN Secretary-General told us what we already knew: that, in spite of all that we have done to help Africa to overcome her conflicts, it has not been enough. His words, that,
"Africa needs more: more assistance, more technology, more investment, more access to world markets, more co-operation and partnership",
have been echoed in the debate today. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that we must ask what more the international community can do to sustain the focus on the challenges facing Africa and to support the efforts of African governments and peoples in meeting those challenges.
I am pleased that the noble Baroness touched on the importance of the middle class. We need policies to develop the middle class. Let us consider the effectiveness of such policies in relation to pensions in Chile, or indeed in Taiwan. Let us consider the effectiveness of capitalisation targeted at the middle class in Bolivia. The establishment of policies directed towards the growth of an effective middle class provides both economic and political stability, because it gives individuals a direct interest in the success of their country's political and economic policies.
The subject of today's debate—economic opportunities in Africa and at home—is key. The reforms that have been made and the steps taken by African governments to enhance the foreign direct investment climate deserve our attention. Many governments have improved their regulatory framework for foreign direct investment, with investment promotion agencies to assist would-be investors. But there is potential for far more. As Africa grows, our businesses cannot afford to ignore that market. They must be encouraged to follow the example of companies such as African Lakes, which last month became the first fully listed UK plc to obtain a listing on the Nairobi stock exchange.
From the Government's working partnership with the US State Department, will the Minister say what lessons the Government have learned from President Clinton's Partnership for Economic Growth and Opportunity and the African growth and opportunity pact in terms of encouraging two-way trade, private sector investment and making the most of the opportunities Africa has to offer? To seize those opportunities, we must calibrate effectively our
316
policies on debt, on trade, on war, on corruption and on development assistance. We cannot allow our failure to do so to contribute to the withering on the vine of Africa's productive sector.
For too long, Africa was viewed as a superpower battleground through the distorting prism of apartheid. Kofi Annan is right. We must not and cannot fail Africa now. Africa is doomed to political and economic failure only if we allow it. The direct involvement of the international community is critical if this, the poorest and most conflict-ridden continent in the world, is to make progress. If Africa fails, so do we. We cannot be secure if millions elsewhere are trapped by strife and scarcity. Africa should not fill us with despair. It should fill us with anger, determination and hope; anger that we are a witness to such waste; determination to do more to help the people of Africa to achieve and sustain peace and economic growth; and hope for Africa's potentially prosperous future.
5.38 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, for initiating today's important debate. I pay tribute to her work, which is well known in this House. She has worked tirelessly to facilitate development in Africa and to bring to the world's attention issues of concern to countries in Africa. This has been a good debate. It shows the concern in this House for what is happening in Africa.
The achievement of sustained and stable economic growth is a challenge facing all governments. It is an essential factor in reducing poverty and a prerequisite for integration into the world economy.
Two themes have emerged from the debate. The first is the importance of using the Commonwealth more positively in the way in which we work in Africa. The second is the need to influence international financial institutions and business to contribute to the development of Africa in a more positive, long-term and sustained way.
Three areas have dominated the debate. The first is the challenges that face the African continent. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, mentioned many of them. It is also important to remember that those challenges can and are being addressed. The second key area is the opportunities that exist to take countries in Africa forward. The third area, mentioned by many noble Lords, is what the Government are doing in terms of impacting on some of those challenges.
The first major challenge is that of economic growth. Roughly 46 per cent of the African population lives on less than one dollar a day. Substantial improvements in material conditions will not be possible without a large acceleration in growth rates. Sub-Saharan Africa's growth performance has improved. Over the second half of the 1980s GDP growth was 2.5 per cent, which is not enough to keep up with population growth. In the early 1990s growth was even slower, but since 1994 it has quickened to around 4 per cent.

317
Those rates fall well below the 6 to 8 per cent growth per annum which is needed if Africa is to reach the international development targets in 2015. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich that we still believe that those targets are achievable. The countries that recently have achieved them, or have come close to achieving them include Mozambique, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. I agree with her that Mozambique is one of the best examples of a country where many developments have taken place. We are committed to the rehabilitation and reconstruction effort to get Mozambique back on track. The future task is to ensure that high growth continues in countries like Mozambique and that we work to create the conditions to enable growth in more countries.
In Africa a consensus is emerging on the need to implement good economic policies, the importance of tackling high inflation, lowering fiscal deficits, introducing well-functioning foreign exchange markets, maintaining open external markets, reforming the civil service, improving efficiency levels in the public sector, reducing price control and getting rid of restrictive licensing arrangements.
A second major challenge that has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords is the importance of conflict reduction. My noble friend Lord Tomlinson talked of the importance of conflict and linked conflict with corruption. Having a set of good economic policies is not enough. We know that in Africa conflict and war slow down growth. More than half of all African states have been affected by conflict in the past two decades, arid ten have been affected by severe conflicts.
My noble friend Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, spoke of the destructive impact of religious conflict. Of course, in the past few years we have seen the devastation of ethnic conflict in various parts of Africa. Even in countries such as Rwanda and Uganda where substantial economic changes have occurred, effort is needed to bring down levels of military expenditure and reduce cross-border conflict. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, rightly drew our attention to the importance of understanding the way in which developed countries have sometimes profited from those conflicts.
The third major challenge is the impact of HIV/AIDS, which is now the biggest killer of adults in Africa. Some countries will lose a quarter of their adult population to the disease. Increasingly African countries and their governments recognise the scale of the challenge and the need to take action now. The UK Government are working in partnership with African governments, the private sector and other donors, to co-ordinate an effective response to the epidemic. In this House we have had a debate on that issue, but I shall not give the detail of that assistance now.
The fourth major challenge is corruption. Corruption not only stifles domestic and foreign investment, but it affects the poor by excluding them from access to services and the protection of the law.
318
However, prospects for progress on stamping out corruption have never been better. Governments everywhere are coming under pressure to bear down on corrupt practices. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, who unfortunately has had to leave, asked about the link between good governance and British assistance. In the White Paper on international development there were some key themes on human rights, on good governance and on gender equality.
As a government we have been robust in our relationships with governments on those matters. We are working hard to ensure that we tackle the corruption issue with the countries with which we work on a bilateral basis. At an international level, our priorities for addressing corruption are to agree a co-ordinated donor approach and concrete action to tackle corruption. A donor meeting in Maastricht in April is designed to produce an agreed action plan. In the United Kingdom we support the development of legislation to help implement the OECD convention on the bribery of foreign public officials and to strengthen action against money laundering, a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker.
We are encouraging the private sector to support anti-corruption efforts. In developing countries our aim is to work with other donors to facilitate a locally-led process to gain commitment from all sections of society to address corruption and to support the development and implementation of anti-corruption strategies. We are working hard to tackle what my noble friend Lord Desai called the failure of governance.
The fifth challenge is debt. There is no doubt that economic growth in Africa has been constrained by heavy debt burdens. Money spent in debt service, for example, cannot be spent on schools, on health or on building rural roads. Business people are also wary of investing in indebted countries, and that, of course, retards growth.
That is why this Government have taken the lead internationally in pressing for the debt burden to be lifted. We now have a debt relief package that should remove two-thirds of the debt of the heavily indebted poor countries. In December last year the Chancellor announced that the UK would unilaterally write off all the debt owed to ECGD by the heavily indebted poor countries. Most significantly, the general public in indebted African countries and indeed the British taxpayer expect that debt relief to be used by governments for comprehensive poverty reduction—an issue raised by my noble friend Lord Tomlinson. I want to assure the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that we are committed to that "pro-poor" development. The UK will contribute a total of around £165 million to the HIPC trust fund, in addition to our share of the 1 billion euro package agreed by the EU for HIPCs, of which 680 million euro will be for the trust fund.
Having set out the challenges I now turn to some of the key elements that will enable African countries to sustain economic growth and to focus on reducing poverty. A number of noble Lords have mentioned the importance of increasing investment, encouraging

319
enterprise development and increasing trade. There are, of course, mutual opportunities through trade and investment. A more prosperous Africa is likely to lead to a more prosperous UK. Wider and deeper trade and investment opportunities provide a two-way flow of benefits.
In terms of domestic and foreign direct investment, compared with other regions of the world, African investment rates are low. Not only do rates of investment need to increase, but the efficiency of investment also needs to be raised through improvements in the functioning of the public sector. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, mentioned that only 1 per cent of foreign direct investment goes to Africa. My figure is 3 per cent, while the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned 5 per cent. Perhaps we have all used slightly different calculations to reach our figures.
Nevertheless, the reality is that most of that investment, however small, is mainly concentrated in only a few countries; namely, South Africa, Egypt and Nigeria. However, it is important to remember that the UK is the third largest source of foreign direct investment into Africa, investing 1.1 billion dollars in 1997. Foreign direct investment in Africa has been constrained by negative assessments of, for example, corruption, profitability, the legal and regulatory framework, the economic and political outlook of whichever country is in question, access to regional markets, trade policies and tax regimes.
Investment in Africa by African entrepreneurs is influenced by similar considerations. It is estimated that 40 per cent of African wealth is held overseas, whereas for south Asia the figure is more like 5 per cent. For a continent that is so starved of capital, this has staggering implications. However, the general perception that Africa is a poor destination for international investment is gradually changing. During the 1990s, foreign direct investment to Africa increased. To a large extent, this was in response to the adoption of better economic policies. Additional privatisation will also provide further incentives.
The second area seen as providing good opportunities is that of enterprise development. The development of small and medium-sized enterprises is crucial for the long-term development of the economy. In Kenya, for example, small enterprises account for 98 per cent of all enterprises, 80 per cent of which employ fewer than five workers. Medium-sized enterprises can be innovative and dynamic because they provide crucial links between micro-enterprises and large businesses.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, mentioned the important role of micro-credit and micro-finance. The DfID has committed over £20 million into funding micro-finance projects in Africa to support the efforts of micro-enterprises and other informal sector entrepreneurs. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Desai that the sustainable livelihoods approach, including rural development, is
320
a key element of our strategy. The noble Lord will recall last year's excellent debate in this House when this matter was looked at in detail.
The UK Government are actively encouraging and supporting enterprise development in Africa in a number of other ways: by improving the legal and regulatory enabling environment; by helping to establish financial instruments and institutions; and where possible, by removing management, technology and knowledge constraints faced by small and medium-sized businesses.
The third area of opportunity is trade development. Increased international trade is vital for accelerating growth in Africa. The Government are keen to promote a comprehensive round of trade talks. A more open, rules-based, multilateral trading system should benefit sub-Saharan Africa, although I have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Tomlinson and by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. There is no doubt that, in the short term, globalisation will present Africa with serious challenges. Difficult transitions will have to be negotiated. We can expect the price of primary commodity exports to fall further. With deepening world trade reforms, preferential margins enjoyed by African countries in overseas markets, such as the EU, will inevitably be eroded.
However, I can assure my noble friend Lord Tomlinson that the UK fought very hard in the negotiations for a successor to the Lomé Convention and was successful in securing agreement to grant duty-free access for essentially all exports from less developed African countries until 2005. Discussions are continuing on what "essentially" will mean. A second important commitment of the EU is to review and simplify rules of origin that apply to LDC exports. As rules of origin can often act to limit the benefits of preferential market access, progress on this will be very important.
In most of Africa there is little technical capacity to analyse trade policy options, to negotiate new trade arrangements, to implement trade reforms, to monitor effects and mitigate adverse impacts. The Government are helping to build this capacity in a number of African countries and also to strengthen regional organisations. Furthermore, in response to a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, we remain committed to supporting education and capacity-building, which was the subject of a debate in the House last week.
Perhaps I may now turn to the specific countries that have been mentioned by a number of noble Lords. First, as regards South Africa, my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde spoke of the importance of working in partnership and gave the specific example of the Warwick Manufacturing Group. As a graduate of Warwick and also one with knowledge of and a great deal of affection for South Africa, I am pleased to see the important role that partnership efforts are playing in leadership development and in promoting equality and equal opportunity.

321
The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, mentioned other challenges facing the government of South Africa. President Mbeki's top priority is to improve the lives of the poor black majority, in line with election promises. South Africa remains a country with many living in poverty and with a high rate of unemployment—well above 30 per cent. Both of those factors exacerbate crime. We are helping to address these problems primarily through our development assistance programme, which will provide £90 million over three years. The priority areas include health, good governance, education and enterprise development. On the matter of the EU/South Africa trade agreement, the UK has been at the forefront in these negotiations, pushing South Africa's case for a liberal agreement. This is one of the best ways that Europe can aid South Africa's transformation from apartheid.
The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, also spoke of Mozambique, as did other noble Lords. I should like to make one point concerning the reconstruction, which is continuing in Mozambique. The Government of Mozambique have asked UNDP to take the lead in planning for recovery. A meeting of donors organised by the UN is planned for the end of April. There is no doubt that the disaster is a severe setback in human terms for Mozambique. However, we hope that the longer term economic impact will not be too damaging. The Government of Mozambique still predict that a 9 per cent economic growth rate can be achieved this year, which would be a major factor in assisting that reconstruction, if it can be delivered.
Turning now to Nigeria, I share the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, as regards what President Obasanjo is trying to do. He and his government have made a good start. He has made economic reforms, the fight against corruption, reform of the military and poverty eradication the centrepieces of his policy. The DfID's bilateral programme provides assistance in health, water, education, rural livelihoods and good governance in a number of states. The bulk of that assistance is delivered through non-governmental channels. We are also co-ordinating with the Government of Nigeria an effort to introduce initiatives for widespread HIV screening. UK/Nigeria trading links are strong, but Nigeria needs serious reform if it is to benefit from globalisation. Privatisation and a crackdown on corruption will attract new investors, as will better security and the maintenance of the rule of law. We are looking at ways to help in relation to all of those.
A number of noble Lords have expressed concerns in the strongest possible terms about what is happening in Zimbabwe. The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and other noble Lords talked about the farm invasions and the importance of land reform. High-level representations have been made to the Government of Zimbabwe to address the illegal occupation of farms by members of the War Veterans Association and to ensure that the rights of farmers
322
and the rule of law are upheld. My honourable friend Peter Hain has spoken to the Vice-President on this issue.
We have conveyed to the Government of Zimbabwe our serious concerns. There is some confusion over the position of the court case and the appeal, which was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. Both the Attorney-General and Chief of Police are out of the country. The Commercial Farmers' Union has shown remarkable restraint and welcomed further discussions over the legal position. But I can tell the noble Lord no more right now about that issue.
I share with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, anxieties in relation to the economic management in Zimbabwe. We urged the Government of Zimbabwe to work with the IMS and to implement the necessary budgetary restructuring to restore economic stability. Our programme in Zimbabwe gives priority to helping the 70 per cent of Zimbabwean households that fall below the poverty line.
The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, raised the issue of elections. We and other countries are concerned that the government's timetable for elections will not allow the problems of the voters' roll to be addressed. We will not assist or mount international observer missions if that only serves to endorse a flawed process.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked specifically about the Harare Declaration. The farm invasions are serious, but do not constitute the serious and continuous violation of the Harare Declaration which demands investigation by the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. We want to see good governance, respect for human rights and economic policies which will enrich and empower all in Zimbabwe.
I am afraid I have run out of time.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, will the Minister give way?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I would rather not.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, for two minutes only.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I shall give way if the House agrees to give me a further two minutes.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. There were clear calls this afternoon for the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the Government's position on that specific point.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I made the Government's position clear. We do not believe that the farm invasions, although they are serious, constitute the serious and continuous violation of the Harare Declaration which demands investigation by the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group.

323
I conclude by saying that our commitment to Africa runs across all government departments. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, stressed the importance of this being a commitment that did not just involve DfID. Various government departments are involved in promoting growth and development in Africa. Reducing conflict is high on our agenda and we are currently undertaking a cross-cutting review of conflict prevention. We are active, too, on the issue of security sector reform because we know that in many poor countries repressive, untransparent and bloated security sectors are major obstacles to progress in development.
I have mentioned our work on anti-corruption efforts in Africa with other western governments and there are some good examples of that. We are launching challenge funds with the aim of supporting partnership initiatives. British Trade International, our newly-formed trade and investment promotion arm, is actively engaged in identifying commercial opportunities throughout the continent. On the investment front, it has worked with a number of African agencies to promote investment. And of course the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is constantly working to promote stability and security across the continent.
Now is a time for opportunity for Africa. Never before have global relationships been so important and global processes so influential to any one country's and continent's development. Those are the themes which will be explored in the new White Paper due for publication in the autumn. Africa matters, and it matters to our electorate. We have only to look at the response of the British public to recent events in Mozambique and to the debt campaign. And I agree with my noble friend Lord Desai: Africa matters to the Africans. We, as a key partner in trade, investment and development, must assist Africa in that development to ensure a sustainable future.
6.5 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken in this debate. We shall return for further debate, particularly on the tragic issue of Zimbabwe.
Over 96 per cent of Africa's diamonds do not come from conflict areas, and those firms employ large numbers of Africans. I hope that we can get some balance into this debate because I learned earlier today that De Beers, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, buys neither from Angola nor Sierra Leone. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

NHS Reform and Modernisation
6.6 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement
324
which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
Yesterday the Chancellor announced funding for the NHS, not just for the coming financial year but for the three years following. Taken together with this year—the first year of the current CSR—it means: the biggest sustained investment for the NHS (35 per cent real terms rise over five years); a real terms average increase of 6.1 per cent per year over the next four years. That is a rise of over double the average under the last government.
"Yes, there have been larger one-off rises, but never a rise sustained in this way. It means that by the year 2003–04, NHS spending will have risen to 7.6 per cent of GDP. That is a huge increase in any terms. In a period of predicted economic growth, it is unique. And it comes with an immediate injection this year of £2 billion extra for the UK, which includes the tobacco duty increase of £300 million.
"We have done this because we believe in the NHS. We never want to see it broken up, reduced to a rump service for those who cannot afford to pay for their healthcare. The NHS is a unifying force in this country and under me it will remain so. But here is the challenge to us in government and to all who work in the health service. Everybody knows that the NHS needed the new money announced yesterday. But everybody knows too that the NHS needs fundamental reform if it is to provide the standard of care people deserve in the 21st century.
"With the money must come the modernisation. A step change in resources must mean a step change in reform. In our schools, we now accept that though more investment is necessary, it is not sufficient. There is a real and often hard debate about standards, performance and reform. No one really believes that one without the other will work.
"Now is the time to raise the same debate in our National Health Service. So this afternoon I will set out the key challenges facing the NHS, the means by which we intend to tackle them and the methods for involving the people who work in the health service in this vital task.
"I say to our hard-working and dedicated staff in the NHS: you challenged us to come up with the money. We have done so. It was hard won and hard fought. There were many calls on it; many places it might have been spent. We rose to your challenge; now rise to ours. Work with us to make sure this money is spent well; make sure the NHS confronts the hard necessities of reform to improve the value we get for the money we spend.
"Some health authorities and trusts carry out four times more hip replacement operations than others. Why? How is it that some trusts can provide elective surgery for all their patients within six months while in others one in eight patients have to wait over 12 months? In some A&E departments non-urgent patients are treated within half an hour while in others there is a four or five-hour wait.

325
"There are trusts that see nearly 100 per cent of their outpatients within three months, while others only manage less than 60 per cent. The proportion of operations done as day cases varies from 75 per cent in some places to less than 30 per cent in others.
"There are around 5,000 elderly patients in hospital who do not need to be there because of complications between social services and hospitals over their care arrangements. Some hospitals employ twice as many nurses as others to staff critical care beds. Why is there a twofold difference in the cost of care between the best and the least efficient hospitals?
"Some hospitals manage without long trolley waits, while others have them on a regular basis. Patients can get a routine GP appointment within 24 hours in some surgeries but have to wait four or five days in others. The top 25 per cent of trusts use their consultants twice as productively as the bottom 25 per cent. There are huge variations in the proportion of patients at risk from heart disease who get the appropriate drugs to help to control their blood pressure and cholesterol.
"Nurses in some hospitals discharge patients from A&E and in others they do not. Some hospitals use physiotherapists to help to reduce waiting times for orthopaedic appointments, and others do not. Links between social services and GPs work well in some areas, but in others are virtually non-existent. Some medical teams are much better at preventing arid managing conditions, such as diabetes and asthma, than others.
"These are big issues. The reasons for the variation are sometimes complex. Some of these problems will be because of a shortage of staff and equipment. But some will be poor management; inefficient organisation. Some will arise out of outdated demarcations between professionals within the service. Some will be systems failures. Some will be professional failures. Each one of these must be confronted, analysed and solutions found.
"So these are the five challenges that I set for the health service. First, the partnership challenge: for all parts of the health system—GPs, hospitals and their consultants, primary care groups, social services and community health services—to work together to end bed blocking, reduce unnecessary hospital admissions and provide the right level of beds and services for each level of care.
"Secondly, the performance challenge: the challenge is to ensure that using information, incentives and inspection all trusts and primary care groups come up to the standard of the best; that we provide the right support and intervention for those who struggle to provide proper standards of care; and that the systems are in place to identify and root out poor clinical practice.
"As a first step towards meeting this challenge, the Secretary of State will later today give details of £660 million of the extra money for next year that will be allocated straightaway to health authorities, trusts and primary care groups. He will set out how
326
the extra money will be coupled with new incentives to ensure that every pound provides value for money.
"Thirdly, the challenge for the professions: to strip out unnecessary demarcations, introduce more flexible training and working practices and ensure that doctors do not use time dealing with patients who could be treated safely by other healthcare staff.
"Fourthly, the patient care challenge: for hospitals and primary care groups. It is to ensure that they all adopt best practice, design out delays and introduce convenient booking systems so that patients with the most serious conditions get treated quickly, and no one has to wait too long for an operation that he needs.
"Fifthly, the challenge on prevention: to balance spending on tackling the causes of ill health with treating illness, to develop a more systematic approach to treating people at risk from chronic diseases and to persuade more people to play their part in achieving better health by adopting a more healthy lifestyle.
"These are tough challenges. Together we need to find the answers. If excellence can happen in one part of the country, then I say why cannot it happen in all parts of the country. In the past two to three years, there has been substantial change and improvement. The internal market has gone; a record numbers of hospitals are being built; nurses are returning to the National Health Service; and there are more doctors in training. There are new services like NHS Direct; new standard procedures just published for cancer and heart treatment; casualty departments are being modernised; there is a new Commission for Health Improvement, an Ofsted for the NHS, charged with raising standards in all hospitals; and a new institute, NICE, to advise on the best treatments and drugs.
"But we know that this has not been enough; and too often the pressure of change has been made doubly painful by the pressure of scarce resources. Now we have a chance to put the money to work. I have set out the challenge, but I offer to meet it in partnership with those in the health service. In the next few months, the Secretary of State for Health and I will meet and talk with the people responsible for healthcare in every part of the country. We will consult the leaders of the professions and NHS organisations.
"For each of the five challenge areas, there will be a dedicated unit to examine the problems and come up with solutions. The unit will be jointly led by a health Minister and a key leader from within the health service. Because it is a national health service, I have invited the First Minister in Scotland and the First Secretary in Wales to join me in a UK-wide group of Ministers to develop and drive through the reform we devise.
"In addition, for England, a new Cabinet committee chaired by me will be established to agree and monitor the standards of service and

327
improvements that people can expect by the end of the financial year 2003–04. Then, in July of this year, we will publish a detailed four-year action plan for the NHS: the improvements we seek, the change necessary to achieve them and the timetable for their delivery. It will not complete the journey of renewal for the NHS, but it will take us a long way towards our destination. It will take tough, often painful decisions about change to make progress. But I want all parts of the NHS to sign up to the plan, to feel ownership of it, to agree the priorities that we set out and to help us to deliver them. I want the country to unite around it.
"But I do not, and I will not, yield to those who believe that the NHS has had its day. It has not. A modernised NHS, not private medical insurance, is the future. The values of the NHS are every bit as relevant today as they were 50 years ago. But they have to be applied in a different way for a different age.
"The NHS is one of the great institutions that binds our country together. It is one of the great civilising achievements of the 20th century. It is our task, as the party which created the NHS, to renew it for the 21st century and to defeat the pessimists and the privatisers who would see it dismantled".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating that prime-ministerial Statement. It is an unusual Statement but not, I am sure, unprecedented. I should also like to say at the outset how much I welcome the intention to devote more resources to the health service. We on this side of the House support that aim. However, as is now well known, that was yesterday's announcement; indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that yesterday afternoon.
In contrast, the Prime Minister's Statement today is, I have to say, a disappointment. It sounds as if the No. 10 policy unit has just given him a seminar on the problems that doctors and nurses of this country could have told him about for years. I am bound to ask: where has the Prime Minister been these past three years? He tells us that he is going—no doubt, trailing the cameras behind him—on a roadshow of discovery to every part of the country. I thought that he was supposed to be running the country.
We all believe that Britain needs additional healthcare capacity. But does not the fact that the Prime Minister has felt the need to intervene personally—and put his job on the line—show the utter incompetence of the Ministers who have been in charge of the NHS since the general election? Over most of the long life of the NHS is has been Conservative governments who have supported it, modernised it, built new hospitals and pioneered new treatments. Surely that ought to have been acknowledged in today's Statement. When the noble Baroness replies, perhaps she might show the Prime Minister the way in that respect.
328
One of the things that has bedevilled the NHS has been the tendency of politicians on the Left to play politics with it. Too often, when Conservatives were in power, those people belittled its achievements and seized with glee every one of its problems. We hear that the Prime Minister now expresses his anger with the media for reporting problems in the NHS. I did not sense that fury in 1995, 1996 or, indeed, in 1997 when the Prime Minister made his extraordinary remark that there were,
"only 24 hours to save the NHS".
Since then not 24 hours have passed but almost three years. What has happened?
Pensioners with lifelong savings—people who, once again, were neglected in yesterday's Budget—have lost tax relief on health insurance. The numbers of people on waiting lists of over a year have risen when patients were promised they would fall. A new scandal has emerged of the doubling of waiting lists for the waiting list: 248,000 more than in May 1997, as a direct result of health Ministers distorting clinical priorities in 1997 and 1998 with their flawed waiting list initiative that has been roundly condemned by the BMA and every reputable medical body in this country. As the Daily Mail revealed this week, some 160,000 people are being forced to spend their savings to get life-saving and life-enhancing operations because the waiting lists for the waiting list are too long.
We have seen a transfer of choice away from the GPs, to whom we had given it, back to bureaucracy. Millions of pounds have been wasted on further bureaucratic tampering while problems on the wards have mounted. So much for "24 hours to save the NHS"; it is more like three locust years while the Government have fiddled and unmet demand for care has steadily grown. Now the Prime Minister comes forward with a Statement that lectures the NHS on its shortcomings. He tells us that he has discovered places where management is not as good as it should be. But who put it there? Was it not the Labour Party's mayoral candidate for London?
Is it not a classic comment on this Government that when the noble Lord, Lord Winston—I am delighted to see he is present—who knows the realities of the NHS, said that there were problems, he was privately bullied and publicly humiliated? But when, a few weeks later, the all-powerful focus groups revealed rising anger in the Labour heartlands about the failure of the Government's health promises, the Prime Minister panicked into action. I do not wish to embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Winston, but perhaps the Prime Minister should listen to the experienced people in his party a little more, and to the flatterers and spin doctors a little less.
What does today's Statement amount to? There is a promise by the Prime Minister to go on a roadshow and to set up new Civil Service units and Cabinet committees. And then what? He is to "prepare an action plan". When the Prime Minister talks of roadshows, units, Cabinet committees and action plans, have we not been here before with a roadshow on social security reform, a new Cabinet committee,

329
"thinking the unthinkable"—remember that?—and delivering nothing? The public will not bear a repeat of that fiasco.
Does the noble Baroness agree—I hope that she does—that if the additional money is to be spent properly, that spending must be properly managed? It is a substantial increase in funding. Does she accept that you will no: get good management if you persist with the appointment of second-hand politicians to run the NHS? Has the noble Baroness had time to read the Fritchie report? It shows a record of unparalleled cronyism and political favouritism in the NHS since 1997. The report finds that of 343 councillors appointed to run the NHS since May 1997, over 80 per cent have been from the Labour Party; just 10 per cent have been Liberal Democrats; and 6 per cent have been Conservative. The Commissioner for Public Appointments comments that the appointments
"process has been politicised in a systematic way".
I may be wrong, but was not the noble Baroness herself part of that system? Does she accept that when public money on this scale is about to be committed to the NHS, political cronyism on this scale has to stop? I hope that the noble Baroness will give an unequivocal undertaking that the Government will accept the Fritchie report's key recommendations.
Yesterday, extra resources were announced for the health service. That was welcome. Today I am sorry to say that we are taken little further by a Statement that lectures the NHS on its shortcomings. We shall watch, supportively but sceptically, to see how wisely this extra money is spent. How much say, for instance, will the clinicians, the doctors and the nurses, who understand so well the problems of care, have in the way it is spent? How much, above all—this will be the test—will go to direct patient care?
After three years of waiting for a year of delivery that never actually comes, we are all entitled to be sceptical, not just us, as a political party, but also people outside the House. This is a government who tax more but deliver less. In this Budget they are again taxing more. Let us hope for the sake of the patients of Britain that this time, for once, they will actually deliver.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I greatly welcome and thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made in another place by the Prime Minister, although at this hour it is inevitably to a rather thin House with fewer than 30 noble Lords present.
In so far as I here is to be more money for the National Health Service, we welcome that without reserve. To that extent we certainly welcome the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Statement yesterday, and to that extent—although I wish to qualify my approval—we welcome what the Prime Minister said today.
330
It is a matter of regret that the needs of the health service were not recognised earlier. To that extent we have had three wasted years because it was plain for everyone to see that the National Health Service had been in decline for at least a decade. We must also note that welcome though the prospect for the next four years is, it is only part of the way towards the Prime Minister's aspiration—if that is what it still is—to achieve levels of spending in terms of GDP comparable to those within the European Union. Although I mention those two reservations at this stage, it is good news. The money is good news and it would be wrong to pretend otherwise.
I ask the noble Baroness a question concerning what might be called the public spending context. It is not clear to me—but this may be my shortcoming—how the announcement yesterday fits in with the comprehensive spending review. Will it mean in any respect robbing Peter to pay Paul? Have other spending Ministers been told that there will be no more money for them? Clearly, the announcement appears to pre-empt a large slice of the Government's spending for the next four years. It is fair to assume that there will be losers. It would be helpful to know who they may be; otherwise, in due course, we shall have to probe to find out.
We shall also look for double counting. I shall not repeat the rather disgraceful story of what the Government have sought to do. I do not think that it is the first choice of Ministers, but they have been urged to adopt that course—and not to their long-term advantage. We hope that there will be no -window dressing". I mean by that easy measures of apparent, short-term success which hide long-term failures. What we want to see are clinical priorities and not political priorities, although I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that political priorities did not begin in 1997. We can see them a long time before that.
However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that if the Government are to be trusted on putting clinical priorities before political priorities and we are to have a highly competent service spending more money wisely and well, the Government must clear up the messy and indefensible situation affecting public appointments to NHS trusts and health authorities. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones tabled a prescient, pertinent and revealing Starred Question last week on that subject. However, I do not think that it more than partially prepared us for the most remarkable and damning report of Dame Rennie Fritchie, published today. Again, I have to say that when the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, rather boldly refers to it, it is something of a pot calling the kettle black because this has been long-standing practice. But the fact that it is long-standing practice does not mean that it is not time for a change. I tentatively and nervously suggest that here is a case for an appointments commission. However, I shall not set out the principles upon which it should work.
I do not want to be ungracious to the Prime Minister although I and others are not impressed by his Statement. If the noble Baroness had made her own Statement, I believe that it would have been a great

331
deal more rigorous and substantial, even if she had chosen to make it at all. Almost all the contents are concerned with administration, not with policy. The questions—there are 15 of them within the Prime Minister's Statement—sound more like a research programme, which could have been undertaken a long time ago, than a process of decision-making. On the basis of the Statement there is something to be said for giving all of the money to the King's Fund to come up with the answers which would enable the remaining money to be better spent.
Then again, those of us with experience of government will have allowed ourselves a hollow laugh at the proposal for a new Cabinet committee. It takes us back to the world of Harold Wilson and a long way from the world of new Labour, as we understood it. Our doubts are strengthened by references to dedicated units for this or that. I have never understood what a dedicated unit is; I simply do not believe in them. The five challenges are pure public relations or elementary management gimmicks. They get us nowhere, and we should recognise them for what they are.
The Statement is pretty empty and would have been better avoided. It is either an attempt to catch tomorrow's headlines—headlines for a second day of an important announcement—or, dare I say it, to prevent the Chancellor getting away with all the credit.
I simply ask the noble Baroness—it may be a rhetorical question—whether the money is aimed more at the administrative challenges set out by the Prime Minister. Or are we to believe that some will be left for improving treatment within the health service?
I have one further question of substance. I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me if it was dealt with by the Secretary of State, Alan Milburn, in a further Statement in the other place. It concerns the existing policy targets. There are a number of targets in regard to cancer treatment, heart disease, mental health and other illnesses—they are reasonable targets; I do not dispute them—but are we to assume that the new resources will be devoted to these targets and that these targets still stand. Or are they to be widened?
I appreciate it is unrealistic to expect the Leader of the House to deal today with these and many other questions about the details of how the money will be spent. I hope very much—it is an obvious request—that we shall have a debate at an early date so that all sides of the House can examine more fully these very important developments.
6.32 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their broad welcome for the additional resources. As to the final point of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, about opportunities to discuss these far-reaching and important proposals, he will understand that that is a matter for the usual channels. I am sure, however, as always in matters concerning the health service, that your Lordships will contribute authoritatively and interestingly as the
332
debate proceeds and as the understandings we have about the targets to be developed in the new national health plan become more clear.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that I am absolutely delighted that he welcomes so full-heartedly the additional resources for the National Health Service. I had understood, from looking at the comments of his right honourable friend Mr. Portillo before yesterday's Statement, that the Conservative Party believed that there was a choice in this country between making public sector investments and cutting taxes. Mr Portillo said only a few days ago, I think on 12th March, that he would recommend that the Chancellor cut taxes rather than improve public spending. None the less, I am delighted that that position seems to have changed. I am sure that the Conservative Party's conversion to this major extension of public expenditure will be welcomed by all sides.
Both noble Lords referred to how the Statement seemed to be concerned more with administration than with the development of clinical care and the organisation of medicine. It is important to understand—I can say this having been a Minister in the Department of Health at the very beginning of this Government—that it was not until the Government started to look at the variations in performance which the Prime Minister, quite rightly, spoke at some length about today, that there was any system in place within the health service for benchmarking the comparative performances of individual trusts and individual health authorities. It was in order to establish this basic tool of management that a great deal of the preliminary work was done. If the questions to which my right honourable friend referred today about the variations in performance of different hospitals and different professional bodies in the health service had been asked in 1997, it would have been very difficult to answer them in the precise terms that he used today. Noble Lords should not under-estimate the importance of achieving the position where we can now address those variations and make decisions about the distribution of resources, which are obviously part of that issue.
Both noble Lords referred to the question of whether this settlement—which is important, both in the context of long-term management planning and the distribution of resources on a fair and improved but targeted basis—has distorted the already outlined plans for the second comprehensive spending review. The House is aware that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of Exchequer yesterday announced an extra £1 billion for education, and other amounts for transport and other high priorities within the Government's present policy objectives. Of course, the comprehensive spending review in its detail will be carried out with all the other spending departments during the next few months, but I do not think that anything that has been said—or anything that may be read into the implications of the Statement as it relates to the health service—should be read across as an indication that decisions have been made about other public sector expenditure.

333
On specifics, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred to the discussion about waiting lists. I am sure that the noble Lord will be pleased to hear that the health department regards itself as being completely on target to fulfil the election pledge on waiting lists. The department and the chief executive of the health service have acknowledged that there has been what one might describe as a blip in that path upwards or downwards, whichever way one wants to look at it, in the past few months for reasons which were only too familiar to your Lordships when we discussed the problems of winter pressures. The question of outpatients is something to which the Government wish to give attention in this new planning period and in the light of this additional new money.
I suspect that noble Lords may have a slightly pessimistic view. Right across the health service, it is the case that 75 per cent of patients are seen within the patient's charter target of 13 weeks. No one pretends that we are all content with that target—of course it should be improved—but if one says that three-quarters of patients are seen within the existing target, at least we should not be too gloomy about existing standards.
Noble Lords were slightly dismissive of the plan set out by the Prime Minister to act on benchmarked information to lake projects forward in the context of the new spending arrangements. I thought my right honourable friend was rather precise on that issue. He described what indeed was an administrative process—and therefore perhaps not particularly exciting— but he was fairly clear about the way in which he hopes to move forward on a consensual basis involving the health service, the professions, the different parts of the United Kingdom—he referred to consultations with Scotland and with Wales—in order to achieve a consistent and coherent new plan which would be available and ready by July this year. That would then of course be planned out in the context of the longer term spending agreements announced today. This gives the health service a very important breathing space and a capacity to plan on the basis of knowledge of what the future spend will be. That makes it more coherent from the clinical as well as the administrative point of view.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, asked whether the present clinical targets would stand. It is my understanding that they will, particularly those which have been developed within the new national service frameworks and the clinical priorities which have been agreed on cancer and heart disease. I am sure that the additional money will enable new national service frameworks and new national targets to be set in specific clinical areas. Clearly, those targets already agreed—which were in themselves quite ambitious—will be held to. I suspect that clinicians will be more confident in their ability to deliver them within the new financial context.
Both noble Lords referred to quality of management within the health service—I suspect, both the professional quality of management and that which is deployed by those who sit on health authorities and NHS trusts. They referred also to the
334
report delivered today by Dame Rennie Fritchie. I do not know whether either noble Lord realised— the announcement was made only today—that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health, Mr Milburn, announced that he was considering fundamental changes in the NHS appointments process in response to Dame Rennie's report. Most importantly, he said that the first point he wished to examine was responsibility for appointing hospital trusts and primary group trusts; namely, non-executive board members being devolved to local health authorities rather than those duties being undertaken by Ministers. That means that the process would be brought much closer to the local community and, presumably, that ministerial oversight would be removed.
I think it fair to point out again that headlines regarding the way in which appointments have been seen as political—even if that has not actually been the case—have been uncomfortable for all political parties. We are talking about a small proportion of Labour Party councillors being appointed since 1997. I understand that they constitute 20 per cent of the total number of appointments. Having been involved in the appointments process at an earlier stage and knowing that there are literally thousands of appointments—the total for which Ministers are responsible is 3,000—a figure of some 250 appointed councillors should not necessarily be exaggerated, although, given what my right honourable friend has said about an overhaul of the appointments system, I hope that some of the concerns about appointments made from all sides of the political process will be ameliorated.
As someone who was involved in this process as a health Minister early in this Government's term of office, I would say that one must not be over-sensitive on this matter. It was important for the Government—as it was when reforms were made by the previous administration—that those who sat on local hospital boards and were members of local health authorities genuinely believed in, and were concerned about, the way in which the government of the day sought to organise the healthcare system. As a Minister, I was pleased that people came forward for selection feeling that the health service was being focused on in a rather different way after the 1997 election. But we should also remember that all those appointments were made through the process set up by the previous Commissioner for Public Appointments.
I was pleased and flattered by the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that had I been making the Statement, as it were, ab initio it would have been more rigorous and substantial than the one that I repeated. However, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, seemed to place some of the blame as he saw it on existing government Ministers for the disorganisation in the health system as it now stands. I am happy to plead guilty to being in that position two years ago, although the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, has said that I would have been more rigorous today, but I cannot accept that on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hunt.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I was not referring to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. My main target was Mr Frank Dobson.
6.43 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, perhaps I may put one or two rather detailed points to the noble Baroness. Like my noble friend, I very much welcome the infusion of money. I take it that the £2 billion includes Scotland and Wales. First, does the £2 billion include the big increases in wages and salaries that have already been awarded recently? Does it also include the outcome of the review of long-term care which is under way? If that is the case, it indicates that the whole sum will not be available for the reforms with which the Statement is concerned.
On the question of Scotland and Wales, the noble Baroness mentioned the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament and the First Secretary in Wales as taking part in the group that will make the final decisions. Do the five challenges set out in the Statement that are being put to the health service by the Prime Minister apply to health authorities in Scotland and Wales as well? Will the four-year plan that is to be agreed apply to Scotland and Wales? If so, when will the Scots Parliament have a say in this matter? The health service is a devolved matter for Scotland, as it is for Wales.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Baroness's final point is entirely relevant. Health matters are devolved to Scotland and to Wales. I think what my right honourable friend was indicating in referring to the consultations that he intended to have with the First Minister and the First Secretary in Wales, was that the National Health Service is a UK institution. Of course, the funding is somewhat different. The arrangements even for administration and management within Scotland and Wales are slightly different. However, the aspirations for achieving the challenges and for meeting the targets set out are ones which I am sure both he and the Secretary of State for Health in England and Wales would regard as particularly important for the whole of the unified system.
It is important that we have a more consensual approach to reaching the targets, as I hope the Statement made clear. The reference was made in the context of bringing in the professions, presumably from different parts of the United Kingdom, as well as those responsible for administration. Clearly, although the overall settlement is UK-wide, there will be differences in the way in which resources are deployed. In Scotland, those will be matters for the Scottish Parliament, as the noble Baroness rightly said.
Wages and salaries fall to be met out of the overall budgets, but the figures given are for real terms growth. As the noble Baroness will know, they are susceptible to the outcomes of the independent wages and salaries review boards which are referred to the Government for the year in question. The real terms
336
growth is over the entire UK and the whole economy, but, as I say, individual budgets will be deployed by the Scottish Executive in the way that it chooses.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, just to be quite sure, will the four-year plan apply to Scotland?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, if I have failed to answer the noble Baroness's questions I shall be delighted to answer her in writing.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I am grateful for the solicitude of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. I hope it continues until the end of my question to the Lord Privy Seal.
Is my noble friend aware that, judging from what I saw this morning in my own hospital trust, which I believe is representative, the Budget announcement has led to a real enthusiasm which I have not seen for a long time in the health service. It will clearly do a huge amount for morale. In particular, it will do a great deal for those hospitals in inner-city areas in deprived parts of the country.
My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal mentioned bench-marking. She, above all, is well aware that one of the problems in relation to disease is that its quality and severity, and indeed the stage of any disease, often depend on a whole range of factors, such as poverty, education and environment. One of the problems with performance indicators and bench-marking is that it is difficult to compare trust with trust across different parts of the country. I know that the Government are aware of that and that they have it fully in mind. A simple league table is clearly not the answer.
One of the problems in the health service is that, as a result of a very long period of neglect, the fabric has been run down. Consequently, one major investment that has been lacking is in information technology. Information technology would do a great deal to provide useful comparators in the health service which could lead to a better assessment of performance. Perhaps my noble friend will comment briefly on whether part of the extra money might be spent on examining how we can best gather information within the health service.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am very grateful for my noble friend's reaction and for his comments about the enthusiasm that he finds in his trust. Having known my noble friend very well over many years, I know that he speaks from a completely independent and objective assessment and reports accurately his experience in his own trust. I simply tell the House that it is reflected in a conversation in which I was involved this morning in Ipswich, in a non-inner city area, where a Conservative county councillor, who is also the chairman of the local health authority, was equally enthusiastic about the infusion of extra funds. As the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have said, I hope that this will be seen as a nationwide enthusiasm. I certainly hope, to echo my noble friend's remarks, that it will raise morale and performance right across the health service.

337
My noble friend is, of course, absolutely right about the complexities of simple target setting within the NHS. He mentioned the social issues of poverty, education, and the environment which tend to affect the severity of disease and the problems which bring people to hospitals and to see their GPs at different stages of disease. I am sure that he will be aware that a great deal of work is being done in the Department of Health both to look at those complicated issues in the statistical sense, and, more importantly, to address the broader issues of ill health, so that there will be a better prevention programme as well as a public health programme which will back up the health service issues.
The question of IT is, of course, a priority for NHS expenditure. I know that there is a major commitment in the health service and in the Department of Health to taking forward the IT strategy which was developed two years ago. This will ensure that the exchange of information necessary to assist in the management of disease, and the practical advantages to patients of booked appointments, is spread as widely and as quickly as possible.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I too welcome the additional funds announced yesterday and today. I believe that they have the potential to make a real difference to the NHS in the years to come. Perhaps I may ask the Leader of the House two questions. First, the Prime Minister in his Statement highlighted a consultation process with people responsible for healthcare in every part of the country. Will this be about how the additional funding is to be spent in this year, as well as in the following years? If so, the Secretary of State's speech today seems to conflict with that. He referred to allocations being made, and specifically one of £650 million, and he seems already to have decided what the expenditure should be. There appears to be a lack of clarity in that respect. Perhaps I may ask whether this consultation exercise will be a genuine button—up process or a top-down process, which seems to have characterised quite a great deal of the Government's expenditure to date. I am sure that we all want to sere the four-year action plan, to which the Prime Minister referred, genuinely owned by those who work in the NHS. But if there is no adequate consultation, it will not be.
Secondly, perhaps I may follow up the question asked by my noble friend Lord Rodgers about the status of the Comprehensive Spending Review, about which there appears to be a lack of clarity. Has the Department of Health's total budget for this and the following four years now been set? If so, can the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, indicate very soon the decisions that will be made on the Children (Leaving Care) Bill rather than waiting until the Comprehensive Spending Review?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who is seated behind me, says that the answer to the noble Lord's final question is "no".
338
With regard to the broader point, as I hope that I made clear to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, the four-year spending agreement is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones said, related to the Department of Health's spending. It is related to NHS spending. However, that is the agreed programme.
With regard to the question of the consultation process, my understanding is that the allocation of the £600-odd million referred to in the Secretary of State's additional Statement this afternoon relates to the extra £2 billion which will be made available at the beginning of this immediate financial year. The consultation process on the new national strategy, if that is what we wish to call it, which is to take place over the next few months, will be about putting the plans for the health service in a broader, longer-term context. As I said in reply to the two noble Lords who spoke from the Front Benches, the hope is that this agreed spending over the four-year period will enable proper planning and understanding of agreed targets to be the subject of consultation over that longer period of time.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in welcoming the Statements of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister today, is my noble friend as puzzled as I am by the extent to which the Official Opposition are waxing so strongly about the fact that more Labour councillors than Tory councillors were appointed to these bodies? Does she recall that during their 18 years in power, the Conservatives were absolute past masters of the politicisation of all forms of public appointment? Was it not from their side, from a very good friend of mine whom I particularly respect, that we heard the Statement, "We would not knowingly appoint a Labour Party member to any public appointment"? We have nothing to learn from them, as my noble friend agreed.
Further, is my noble friend as puzzled as I am by the question from the Leader of the Liberal Democrats with regard to the three-year delay? Does she agree that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the first Labour Chancellor in history to make absolutely certain that he had the economy on a sound basis and the public finances fully under control before spending the money? I stand second to no one in wishing that it would not take quite so long. But is she aware that at least those of us on our Benches who know a little about economics believe that my right honourable friend was entirely right to ensure that the funds were first in place before committing them, and that what we really ought to be saying is, "Thank goodness that the funds are there now, and we are committing them to this top priority of the NHS"?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend politically and, of course, as always, I defer to his expertise in the broad economic field.
With regard to the question of whether or not this Government have anything to learn from the present Opposition party about appointments to public bodies, before the noble Lord from the Opposition

339
Front Bench rises to his feet, I must point out that I was a member of a health authority under the previous administration. It would be completely churlish and inaccurate of me to deny that fact. However, I agree with my noble friend that a number of appointments were fairly extensively made on a political basis during those 18 years. In addition, however, we in this House quite clearly learned in our debate on the House of Lords Bill—although I hate to raise this subject again—that "independent", when it refers to public appointments at local level and particularly when it applies to certain areas of the country, often means "Conservative". But let us not dwell on that particular part of our collective past.
With regard to my noble friend's judgment about the overall macro-economic position, he is, of course, right that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was determined, as he very clearly demonstrated in the Budget Statement yesterday, to get the finances of the country in good order to provide a good platform for growth of the public sector, and I am very glad that noble Lords all round the House have now recognised what a generous settlement this is.
Baroness Masham of Ikon: My Lords, I thought that it was getting a little party political. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that the Statement was rather disappointing in that it did not mention the consumer, the patient? Does she also agree that the consumer should take part in management? More and more professionals are coming in who have their jobs at stake and their careers at heart.
Does the noble Baroness also agree that it is a little disappointing that no mention was made of infection control? This is becoming a big problem. Patients are becoming frightened of going into hospital, and we now have a report that 5,000 patients per year die from infection. Would she therefore include the question of infection control in the health agenda?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that patients should be involved in the process of consultation. I suspect that it was only the limitations of time which prevented this matter from being explicitly developed under one of the challenges referred to by my right honourable friend. The noble Baroness will be aware that for the first time the Government have instituted an annual patient survey and a large number of patient representative appointments have been made to individual boards and trusts, particularly in the area of primary care. But the noble Baroness is absolutely right that patients must be involved in consultation and the development of plans.
As to infection control, the noble Baroness will be aware that there is now strong guidance in place to deal with this very serious issue. I agree that this matter must be taken seriously. This is perhaps precisely the kind of detailed issue which the consultation period on the new national strategy will include.
Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords, I too welcome the Statement. The Statement says that a modernised National Health Service is the future, with which I also agree, but much reform is needed. In looking ahead, do the Government reject out of hand any method of raising funds other than general taxation to meet the needs of the National Health Service: the private sector, insurance or any other means? Can the alternatives be looked at, or are they forbidden ground?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, in so far as the noble Lord makes a rather universalist challenge by referring to "forbidden ground", the answer is yes. The Government believe that public sector funding of the kind announced yesterday by my right honourable friend, together with the plan developed by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister this afternoon, is the appropriate way to run a universal health service free at the point of need. That is the fundamental principle of the health service from which we have never diverged, and do not intend to diverge at this moment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall that during the passage through your Lordships' House in 1989 of legislation to reform the National Health Service an amendment was moved and accepted by the then government which led to the appointment of a director of research for the NHS whose primary function was to look at the delivery of services within the NHS? Rather than set up a plethora of new bodies, committees and consultation processes, can the noble Baroness assure the House that the work conducted by the various directors of research over the past 10 years, and/or the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that the King's Fund research facilities should be utilised, will be fully taken into account?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I do not recall the particular amendment to which the noble Baroness refers; I was not in your Lordships' House in 1989. I was, however, one of the first lay members of the Central Research and Development Council for the NHS which, presumably, was set up as a result of that amendment. I have been quite closely involved in the work of that body since its inception. My understanding of that body and the Director of Research and Development for the NHS has always been that the determining factor is research into services rather than their delivery. That may be a rather grey area but there is a slight distinction, certainly in terms of the projects in which I was involved when I served on the council. There is to be a new research and development strategy within the NHS which will embrace some of the topics included in the Statement of my right honourable friend about the challenges of modernisation to be published next week. I agree with the noble Baroness that the work of the Research and Development Unit within the DoH, although slightly different from some of the aspects of reform which the Government are anxious to pursue, is very relevant to the general process.

Northern Ireland
7.4 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouthrose to call attention to the intrinsic issues in Northern Ireland; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, for too long our debates on Northern Ireland have necessarily concerned the latest phase in the political struggle orchestrated by Sinn Fein/IRA. Martin McGuinness said in 1995 that the IRA's agenda was to end British rule in the North and to secure national self-determination for the people of Northern Ireland. Ever since it has summarily ignored the choice of the majority through the ballot box to remain in the United Kingdom. The British Government, according to him, had been dragged into the peace process initiated by the IRA. The IRA document Tactical Use of Armed Struggle (known as TUAS) had been launched the year before. It made it clear that the peace process had been embarked upon as a tactical expedient because it offered for the time being a better method of achieving the IRA's objective of a 32-county republic.
A return to violence was never ruled out. We should never forget that peace is not, for the IRA, the object of the peace process, just as solving issues of arms is IRA-speak for British arms, not theirs, and just as the much-vaunted offer in the second de Chastelain report that the IRA would,
"consider how to out arms and explosives beyond use in the context of the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and in the context of the removal of the causes of conflict",
means, in IRA-speak, only the withdrawal of the British Army, the disarming and abolition of the RUC and the dismantling of all legislation or judicial procedures, such as the Diplock courts, which could in any way threaten the power of the IRA.
The IRA has now secured much: the release of prisoners; a substantial withdrawal of the Army; and a government commitment to legislate for changes in the RUC. Even under the Belfast agreement, that should be implemented only in a normal situation which simply does not obtain. Changes in the counterterrorism legislation are next on the IRA's agenda, and government cc nsultation on this has begun. Fortunately, Mr Justice Rowe's latest report of February of this year says robustly that there is a continuing need for the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, to which I shall return.
I wanted this House to address the intrinsic issues in Northern Ireland. These are only too often obscured and not debated because we are caught up in the latest phase of the IRA's political agenda rather than that of the people of Northern Ireland. I shall say only one last word on that. We must not forget that the IRA has never committed itself to decommissioning; it has merely used a code which, in IRA-speak, applies solely to the British Army and the RUC but which we, from Senator Mitchell to the British and Irish Governments, have clutched at as referring to the IRA. That has suited the IRA very well and allowed
342
everyone to ignore the evidence cited by the Rowe report of continued weapons and arms training, recruitment, the purchase of arms, the targeting of objectives—also on the mainland—and to attribute it all to a few so-called breakaway groups.
The IRA representative is said to have told the de Chastelain commission that only all the members of the Army Council could authorise decommissioning and they had not been asked to do so. Not least, the IRA statement of 2nd February this year said categorically, after its representative had met General de Chastelain over a period of some two months, that,
"The IRA have never entered into any agreement or undertaking or understanding at any time whatsoever on any aspect of decommissioning".
Could that be clearer?
I make that point only because I believe that the Government now need to let the whole question lie fallow and simply forget about both decommissioning and those aspects of the so-called peace process which are still on the agenda of Sinn Fein/IRA (one of whose short-term objectives is undoubtedly to split the Unionists). Let the Secretary of State, with the active support of the two Governments, now concentrate on improving the quality of life of the people of Northern Ireland—the economy, agriculture and education—and specifically the people's right, too long ignored, to live peacefully in the United Kingdom, which by a large majority they chose to do. That means that the Government must concentrate on securing proper policing and doing something about those activities of the IRA and loyalist paramilitaries which are criminal and can in no way be justified or presented as part of a noble political struggle or a defence of "their people" against the enemy: the state.
The IRA likes to compare itself to the ANC in South Africa. I believe that Mandela would have been profoundly shocked to find the brave soldiers of the IRA beating teenagers with iron bars for private grudges, running criminal extortion operations and protection rackets and exiling whole families from their homeland. That was done by the ANC's adversary, the South African state. There is a culture of loyalty which prevents members of the republican or loyalist communities from co-operating with the police when murder has been committed, since fear of "execution" as an informer is a strong element. But, surely, it is indefensible that Martin McGuinness flatly refused to urge those whom both the RUC and the Garda need to testify against the Omagh bombers to come forward. It is a sad fact that the legislation that this House passed after Omagh has proved powerless to deliver known murderers to justice.
I believe that for the present the chief task of the Government should be to do everything possible to support and strengthen the RUC to enable it to act as normal police would act on the mainland to bring criminals (not freedom fighters) to justice. Sinn Fein/IRA, and indeed the Irish Government, should be challenged to say where they stand on each instance of paramilitary violence or criminality and, above all, on the question of the exiling of whole families.

343
Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's 1998 report on victims quoted the Cost Of The Troubles study (COTT). This reported in 1997 that 53 per cent of the dead in the Troubles since 1969 were civilians; 87 per cent of the total were killed by paramilitaries (59 per cent by republicans; 28 per cent by loyalists) and 37 per cent were under 24 years old; 89 of these were 14 years old and under, and of the under-18s the IRA killed by far the largest number. But perhaps the most telling statistic is that if the UK with its population of 58 million had experienced the same deaths pro rata compared with Northern Ireland's 1.6 million, the figure would have been over 130,000 people dead.
That is only the dead. What of those who have been maimed for life in punishment beatings and shootings (quite apart from 45 more murders in the period between the signing of the Belfast agreement and August last year)? In those few months there have been 105 shootings, 135 beatings and, most terrible of all in its lasting effect on whole groups of people, 440 people sent into permanent exile overnight. That figure is now estimated to have risen to nearer 1,000. What happens? Someone offends a paramilitary or is suspected of being dissident in some way, or perhaps a social nuisance to the community. He or she and the whole family are given a few hours' notice to quit their homes, their jobs, possibly elderly relations in hospital, and their friends, and leave Northern Ireland, never to return on pain of death. If they come to England, as most do, they will be jobless, homeless and without friends, especially as they may not be considered persona grata by whatever Irish community there is where they settle. They will, in any case, be still in fear. This traumatic experience has been happening to very many bewildered and terrified families for years now. These are our people, expelled from another part of the UK by the fiat of the paramilitaries, and yet I have heard no word of protest from the many generous and liberal-minded people in this country who care about Rwanda, Burundi and the Roma.
The shocking thing is that those people have no redress and no protection from the state because successive governments have accepted supinely that the paramilitaries must be allowed, in a phrase attributed, I hope wrongly, to the last Secretary of State, to conduct their own internal housekeeping. So no one can go to the police, willing as they would be to help, and no one can claim the protection of the law for themselves and the hapless children and old people who may also be included in their exile.
It was on St Patrick's day this year that the press reported that the IRA, after a lull (for it can turn off the tap whenever it wishes) had resumed the savage punishment attacks, and I have little doubt that the exiles will be stepped up too. The only proper course for a Government who honour human rights is to strengthen the mandate of the RUC in the communities at present dominated by the thugs. We are told that it is part of the strategy of the Belfast agreement to return to normal security arrangements compatible with a normal, peaceful society—just what the people thought they had voted for—and under the
344
human rights section of the agreement we are told that all the parties affirm the right freely to choose one's place of residence and the right to freedom from sectarian harassment.
To achieve that, the first task of our Government must surely be to assert and back up the right of the RUC to operate freely, to forbid no-go areas, and to punish wherever they can be identified those paramilitary elements who are running protection and extortion rackets and other criminal profit-making activities, including counterfeiting. Did not the Prime Minister tell the United Nations in September 1998 that terrorists should have no hiding place and no opportunities to raise funds (which hardly squares, incidentally, with recent moves to allow Sinn Fein to raise funds abroad)? After Omagh the Prime Minister said that we must fight terrorism vigorously wherever it appears while holding fast to the rule of law. We can move towards fulfilling the commitment made to the people, both then and in the agreement, by conducting an all-out and serious drive to assert the rule of law through the presence of the RUC and through immediate action to arrest and punish paramilitary violence. (It was good to see, incidentally, that a released prisoner who took part in terrorist activity recently had his licence revoked).
We shall be told that no member of the community will dare to identify those responsible. That may well be true if the crime is murder, but there have been brave men and women—among them Families Against Intimidation and Terror (FAIT); and some months ago a 14 year-old girl who spoke out against the brutal beating of her young brother—who would, if they felt something would be done, take risks to identify the violent men publicly. But they must be sure that something will be done. It is difficult to see how the Dublin Government, Ted Kennedy or even Gerry Adams could attack the enforcement of the protection every citizen is entitled to have from the law—and the police, and no-one else, constitute the proper arm of the law in a normal society.
It is not enough to pay graceful tribute to the RUC, rather like putting flowers on a grave. Let us instead give those brave men and women in the RUC all the real support necessary for them to break the power of the paramilitaries to punish and brutalise their own communities. It will be to our lasting shame if we do not.
The other issue which concerns me is the role and responsibility of the Irish Government who have presumed to try to negotiate with the IRA on the withdrawal of British troops and have attacked the right of those troops to be stationed on British soil. Does it occur to the Dublin Government, who seem to believe the Belfast agreement gives them the right of decision within Northern Ireland but no responsibilities, that they, a so-called friendly government, a partner in the peace process and a fellow member of the European Union, are providing a safe haven for armed and violent men who are flouting the will of the people as shown in the ballot box both North and South, and who are conducting a war using the Republic as a safe base? When the IRA

345
launches its next campaign for the abolition of the Diplock courts will the Dublin Government be abandoning its own special Diplock-type courts and its own prevention of terrorism legislation? I think not.
The IRA is unelected and has no mandate, but it has an agenda which will sooner or later constitute a threat to the Government of Ireland. Today our people are under daily threat and theirs are not, but that will not always be true. When the IRA resumes its war mode, will the Irish Government allow hot pursuit? We are all gratefully aware of the effective and professional cooperation that exists between the Gardai and the RUC, but it is time the Irish Government faced the fact that the British Government's duty is to protect their citizens and that the Irish cannot enjoy power in the partnership without responsibility.
The ill-fated and disgraceful treaty with the IRA over the return with full amnesty, of the bodies of those it murdered secured much favourable publicity for the caring IRA, but only three bodies for the grieving families. It demonstrated, however, that only the Gardai were to be allowed by the IRA to take part in the operation. If the Irish Government wish to be seen as a serious and responsible partner in the peace process, why, instead of acting as the IRA's spokesman on too many occasions, do they not bring pressure to bear on the IRA so that the perpetrators of the Omagh bombing may be brought to trial and witness borne against them? The bombers are, after all, supposed not to be from the Provisional IRA but from one of those famous breakaway groups. If the Irish Government would exert their influence responsibly in these issues the power of both governments to enforce the Belfast agreement would surely be enhanced and the political process justified.
I beg to move for Papers.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, for introducing this subject today. We share at least one characteristic in both debates today: we deserve a medal for our hard work, if nothing else.
As regards description, I agree with much that the noble Baroness said. However, I shall disagree on interpretation. I speak only for myself, and no one else. However, I recall about 30 years ago I was offered a chair in economics in the new University of Ulster. I asked the vice-chancellor whether I should have difficulty not only as an Asian but as a man given to some rebellious tendencies. He said, "Oh no, there is no problem living here". He was an Australian actually. He then said, "Whenever I give a party, I invite equal numbers of Catholics and Protestants. Of course, with Protestants, you have to be careful to invite equal numbers of Anglicans and Presbyterians". I decided that I could not live there.
Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, but is not a united kingdom. It is John Bull's other island. I have said in many debates in your Lordships' House that the dilemma we face is that, while Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom
346
juridically, historically and politically its status is not exactly like that of Wales or of Scotland. People may pretend that it is not, but it is still what I have called before a post-colonial situation. That situation has not been resolved.
In the early 1960s, when I was in the United States, the IRA was a joke. No one took the IRA seriously. It had almost dissolved itself. How did the IRA revive itself? How did the Provisional IRA come about? The Provisional IRA did not come about from a vacuum. It came about from the realities of the way in which power was handled by the majority community in Northern Ireland. That history—all of Ireland is about history—did not do justice to the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland did not behave like a part of the United Kingdom through those 50 years. Therefore, as the noble Baroness knows better than I do, there was a civil rights movement, there was a revival of the IRA and we have had nothing but trouble for the past 32 years.
We cannot forget this simple fact. It is a divided community; it is a community in which the majority in the North is a minority in the island and the minority in the North is a majority in the island. That is where the whole majority-minority question becomes rather peculiar. I was brought up in India on the nationalist version of Irish history. I was brought up to believe that the partition was wrong and that the six counties should never have been given away. I have learnt better since. I have learnt the subtleties of history. But a generation of people not only in Northern Ireland but in the Republic and in the United States believes that version of Irish history. Half of Boston believes that version.
The tricky problem is that the intrinsic issue of Northern Ireland is the very peculiar constitutional status of Northern Ireland, Successive governments, of both parties, have failed to see—no, that is too arrogant—have somehow not been able to appreciate the peculiar quasi-constitutional character of Northern Ireland. Decommissioning is just the latest part of the problem. As I have said before in your Lordships' House, the IRA is not a thing; it is an idea. When one goes away, another will be born. There will be the Continuity IRA, the Real IRA and so on. It is hard to know how one can convince the minority community in Northern Ireland, especially the totality of minorities in Northern Ireland, that it is in their interest to stay on the peaceful side of the constitutional arrangements rather than not. While there is even a minority of a minority still convinced—and there is—that there is an El Dorado somewhere else of a 32-county government, there will be Continuity IRA, Real IRA and so on.
The question is very much a political question: what can we do? The Good Friday agreement came the nearest that anything has come so far. In a previous debate on Northern Ireland I asked the Minister whether he was aware of an interpretation of the Good Friday agreement—that it was a treaty, an international treaty. Very often, in many post-colonial situations, a former terrorist body becomes part of the constitutional process. In this case, it is Sinn Fein,

347
which is only an agent, and a not very good agent, of the IRA. If this is an international treaty, we have to be careful in taking unilateral action as a UK government without consultation with the government of the Republic as well as other signatories. Of course, as the sovereign power we are entirely entitled to do what we like—to restore the RUC and not submit to the IRA—but that is not the politics of the situation. Here is a case in which neither side has won and neither side has lost. That is what is peculiar about it.
I know that that is not a comfortable thing to say. I certainly do not know where we go from here. I believe that the intrinsic issue in Northern Ireland will stay historical and political and that it will take a great deal of tolerance and many negotiations before a settlement is reached.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I wish to declare an interest in Northern Ireland. I was born and brought up on the shores of Belfast Lough and, apart from some years at school over here and also when in the Navy during the war, I have lived my whole working life in Northern Ireland. With family and grandchildren in Northern Ireland, I am very, very interested in its future.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, on initiating this debate. We have had many debates on Northern Ireland but I do not think that we have had one on the matters of intrinsic importance. There are many of course—the economy, industry, agriculture, health and others—but I wish to speak only about one. I call it "Terrorism Stage 2". But, first, I must say a little about what I call "Stage 1" to show how different it is from Stage 2.
I have a very early memory concerning the IRA. I must have been four or five and we were motoring home on a Sunday afternoon through York Street in Belfast when my father ordered me to lie on the floor of the car because there were snipers about. Fortunately, they took Sunday afternoon off. There has been no difficulty in keeping in touch with the IRA in later years as there have been several occasions on which they became active and had to be interned by the North or South or both. Throughout the years, and now, the IRA believes itself to be the only legitimate army in Ireland, with a duty to break the British connection with the North and unite the island of Ireland.
During the 1970s the IRA made very determined attempts to terrorise the people of Northern Ireland and to destroy the economy. It bombed power generating stations and power lines, it murdered people in hotels, restaurants or public houses. It seemed to enjoy murdering members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the security forces. It particularly targeted any member of the police whom it knew to be a Roman Catholic. The outstanding memory of those years was the determination of everyone, other than terrorists, to defeat the IRA and to remain part of the United Kingdom. No one was
348
going to let those crazed people get away with it, and that included Roman Catholics. We were not a divided community.
None of us will ever forget the bravery and, after a difficult start, the efficiency of the RUC, supported by the Army. But for them, many, many more would have died. In those years, my office was in Belfast and it was astonishing the confidence that we all had in the RUC almost to smell out bombs and to clear the area at risk. I saw them at work almost daily and it was remarkable the speed with which they diverted traffic and cleared everyone out of the relevant shops or offices, after which the bomb disposal experts got to work. These brave men appeared to find their work so fascinating that they ignored the risks, sometimes, tragically, to their disadvantage.
What infuriated people most during those years was that we all knew that the IRA could be shut down in a period of weeks if the Republic of Ireland, a member of the EU, had been a friendly neighbour. The Republic defended its borders almost aggressively and if a policeman or soldier stepped across it, even by accident, it became an international incident. But the IRA, provided that they did not shoot members of the Garda Siochana and had safe houses and bomb and ammunition dumps, were not disturbed. The garda were not permitted to harass them or report what they knew. However, to do them justice, they passed useful information to the RUC.
The IRA were permitted to train in well known areas and terrorists were able to cross the border to murder farmers in Armagh, Fermanagh and Tyrone who were known to be Protestant. No wonder the security forces closed all minor roads and set up watch towers. Sir Norman Stronge, Speaker of the House of Commons at Stormont, and his son were murdered in their home at Tynan, County Armagh, and their house was burnt down. At their funeral, the rector of that small parish told us that he had buried 20 of his parishioners who had been murdered by the IRA.
The IRA developed skills and resourcefulness. When a particular attack was rebuffed it would try something else. It had plenty of time; it was not being stopped. In the 1980s, the IRA learnt that one bomb in London was worth 100 in Northern Ireland and it worked to develop the capability to plant such bombs.
Then followed the Anglo/Irish agreement and other agreements and declarations. The peace process began to develop and that culminated in the Good Friday agreement, which granted Sinn Fein/IRA almost everything it wanted. In exchange, the Republic has withdrawn Articles 2 and 3 from its constitution. Sinn Fein/IRA for its part has given nothing. It has said that it has no intention of decommissioning and that its objective remains unchanged.
In pursuance of that, Sinn Fein/IRA has recently increased its areas of control in many towns and cities. Other areas are being controlled by so-called Protestant paramilitaries. And each one is as evil as the other. Threats, beatings, banishment, torture and murders are their tools and their use remains

349
unchecked in these areas. Law and order is nonexistent. Witnesses will not come forward because, quite understandably, they are afraid. Fear is the predominant emotion.
The bosses in these areas are running Mafia-like operations; racketeering of all kinds and drug running is increasing. The effect on young people is frightening. In some places, drugged sweets are being offered to school children. I learnt that in the town of Ballymena, a town of perhaps 60,000, 1,500 citizens are drug addicts.
If action is not taken quickly, these young people will grow up without any moral standards and will drift into violence of one kind or another. The police are almost powerless. If they attempt to tackle the problem inside these areas, they are accused of harassment. When listening to the radio yesterday, I heard a very articulate man, who was obviously dedicated to helping young people, pleading for help. Frustration at the inability to do anything to prevent horrific social problems for tomorrow is leading to widespread worry and almost despair.
What I hope is that we shall not delay acting. By now, we should know the consequences of delaying at Stage 1, the open bombing and shooting. We have something much more sinister to deal with. It is different from that of past years when the community was openly attacked. In the eyes of many, many people, the peace process in its present form has failed and it makes no attempt to deal with the sinister and, I believe in the long term, more dangerous problem. Despair is not good for morale.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the House that this a timed debate. We do not have extra time and if every noble Lord takes as much time as the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, the Minister will have no time to reply.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I apologise, I shall finish in 10 seconds. I beg the Secretary of State to spend more time in Northern Ireland listening to people in order to find out the seriousness of the problem and to develop and implement a plan to deal with it. At present, we are a very, very long way from peace.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth for giving us another opportunity to discuss the issues that arise in Northern Ireland. Events there move fast and not always in propitious directions. I hope that it is not presumptuous to suppose that, by debating them frequently, your Lordships' House can make a modest but helpful contribution.
I share the admiration for the RUC that was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh. I shall not follow him in the further parts of his speech because I want to return, I hope not tediously, to something which I have said previously but which I hope bears repetition. It is that I have never
350
forgotten how in my early days in Northern Ireland time and again I was told by people, "We're not all bad, you know". I thought that so poignant and sad because I already knew how good so many people were, and are, on all sides of the communities.
I thought then that I understood the reason and I think now that I understand it. There is a feeling that in the eyes of the world everyone living in Northern Ireland is somehow tarred with the same brush. It was the brush of hideous cruelties and oppressions, such as those we have heard about tonight. It was also the brush of extremism which made any return to devolved government seem very far away.
There was a feeling that, although it was a travesty—not all people were like that, only a tiny minority—it was impossible to dislodge it. That gave rise to a feeling of hopelessness and of a kind of collective shame. I found that very sad and, worse, dangerous for all the reactive reasons which are so obvious that they do not need spelling out tonight. I knew that there was nothing naturally inherent in the people of Northern Ireland which made it impossible for them to be accorded the right to rule themselves politically as do people in this country and in the Republic. I knew that there was nothing intrinsically wrong with them which somehow made it necessary to deploy four times the number of police that would be normal for a population of that size and to back them up by 12 battalions of troops. Yet those people appeared to be viewed as though they were caught in a prison; one constructed in the past and largely of the past.
I turn to what I regard as the most important intrinsic issue. I soon came to the conclusion that, above all, what was needed was the construction of a system whereby Northern Ireland and all its people were again given the right and the ability to govern themselves politically within a framework which would be fair to the minorities so that they would not permanently be subordinated on important matters. I believed that that was the key which could unlock the prison.
The challenge for everyone's ingenuity was to find a way which would be generally acceptable and fair. I believed that if that could be devised and could win acceptance, and could be implemented and seen to work, collective self-confidence would be restored; that what is today called "self-esteem" would burgeon (I do not deride that or diminish its importance); and with it would come a belief that it was possible to build for a better future. I am sure that meeting that challenge remains the principal intrinsic issue for Northern Ireland today.
It seems to me that the great achievement of the Northern Ireland agreement and of the subsequent agreement that culminated in Senator Mitchell's review was that they enabled devolved government to be put in place. As a concept, it was, as it were, called down from the higher atmospheres of rhetoric and established on the ground. That is not a reference to the high wire act so widely condemned by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead. However,

351
something that hitherto had been only rhetorical was made manifest on the ground. Scepticism was at least to that limited extent confounded.
Although that represents an enormous advance, and the agreement was in place and had started to work in a manner that in many ways was seen to be acceptable, as we now all know, it has had to be suspended for reasons that we also know too well. The task now is to consider how, with general acceptability, it is to be brought back into operation and seen to work in accordance with the principles of a free democracy.
It is impossible for us on this side of the water to know where the limits of acceptability lie. It is wrong for those of us on this side of the water who do not have to live there, like other noble Lords who are present in this Chamber, to say where they should lie. One thing is certain: the limits have been taken further in the direction of tolerance by most Unionists than until recently would have seemed possible.
I believe that the political risks taken by Mr Trimble have been as well judged as they have been brave; and they have been brave indeed. I believe that he enabled a boost to confidence to be given, the benefits of which I have already tried to summarise. I believe that he deserves once more to face down his critics, and I hope that he does so.
Nevertheless, there must be limits to what is acceptable. At the root of the issue is the principle and truth that democratic government can work only if there is confidence that no party will look to supplement the force of its arguments with the force of its comrades' arms. It is well worth spelling out why. I believe that the reason is because compromise will otherwise either be dictated by fear of violence or will be perceived to be dictated by fear of violence. The first can never be tolerated in a democracy and either case will give rise to the destruction of confidence in democratic government.
Therefore, a very difficult and delicate task faces us. However, the Government must also remember the duty, already alluded to tonight, to defend the people for whom they have responsibility. In those circumstances, it must be right for the Secretary of State, as he has said he will, to take his security advice from his principal advisers—the Chief Constable and the GOC.
Given the undiminished capability of the paramilitaries and terrorists to wreak the kind of damage with which we are all too familiar, not only in Northern Ireland but in London, Manchester and elsewhere, and noting that in the past three weeks alone three major attacks by the IRA or by so-called "dissident" groups have been forestalled by the RUC, the task now is to sustain the ability of the RUC to cope. I believe that the Government have a very delicate task. I salute the courage of those who take responsibility in Northern Ireland, and, again, I thank my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to discuss these matters, no matter how rapidly.
7.43 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Baroness for bringing about this debate. I must apologise to her and to the Minister in that I am booked on the last possible flight this evening and, sadly, it will not wait for me.
We are all aware that the overriding issues in the Province today are the development of the political situation, or the stalemate of it, and the security situation. However, although they have a detrimental influence on every day-to-day part of our life in the Province, I wish to talk about other matters. I must declare an interest in that I farm in a small way; I run a tourism business and I am linked to a hospital trust.
I should like to talk for a few moments about the rural areas of the Province and, in particular, those areas close to the Border with the Republic. Where I live in Fermanagh, we are in a unique position: the United Kingdom is on the fringe of the European Union; Northern Ireland is on the fringe of the United Kingdom; and we in Fermanagh and Tyrone are on the fringe of Northern Ireland. In addition, Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom which has a land border with a euro-based economy. Therefore, the economic pressures which are felt in Great Britain when trading with the Continent are multiplied greatly in the Province with its land border with the Republic.
Everyone in Fermanagh can drive or walk across the Border within about half-an-hour. We do not need to buy a ferry, air or Eurostar ticket to do so, and we can shop as easily North or South of the Border. The differential between the pound sterling and the Irish punt is now, or was yesterday, between 24 and 27 per cent, depending on whether one is buying or selling.
In Northern Ireland, 35 per cent of the population of 1.6 million lives in rural areas. In Fermanagh, 70 per cent of a population of 55,000 is rural-based and the population density is only 29 people per square kilometre, which is one-quarter of the Northern Ireland average.
Agriculture is the basis of our economy and the depression in that industry is causing more hardship than in other areas of the United Kingdom. The reasons have been well debated here and I shall not go into them in detail. The most significant is that prior to five years ago 80 per cent of agricultural produce was exported from the Province. Therefore, the effects on the industry—in relation to cattle, pigs and sheep, especially—are devastating to the local economy. In addition, the land border with the weak euro ensures that we suffer to a greater extent.
If that was the only problem, there might be some hope. However, there are now additional problems for local businesses and the economy. The textile industry, with firms such as Desmonds and Adria, are laying off employees and closing some of their factories, not only in the rest of the Province but also in Fermanagh. This month, the only meat processing plant of any size in Fermanagh closed with the loss of 200 jobs. The Erne Hospital, a major employer, is due for relocation, almost certainly outside the county.

353
Therefore, what are we left with? Agriculture and other businesses in the county are either very small or are micro-sized enterprises. However, the present situation is hitting them even harder due to their lack of mobility and, above all, the nearness of a weak euro-based economy I believe in the European Union open market and I am a member of your Lordships' Select Committee on European affairs. I accept that the weakness of the euro is outside the control of our Government. However, in certain areas where they do control matters, our Government's policies are having a devastating effect. Road fuel and transport policy is the most damaging for the incomes in the Province, and for the Border areas in particular.
The most critical factor in this sector is taxation, and I must say that I do not wish to see precise harmonisation of EU taxes. However, the Government have created such a disparity between fuel prices, North of the Border compared with the South, that it is affecting everyone every day in those areas. I take diesel as an example. It costs 74p or 75p a litre in Fermanagh. A few minutes away, it costs as little as 60 Irish pence a litre; that is, about 48 English pence—one-third cheaper. For those who can reclaim VAT in the Republic, where it is 21 per cent, another 4 per cent is recoverable over and above our 17.5 per cent VAT in the North.
Noble Lords must believe me when I say that the majority of people in Fermanagh and West Tyrone fill up in the Republic. Visiting there more often, they see that goods are cheaper in punts. Therefore, naturally they begin to do their shopping there. The effect is this: in Enniskillen, for example, 19 miles from the Border, fuel sales are down 50 per cent, which is making the garages unviable. Closer to the Border, sales are virtually nil. I believe that in Strabane, where there are 20,000 people, (here is only one filling station left selling fuel. In Enniskillen, high street shopping turnover is down by up to 50 per cent. The Southern Ireland shopper, who was frequently with us, is now rare. The locals have begun to shop South of the Border.
Our road haulage industry is on its knees. Last year, the Chancellor increased HGV road tax to over £5,000 while it is 1,000 punts or £750 sterling in the South. Many hauliers have reregistered their lorries South of the Border. The Republic has stopped, or is in the process of stopping, that practice, which leaves their haulage firms with the most incredible cost advantage.
Yesterday, the Chancellor reduced that tax bill by £1,800 per vehicle but that will have no effect in Northern Ireland where it is still four times more expensive. The Government must look at that issue to see whether they cannot be of some help.
The Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, complain that in rural society there is not enough diversification into, for example, tourism. Tourism, with which I am involved, is an important business in Fermanagh. As it is a land of lakes and beautiful countryside, that is not surprising. However, the differential between the currencies North and
354
South has resulted in a fall of business in vital sectors—hire cruisers, restaurants, bed and breakfasts, and so on.
The Government can do much to help. They can halt the removal of health service jobs and leave the hospital where it is. They removed the rates office from Fermanagh. They should be locating more of that type of service in the county, away from the cities. I ask them to look again at the taxes levied on road haulage and fuel. They should support the agriculture industry to a greater extent.
To sum it up, the Government should show mare support for rural society in the United Kingdom as a whole and in particular in Northern Ireland where we are heading for a close-to-Border commercial desert.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, there must be some weird influence at hand in that, first, I am very high on the list of speakers, and, secondly, I am speaking between two men who come from that wonderful county of Fermanagh in Northern Ireland.
I begin by thanking my noble friend Lady Park for giving us the opportunity to speak on such a wide-ranging debate. Normally, when we say that something is "wide ranging", it is a veiled hint that the speaker has digressed in three dimensions all over the world. But today the noble Baroness has given us the opportunity to speak about "the intrinsic issues".
I wish the noble Viscount who has just spoken a swift and safe return to County Fermanagh. I hope that he will give my best wishes to such friends as I have there among the farming community after what went on in 1984 and 1985. I ask everyone who reads the debate to note in particular the remarks of my noble friend Lady Park. She has enormous wisdom, and there is the occasional chuckle, but I hope that the words she spoke are read and digested north and south of the border as well as across the Atlantic and elsewhere.
Is there anything new this evening? I first remember taking an interest in Northern Ireland in 1968. Indeed, in my office I have a copy of the Cameron report in which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in an earlier incarnation, was mentioned in all sorts of aspects. From 1972 my first eight speeches in your Lordships' House were made on the subject of Northern Ireland. I hope that they were as brief as I intend to be this evening.
But, good heavens, in 1984 the Prime Minister asked me to serve in Northern Ireland. I did that. I became very heavily involved with commerce and that number one industry in Northern Ireland—agriculture—and perhaps a little less with tourism.
Your Lordships will be aware that one must spend time as the duty Minister in Northern Ireland. During my first weekend there, at half past eight in the morning, a taxi driver was murdered, shot dead with a revolver in the markets in east Belfast. At nine o'clock, two RUC men were blown up in a car bomb in a culvert at Camloch. At two o'clock in the afternoon, two British soldiers were blown up—happily, one

355
survived—at Enniskillen. That was my first weekend in Northern Ireland. As a young Minister, it was an example of what can happen.
I had the honour to serve three Secretaries of State. The first was my noble friend Lord Prior. A year before I got there, he had had to cope with the enormous drama and feelings aroused by the hunger strikes. As regards my second and third Secretaries of State, one had a great hand in creating while the third created and had to implement the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 which, once again, aroused enormous feelings among the loyalists, one side of the community, in Northern Ireland.
As a junior Minister, it seemed to me that there was a noticeable improvement in relations on the ministerial side when I met my colleagues from south of the border and also in relation to security. Major events took place in 1992 and in 1999 there was the Good Friday agreement. I may take a leaf out of the book of the proverbial Chinese gentleman who, when asked what he felt about the French Revolution, said, "It is too early to say". But wearing my hat as an accountant from Scotland, I worry that one or two aspects of the 1999 Good Friday agreement might not have been tied up quite perfectly. In my career in your Lordships' House and in Northern Ireland, there were bloomers everywhere, but I wonder whether decommissioning may be a slightly weak point among the enormous successes achieved throughout 1999.
Two aspects of the Good Friday agreement have been laid out beautifully by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew; namely, those of trust and confidence. I stress that those cannot be implanted, imposed or imported. They must be earned. We forget that at our peril.
My noble friend Lady Park and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew have said everything that I could have said about the Royal Ulster Constabulary. But I have spoken to five or six Members of your Lordships' House—none of whom is speaking tonight—about two programmes which I happened to see on Channel 4 on a Saturday evening about the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Some of what I saw in those programmes was bizarre but much of it was realistic. Indeed, some words of the Chief Constable were extremely optimistic. He stressed that he could not wait to get back to what he described as "proper policing".
I pause and wonder whether some of those who wish to have political input into the putative possible police committees might bear in mind the wise words of my noble friend Lady Park. Do they really want to have an Irish version of the Tonton Macoute; that is, police only coming into the locality of which you approve. I really do wonder about that.
I conclude by concentrating on commerce and the industry which was so ably supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. Perhaps I may take a few moments to compliment the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on the job he has done. I preceded him many
356
years ago but I salute him as a Minister in your Lordships' House and I salute him also for what he has done for agriculture in the years that he has served.
I had a number of opportunities to go abroad representing—if you can call it that—the Northern Ireland agriculture industry. I went twice to the world's biggest food fair in Cologne. I went to Strasbourg, to Lille and to Paris. On each occasion, I was briefed by the wonderful press departments of the Department of Agriculture and the Northern Ireland Office. I was told that I would have to cope with the press.
I tried my best at the foreign languages. I went off to a language school which can be found in London and polished up my German and French. I managed to hammer home one particular simple message which was what many people might see through the printed and electronic media in Northern Ireland. I referred to the moon. I made no snide jokes about the full moon or anything like that. But I said that there is a dark side and a light side. Alas, the media and headline writers like to go for the dark side. Quite rightly, many of my noble friends and those speaking about Northern Ireland concentrate on the difficult side. I concentrated on the light side—the wonderful success of agriculture, food and tourism in Northern Ireland. Everywhere I went—Cologne, Lille, Strasbourg and Paris—people applauded. Both foreigners and Northern Irish said, "Thank you very much".
I believe that, although we consider it too early to comment on such matters, the success of any agreement that we have seen will be due entirely to the people of Northern Ireland. I have met many; in fact, very many, who were not of my religious persuasion, let alone of my political outlook, who might wish to have done me some bodily harm—grievous or not—in my career. But the process and progress belong to the people of Northern Ireland. I beg all friends of Northern Ireland here, in the south, and all over the world, to be patient. It is too early to say. I salute each and every one of my friends there, including Big Hector and all those in County Fermanagh.
8 p.m.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, for selecting the topic of Northern Ireland for tonight's debate.
In common with the vast majority of people in the Province, I am disappointed that the Executive is no longer in place because one party has not played its part in the arrangements flowing from the Good Friday agreement. It is to be hoped that in the very near-ish future, Sinn Fein/IRA will play its part and make a start to decommissioning its guns and explosives.
I identify with much that has been said tonight about the security and political situation, but the government of the Province must go on. Decisions must be taken to allow all sectors of life to proceed. I fully understand the difficulties with which the

357
Government are faced at this stage. But a position of no decisions being taken on key issues of policy would be unfair and disloyal to the good citizens of Northern Ireland who are entitled to effective government.
I intend to restrict myself tonight to only a few areas of activity. I refer first to public transport. The railway system in Northern Ireland is in bad shape, with out-of-date rolling stock and poorly maintained lines providing a less than adequate service on all routes except the Dublin line. I acknowledge that NIR has a dedicated staff and management, but it cannot operate without a fair share of financial support. The amount of public money spent on public transport is considerably less than for other parts of the United Kingdom. I cannot understand why. Do we need less transport per head of population than other areas? We are being urged to leave our cars and travel by public transport; but what public transport!
In a Written Answer on 8th March I was told that the reason for the difference in spending on public transport in Northern Ireland from other parts of the United Kingdom was because it was afforded a lower relative priority in Northern Ireland. I knew that. That is why I asked the Question. I am only a new boy here, but in my opinion, the Answer that I received was not good enough. I lay no blame on the Minister, who is in a difficult position. I should like to place on record, however, that if I am not satisfied with any answer, I shall pursue that issue with extreme vigour.
Northern Ireland needs government by people responsible to the public, either through a local assembly or through this building. We shall no longer stand for edicts from civil servants who believe that they can do a soft-shoe shuffle around questions which they are not prepared to answer. I should like to hear a confirmation that the Government are committed to maintaining the present railway network in Northern Ireland. I should like to be told the date of completion of modernisation of the central station and the commencement date for the relaying of the railway line between Belfast and Bangor.
I should he pleased also to receive an explanation as to the lower level of expenditure on public transport in Northern Ireland and what steps the Government propose to take to bring spending there up to the same level as that in the rest of the United Kingdom. Will Northern Ireland's railways be treated in the same way as any other railway company in the UK and be allowed to replace its ageing rolling stock by leasing new ones; if not, why not?
I turn now to the issue of air transport. The Republic of Ireland Government have long recognised the value of a strong international airport to the economic growth of that country. The attraction for inward investors and tourists to a country with numerous direct international links is evident. Air transport in Northern Ireland is unable to compete on a level playing pitch so long as we continue to suffer from the unfavourable currency rate with our neighbouring state—a point to which the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, referred—and the absence of
358
passenger levies charged by that government. That was highlighted yesterday by the Chancellor, with the exemptions for the Highlands and Islands.
Belfast International Airport is recognised as the major gateway to Northern Ireland. It is the only airport in Northern Ireland with the capacity to cope with the growth anticipated in air transport. Its owners, TBI plc, have made a major structural investment in its future. Do the Government recognise the importance of Belfast International Airport to Northern Ireland? Do they recognise the need to support not only its growth, but also its efforts to market Northern Ireland to international airlines in order to attract more direct international routes? Do they further recognise the threat that Dublin International Airport poses to our transport industry infrastructure? What measures do they propose to take to support private enterprise in its ability to compete on behalf of Northern Ireland?
While discussing transport, I should like to support the appeal from the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, concerning the difficulties in the Border area. I know only too well of those difficulties and I concur with every word the noble Viscount said. I, too, look to the Government for encouragement on the issue.
Finally, I wish to raise another topic. Before I do so, I should declare an interest. I am on the register of Members' interests as the chairman of a PR company. I should like to discuss the activities of Groundwork Northern Ireland, which is a client of that company. I am not, and never have been, involved in any of its activities. However, I was consulted by its representatives as a Member of your Lordships' House. I believe that I have taken the correct course of action in making that point. Groundwork is an important organisation which helps in many socially difficult areas. It is one of over 40 trusts operating throughout the United Kingdom. All of those trusts, with the exception of Groundwork Northern Ireland, receive central government support. Will the Government give an assurance that that inequitable position will be urgently addressed?
Given that Groundwork Northern Ireland works to the heart of the government agenda of targeting social need and promoting community relations, do not the Government agree that the Department of Social Development in Northern Ireland should form a closer strategic liaison with Groundwork Northern Ireland to maximise public and private funding in addressing those key policy issues? For some months it has been aware of the imminent publication of the government strategy on the regeneration of Northern Ireland. Will the Government say exactly when it wall be outlined and give the time-frame for the resultant consultation process? Will the Government give an assurance that Groundwork Northern Ireland will be involved in that consultation process? I look forward to favourable responses to those points.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, it is rare in this House, or indeed, in the Commons, to find someone with the dedication of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, who has shown a genuine, sincere interest in the fortunes of the decent people of Northern Ireland. Long may she continue to do so. I agree with almost every word she says and yet I find myself in agreement with my noble friend Lord Desai. There has not been a decade in Northern Ireland since the creation of the state in which there has not been violence. That was the case during the 1920s and 1930s. Even during the war raids in the 1940s there were a few incidents. In the 1950s the IRA began a campaign in a small way which ended in 1962. It recommenced later that year and continued during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
One must, therefore, with my noble friend Lord Desai ask why those eruptions of violence have taken place. Why have they been allowed to continue? Why has the nationalist community to a certain extent—sometimes greater, sometimes lesser—given support to the men of violence? As my noble friend Lord Desai described it—and I have done so many times during my political career—we have always referred to the unnatural constitutional position of Northern Ireland as a double-minority system. The Catholics in Northern Ireland are in the minority; in the Republic of Ireland they are in the majority. The unionists are in the majority in Northern Ireland and they certainly do not want to become a minority in the Republic of Ireland. That is the immovable object and the irresistible force. The tribal conflict that was created in 1922 is as endemic today as it was then.
I listened to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. This remark may seem disjointed but I know that he has a plane to catch. The noble Viscount lives in Fermanagh and he spoke of the economic issues there. Many people from his own county of Fermanagh regularly travel over the border to buy cheap diesel, or cheap petrol, or cheap goods and do all their shopping in the Republic. How many of those people are loyalists? How many of those people are Protestants who pay lip-service to the state of Northern Ireland, and yet quite happily travel down the road to the Republic to shop with their nationalist political enemies?
There is no clear-cut case. This morning I read in the newspaper about David Irvine, a spokesman for one of the loyalist paramilitaries, who has just returned from America. When he was photographed at Heathrow he said that his visit had been a waste of time. I could have told him that before he left. I fail to understand why all the paramilitary spokesmen, nationalist spokesmen and some constitutional unionists feel that they have to go to America or have to run in and out of Downing Street. One of the worst things that this Prime Minister has done is to open up the door of Downing Street to let in Tom, Dick and Harry—political pygmies and nonentities in Northern Ireland. All of a sudden they turn up in Downing Street.
The problems of Northern Ireland will not be settled in Downing Street or in Washington. They will be settled in Northern Ireland. With the coming into
360
being of the Executive, I have seen some signs. I believe that there is a light at the end of the tunnel, although admittedly the tunnel is very long. I have seen some dramatic changes. Whoever would have forecast that Sinn Fein, the blood brother of the IRA, would stand outside unionist headquarters demonstrating for a return of the Executive? At one time one could never have envisaged that in a lifetime. To me that indicates that Sinn Fein, if it can break away from the dictates and the stranglehold of the IRA, will be quite happy to take part in the return of a Northern Ireland Executive. I plead with Sinn Fein to break away from the stranglehold in which it is held.
Since the outbreak of the Troubles, the Northern Ireland Government or the British Government have tried to govern under the rule of law. In doing so, hundreds of terrorists have been let off the hook. Even the most moderate of unionist members see that they are faced with a pan-nationalist opposition. The nationalists in Northern Ireland are supported by the Catholics, Sinn Fein, the IRA, Irish America and indeed, to some extent, some spokesmen in this House. So the unionists feel that their backs are against the wall and that they have to fight to continue with their existence. Every unionist whom I know is not a bigot, is not anti-Catholic, but they are Northern Ireland people and they want to continue to remain so.
The noble Baroness said something that struck me. The more I think of it the more annoyed I become. Consider all the concessions that have been made to the men of violence, both loyalists and republicans. By the way, the loyalists do not have to make any excuses as they just say, "We will not do anything until the IRA jumps first". They do not have to make excuses to guarantee their own position. They say that it is all up to the IRA.
Many noble Lords will remember the emotional debate we had in the House on the disappeared. We even had a very close vote on it. The IRA indicated that it would disclose the whereabouts of those whom they had so brutally murdered. Three bodies were found. The rest have been forgotten about by everyone, except their relatives. I found it very disheartening to read the words of Pat Byrne, the Garda Commissioner in the Republic, who said that we shall never get the evidence to bring the perpetrators of the Omagh atrocity before the courts. What does that do to the morale of people in Northern Ireland?
I realise that we are restricted by time, but I hope that, because of this debate, people in Northern Ireland will see that sooner or later they will have to take their future into their own hands. The matter cannot be settled in Washington or in London. People who live in Northern Ireland and raise their families there will have to bring violence to an end.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am extremely grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Park, has given us the opportunity to debate this subject. Clearly, she has instigated a lively discussion.

361
I am delighted to see my noble friend Lord Fitt in his place after his illness. He seems to have lost none of his energy, clarity and perspicacity as a result of that illness. I am delighted to be able to follow him. I look forward to many more contributions from him.
The noble Lord, Lord Laird, commented on the need for decisions in Northern Ireland. Watching the matter from some distance with interest, I believe that a lot of decisions are being made by the ministerial team in Northern Ireland. I could list many things that I have picked up as taking place there. I believe that the three Ministers can hold the fort there for a lot longer before some of the criticisms that he made would really apply, but no doubt the Minister will answer that.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for his comments. Some years behind him, I followed in his footsteps in Northern Ireland, where his reputation still prevailed. People talked warmly and affectionately of the time when he was responsible for agriculture. I shall not embarrass him further by saying more about that.
This is a serious debate. The prognosis is gloomy if we believe that the IRA is as it always has been, if we believe that, it has not changed one iota, if we believe that Sinn Fein has not changed one iota, and that what it says about the peace process is a cover-up. I believe that some speeches in the debate have gone close to saying just that.
I believe that those organisations have changed, not as much as I would have liked them to change, not in all respects, but I believe that there has been a change in the attitude of at least some members of Sinn Fein. Because of that change, I am more optimistic than has appeared from the contributions of some noble Lords.
Of course, the problems ultimately have to be solved in Northern Ireland. It is up to the parties in Northern Ireland, and, with the assistance of this Government and the assistance of the Irish Government, some progress will again be possible. It will be difficult, but we have to assume that people can change and that organisations can change. We have to put them to the test to see how much change has taken place in their attitudes.
I believe that over the past two years there has been a lot of movement, both on the unionist side and on the nationalist and republican side. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has given some examples of that. We have seen the unionists make enormous concessions in terms of their earlier position. Not only has the SDLP moved, but I believe that Sinn Fein has moved as well. After all, it has accepted the principle of consent; it has accepted an assembly in Northern Ireland; it has seen the removal of Articles 2 and 3 from the Irish constitution; and it has accepted power-sharing. I am not saying that the unionists have not made equally important concessions, but it is right that we should recognise that Sinn Fein has as well.
What I believe needs to be examined is that all the parties in Northern Ireland have very little room for manoeuvre, whether we consider the Unionists, the SDLP or Sinn Fein. But if there is to be a breakthrough and the assembly is to he restored, flexibility will have
362
to be exercised within that narrow margin for manoeuvre and there will have to be some new approaches.
I fully accept that, if progress is to be made, David Trimble and his party need to receive better assurances than they have had so far. David Trimble has shown courage and has made brave statements even over the past few days. But he needs stronger assurances than he has yet been given, and I cannot believe that Sinn Fein does not understand that. Of course, I do not know whether Sinn Fein will ever say, in so many words, "The war is over", however much one would like that to happen. I hope that, at least, Sinn Fein and the IRA will be able to give a positive indication of the change that some noble Lords have referred to in our debate tonight.
Having set up the Assembly last December, without, as had previously been requested, putting the question of arms right up front, I do not think that that demand can be met within the framework of the Good Friday agreement. However, I believe that David Trimble is entitled to rather more than he has achieved so far.
As I said in an earlier debate, I still believe that Gerry Adams has taken the position that he would like devolution to take place and that he would like to see decommissioning become an early part of that process. I know that David Trimble faces a difficult challenge at the Ulster Unionist Council, which meets this Saturday. As I understand it, a motion has been tabled on the future of the RUC. However, whatever has been said about the RUC—and I pay enormous tribute to its bravery, courage and sacrifice—I hope that such a motion has not been included to make the tasks that David Trimble must undertake to achieve the reestablishment of the assembly more difficult. While it is not for this House to comment on motions tabled by the Ulster Unionist Party at its conference this weekend, I fear that it might box him in. I hope that that will not happen.
Why am I optimistic? I believe that the Good Friday agreement has demonstrated some important successes so far. It has shown that the parties can agree and work together. It has also shown that there is enormous public support for peace and for local ministers working in a local assembly. We have seen that the assembly can work well. This Government have made difficult decisions about prisoner releases. The Patten Report is controversial about the future of the RUC, but I believe that it represents a way forward. A review of criminal justice is to be published shortly. Enormous progress has been made as regards equality and human rights. Furthermore, we now have the lowest Army presence for 30 years.
How do we move forward? We can move forward by fostering good and close relationships between the British Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland. We must keep up the pressure on all the politicians involved to ensure that they talk to each other. We must not allow a vacuum to develop which the men of violence can then fill. As a Government, we must continue to implement our parts of the Good Friday agreement and we should not

363
take decisions that will make it harder for the assembly to be restored. If security considerations allow, it would be desirable to lower troop levels even further.
Most important, however, is that all parties should make it clear that they understand each other's problems instead of constantly attacking one another. Each party must demonstrate a level of understanding of the difficulties faced by the other parties. I am particularly fond of the phrase, "All parties must stretch their own constituencies". Finally, there needs to be respect for the fact that both traditions in Northern Ireland are valid. If, as a Government, we continue to take that position, I believe that the assembly can be restored.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, for introducing this debate, I must confess that I was rather baffled when I saw the word "intrinsic" in the title. That is because Northern Ireland is an extremely complex milieu, where it is difficult to disentangle the kaleidoscope of issues that shape it and to establish which are intrinsic and which are not. That is to say, it is difficult to distinguish the general factors which are common to all such divided societies from the specific ones which are unique to Northern Ireland.
There is a tendency for some commentators to suggest that all the problems in Northern Ireland are unique and that the situation there cannot be compared with elsewhere. I venture to say that the region shares a number of common features with, for example, the Basque region in Spain, parts of the former Yugoslavia, Cyprus, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, East Timor, parts of Africa and the Middle East. Those are all areas of communal division. It is important to appreciate this comparative perspective. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, has mentioned many of the atrocities committed in Northern Ireland that are also a commonplace elsewhere. I could attempt to enumerate the features that are common to all divided societies, but this evening noble Lords are invited to address those that seem to be sui generis.
Foremost—this is what I wish to focus on—is the nature of what passes for politics in Northern Ireland. This point has been mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Fitt. Essentially, the problem is a political one. Added to the factionalism between and sometimes, more importantly, within the two communities, has been the deadening effect of 30 years of direct rule. In my view, this has led to a profound distortion of the political system. The lack of a devolved and representative administration meant that, in practice, the policy-making vacuum was filled by a concordat, forged between the voluntary sector and the regional civil service, and left largely undisturbed by a succession of grateful Ministers from Westminster who had formal, but often largely nominal, responsibilities, with the notable exceptions of security and Anglo-Irish relations.
364
Over time, this concordat became formalised into a myriad of quangos, community partnership boards and such like agencies. The consequential interlocking web of public, private, voluntary and state interfaces constituted a nomenklatura which effectively initiated and implemented public policy. Looking back, it was probably as good a system as could be contrived and it had some notable successes, including the creation of the Housing Executive, which allocated public housing on a fair, non-sectarian basis, and also the introduction of fair employment policies at the workplace.
But direct rule did, as in some ways it was meant to, have a distorting and deadening effect on the development of a more democratic and accountable system of government and a more normal and authentic political process. The Westminster MPs elected from Northern Ireland were almost wholly detached from the policy-making process, apart from lobbying on behalf of their constituencies.
The legacy of direct rule is one of the contributing reasons why it has been so difficult to implement the Belfast agreement, and its reimposition after a mere nine weeks of devolved government, if it endures for much longer, will only further exacerbate the problem. In most western democracies, there is a growing gap between the elected and their increasingly disaffected electorates. That is true in Northern Ireland, but with one very great difference. Whereas in most of the western world, it is the voters who have abdicated from the political process—as ever-lowering turn-outs at elections have shown—in Northern Ireland it has been the reverse. With a few notable exceptions, it is the political class that has walked away from the bulk of its voters, who register high turn-outs, despite going to the polls much more frequently than Great Britain. There is no voter fatigue.
Too many of the politicians, it seems, prefer to be influenced by small, more extreme factions rather than the burgeoning moderate opinion shown in the referendum majority in favour of the Belfast agreement and subsequent opinion polls. The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, once famously remarked of her deputy, the late Lord Whitelaw, that every government, "needed a Willie". She was referring to his powers of negotiation and reconciliation. Mr David Trimble's parliamentary colleagues include two "Willies" whose negative antics are the complete reverse of the benign influences exercised by Lord Whitelaw, as I am sure Mr Trimble would agree.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, the majority of the people want peace, a devolved, power-sharing executive and an elected assembly, which they want restored as quickly as possible. That requires Sinn Fein to stop "playing games with arms" as President Clinton advised it last week in Washington; and the joint leadership of David Trimble and Seamus Mallon must be resumed. That is what these Benches and all people of goodwill pray for.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Park for so nobly and ably leading this debate, especially as I know that she spoke in the previous debate as well.
We have had either active terrorism or some form of artificial ceasefire for around 30 years. I remember Belfast well in the 1970s. I remember leaving my office to go to a meeting in the town, not knowing what time I would arrive there (or indeed whether I would ever arrive there), with a map permanently running in the back of my head of the alternative routes that I could take to reach my destination.
I can remember the day that a roof tiler was shot while working on a roof at the bottom of Shankhill Road, and I had the problem of replacing the roofers within a week or so. I made a clandestine date with one of the UVF heavies in Wilton Street. I remember as chairman of the Building Material Producers Association receiving 10 telephone calls from members one morning, all of whom had received black mask cards—the IRA's form of threat. Two of those died within the year from having defied that threat.
During those years, 3,330 or so people died and over 48,000 were seriolsly injured. For what? Thanks to the courage and stubbornness of the population, and the bravery and professionalism of our police and security forces, terrorism in Northern Ireland has achieved absolutely nothing, with possibly one exception; that is, as pointed out by my noble friend Lady Park and the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, it has created a climate in which crimes such as drug smuggling, extortion and other unpleasant forms of criminology can survive—and survive well. Thirty years ago they did not exist. Furthermore, if the peace process does not lead to the reinstatement of democracy and power sharing, it too will have achieved nothing.
Does Sinn Fein not recognise that the only way forward is the ballot box? Does it not see what is on offer in return for decommissioning? Will it really resort again to the bomb and the bullet? Will it or will it not? There is no doubt what the population wants; my noble friend Lady Park made that very clear. The population of Northern Ireland wants a return to democracy; to local politicians governing local people on local affairs. The people want an end to violence and paramilitary domination of specific areas of our Province where the police cannot police and people cannot speak their mind as they wish.
John Bruton points out in an article in the online Telegraph:
"While Dublin and London must lead, they must not fall into the trap of taking responsibility for the action of others. The obligation on the two Governments to be seen to do 'something' does not include changing policy just because paramilitaries refuse to change things".
By staying silent, the paramilitaries are getting others to float possible concessions to them, which shifts the goalposts without bringing a breakthrough—clearly demonstrated on occasions. There is no obligation on either government to change the ball park because paramilitaries will not decommission.
366
I submit that too many concessions have already been given. The present Secretary of State inherited a hand devoid of trumps and discards; they had all been played by his predecessor. The Secretary of State must now continue, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made clear, to press Sinn Fein/IRA for a commitment to, and a process and programme for, decommissioning.
Mr Mitchel McLaughlin stated recently in response to David Trimble in Washington that,
"stating that the war is over is beyond Sinn Fein's power to give a commitment on".
That shows clearly that it is the military or IRA wing of the Republican movement, not Sinn Fein the politicians, which is in control. Sinn Fein has to realise that if it wishes to exert influence through the democratic process, it must find a way of leading the Republican movement into the 21st century and away from the primitive methods of previous generations. It must face the decommissioning process head on and do what is necessary. It must understand, as has already been said today, that a relationship not built on trust and truth is worthless.
The Irish Government have changed their position with monotonous regularity over recent weeks from strong support for the decommissioning position tacit support for the Sinn Fein position, including some adverse comments in relation to the happenings in South Armagh and our own forces. One of the facts of life in Dublin is that Sinn Fein is likely to win enough seats in the Dial to claim to hold the balance of power in a coalition with Fianna Fail after the next general election in the Republic. What will be the attitude in Dublin when Mr Ahern is asked to accept Sinn Fein/IRA into government while it still controls an illegal army? How will they live with two armies? Will the Irish accept a member of a known terrorist organisation as a member of their own government? I doubt it. In that case, why should we?
Has Mr Adams explored the real options with his hard-line colleagues? I doubt it. If there is to be no decommissioning in the near future, other ways of expanding the democratic process must be explored, including a reorganisation of local government and possibly the exclusion of Sinn Fein from mainstream politics and the Executive. However, while there is no Executive, problems arise with the running of the economy and administration. In the Financial Times supplement yesterday, Sir George Quigley and Sir David Fell both indicated to John Murray Brown that the business community is resigned to another period of political stalemate. That is a dangerous situation for us to be in.
We have seen Harland & Wolff s attempt to win the liner. We received an anonymous letter, about which my right honourable friend Andrew Mackay wrote to the Secretary of State and copied the Prime Minister. He said:
"I also have detailed information that despite Harland & Wolff advising the Government as far back as October/November 1999 of the type of support required, your limited offers of assistance were late which confirms that the quote from the Chairman last week of 'too little too late' [was accurate]".

367
We cannot survive. We have a precarious economy. It needs day-to-day management by politicians linked to this place if they are not to be set up in Stormont. What happened to the sale of Belfast Harbour, when £70 million was supposed to go into the infrastructure, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Laird? What is happening to ensure that our agriculture industry does not disappear down the Suwannee, as talked about by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough? I want confirmation that that is being properly looked after.
In the days before devolution there was a Secretary of State, four Ministers and only six departments. Today we have a Secretary of State, two Ministers and 10 departments of bureaucracy. I understand the Government's concern about sending out the wrong message. But that was four weeks ago. That was before Harland & Wolff; before the closing of factories in Derry. Time marches on.
Finally, I should just like to make clear some key points to establish where my party stands. We share the Government's view that the best way ahead—indeed, the only way—is to preserve the agreement. It is fundamentally wrong in a democracy to expect democratic politicians to remain in government with representatives of fully-armed terrorists. Decommissioning must take place: we believe that it is wrong to proceed with the early release of terrorist prisoners until such time. We believe that any changes to security must only ever be made commensurate with the level of the terrorist threat. They must never be introduced for political reasons, but only on the advice of the Secretary of State's principal security advisers—the Chief Constable of the RUC and the General Officer Commanding.
The Conservative Party believes that there is no justification for changing the name of the RUC. The Patten report gives no reason for doing so; that is because such reasons do not exist. We do not believe that the time is right to make cuts in the strength and capability of the police, or to abolish the full-time reserve. We remain hugely sceptical about the creation of the new district partnership policing boards based on the district council areas. There should be no question of members of Sinn Fein taking seats on the Policing Board without decommissioning, and no question of that board being set up at all while the Executive remains suspended.
However, we share the goal of building a police service that is generally representative of the community. We believe that the greatest contribution to achieving this and for transforming the policing environment in Northern Ireland would be a genuine end to terrorism, and decommissioning. That is the most important change that both the RUC and the rest of us require.
8.41 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in what has been a very interesting, informative and wide-ranging debate. I should also like to thank
368
the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, for introducing it. I shall, of course, endeavour to answer as many points as I possibly can, and will write to noble Lords if I am unable to do so. The nature of this debate was brought out by all noble Lords who spoke in terms of the range of issues that were covered. I have in mind, in particular, the need for respect for both traditions that was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, my noble friends Lord Dubs and Lord Desai and, indeed, by my noble friend Lord Fitt, who I am delighted to welcome back.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Dubs that we must build sincere and lasting respect in Northern Ireland for both traditions. The parties to the Good Friday agreement committed themselves to partnership, equality and mutual respect as the basis of relationships within Northern Ireland between North and South and between these islands. The Government remain firmly of the view that tolerance and mutual respect are central to lasting peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland. We shall do all that we can to build tolerance and mutual respect.
The speeches of noble Lords tonight demonstrated that the perceptions of historical issues can, and do, vary. In response to my noble friend Lord Desai, and in support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, perhaps I may underline recognition of the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland want peace. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, made that very clear in his contribution.
My noble friend Lord Desai and the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, touched on the comparisons and possible comparisons with countries in other parts of the world. The Government's answer is that the Good Friday agreement, as many noble Lords recognised tonight, addresses precisely the constitutional issues that have been the source of such conflict in Northern Ireland in the past. It represents agreement by the Northern Ireland political parties and the British and Irish Governments. It enshrines the principle of consent whereby Northern Ireland remains a part of the UK for as long as the majority make that choice. It recognises fundamentally the status of Northern Ireland as part of the UK, as long as the majority of people wish it to remain so.
The agreement enshrines a further number of very important principles of equality, fairness and parity of esteem. These, too, lie at the heart of a lasting, settlement for Northern Ireland. In response to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, I can say that the agreement sets out a political settlement that the Assembly and the Executive supported; indeed, it has been supported by all the pro-agreement parties from both sides of the political and religious divide. For the first time we have consensus on how Northern Ireland should be governed. The Government remain steadfast in their belief that the Good Friday agreement represents the best way forward. They are supported in this by the pro-agreement parties.
My noble friend Lord Desai raised the issue of the status of the Good Friday agreement. The Government have developed an unprecedented level

369
of co-operation with the Irish Government in reaching, and seeking to implement, the Good Friday agreement. We fully recognise that the agreement and its institutions are underpinned by international treaty. The Government's action in suspending the devolved assembly was, therefore, not taken lightly. It was only taken when it became absolutely clear that it was the only way to prevent the permanent collapse of the institutions and to protect good governance in Northern Ireland.
As the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, recognised, suspension was a step that the Government took with great sadness. But it is now time to look to the future. We are now entering into a consultation process. Over the coming weeks, the British and Irish Governments will hold a series of bilateral and round-table meetings with all the political parties. This process will have a single purpose: to rebuild consensus on a clear and unambiguous basis and to revive the institutions as quickly as possible on the basis of cross-community participation.
The agreement has already made a palpable difference to life in Northern Ireland. It created the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission to drive out discrimination and intolerance in all areas of public life. It has set in train the reform of policing and criminal justice—changes which are justified in their own right and which will be pursued, even though the political institutions are suspended. We have also made significant progress on normalisation. In the past week the Chief Constable announced that, fir the first time since 1969, there will be no Army battalion on tour in Belfast. We hope to take further steps in due course.
I cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Fitt that the visit to Washington and its involvement in these matters was a waste of time. It is important to ensure the continuation of political engagement. No one expected the consultations in Washington to resolve the current difficulties, but they are part of a process of discussions in which all parties must be involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Laird, referred to the importance of economic development. The political progress has also had enormous economic benefits. At the time of devolution investment was up and unemployment was down. Time and time again business leaders tell us that if Northern Ireland is to take its place on the world stage—its rightful place—we must, first, sort out the political differences. There can be no doubt that the agreement remains our best option for the creation of a new society based on consensus and the peaceful democratic expression of political aims. We shall work tirelessly with parties and the Irish Government to ensure that we achieve the twin goals of devolution and decommissioning.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, referred to the issue of cease-fires. We welcome a series of successful police operations demonstrating our commitment to providing security for all the people of Northern Ireland. The security forces continue to thwart attempts by dissident paramilitaries to destroy the peace process.
370
The noble Baroness also referred to paramilitary attacks. The Government continue utterly to condemn acts of this nature; they are totally unacceptable. Those who have the power should use their influence over the perpetrators of these attacks to bring them to a halt. The Government will continue to pursue the ending of these attacks and will fully support the RUC in its efforts to do so. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, that during 1999 there were 206 paramilitary-style attacks; 138 by loyalists and 68 by republicans. So far this year, as of 19th March, there have been 44, 32 of which are attributed to loyalists—16 shootings and 16 assaults—and 12 of which are attributed to republicans—five shootings and seven assaults. I agree with the noble Lord that prosecutions are extremely difficult to secure as victims are reluctant to co-operate with the police. However, we remain absolutely committed to tackling this problem and will continue to maintain that support.
The noble Lords, Lord Cooke and Lord Glentoran, mentioned drugs misuse. While the problem of drugs misuse in Northern Ireland, particularly of hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine, has not reached the levels experienced in other parts of the UK, the Government are not complacent. The total of £5.5 million of new money allocated to support our new drugs strategy published in August last year, and support for 16 projects at a new cost of £2 million, will be part of our attempt to resolve this problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, were absolutely right to identify that trust and confidence are an essential foundation for progress and stability. The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and the noble Lords, Lord Laird and Lord Glentoran, referred to decommissioning. The Government's view is that substantive progress needs to be made now; otherwise, cross-community confidence cannot be sustained.
I make it absolutely clear to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that we shall take no risks with the lives of the people of Northern Ireland and there will he no reduction in security until it is safe to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, referred to the Patten proposals. The Government's decisions announced in Parliament on 19th January offer all the people of Northern Ireland the opportunity of a new beginning to policing. The Patten proposals offer the police the opportunity to develop in a way that they have wanted for years. Indeed, many of the proposals were contained in the Chief Constable's fundamental review of policing. The sacrifices made by members of the RUC will never be forgotten, and have been recognised by the Government. The best memorial to those sacrifices would be a service policing a new peaceful society with the consent and support of the people.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, mentioned the Omagh bombing. The Government are committed to bringing those responsible for that atrocity to justice. Substantial resources have been committed by both

371
police services and co-operation is unprecedented in this regard. Every possible line of inquiry continues to be explored. Some 74 persons have been arrested within the two jurisdictions and two persons have been charged. The investigation remains open and the police will continue to pursue those responsible in order to bring them to justice.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, referred to the post-Omagh legislation being powerless to bring perpetrators to justice. The Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act, enacted following an emergency Sitting of Parliament, was a firm and proportionate response to the threat posed by dissident paramilitary organisations. The legislation pushed the criminal law to its very limits in order to try to bring those responsible for this awful atrocity to justice. The fact that it has not been used to date is not a legitimate argument against the legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, and the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, referred to the role of the Republic of Ireland. We totally repudiate the suggestion that the Republic of Ireland is a safe haven for terrorists. The Irish Government have shown themselves to be committed to the ending of terrorism and have been rigorous in pursuing terrorists within the territory of the Republic. Members of their police service have also been killed by terrorists while carrying out their duties. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in paying tribute to their sacrifice, just as we pay tribute to the sacrifice and professionalism of the RUC.
I agree with the noble Baroness and the noble Lords, Lord Lyell and Lord Smith of Clifton, that peace is not just for the IRA but for all the people of Northern Ireland. The Government, with the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland parties, are striving to secure that lasting peace. We believe that it is essential that the agreement is implemented in full. That means securing decommissioning as well as devolution. In the mean time we remain committed to ensuring the safety of the people of Northern Ireland.
I join with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, in paying tribute to Mr Trimble. I am happy to agree that he has shown tremendous courage and leadership in bringing his party into government, and great skill as First Minister in trying to make that government a success. His commitment to the Good Friday agreement is beyond doubt. We shall need his strength and determination to keep this process moving.
I am sure that noble Lords will wish to join with me in paying tribute to the courage and dedication of those from both traditions who have shown enormous determination in spite of discouragement and sometimes personal risk to achieve lasting peace for the people of Northern Ireland.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, mentioned agriculture in Northern Ireland. The Government fully recognise the important role that the agricultural industry plays in Northern Ireland, particularly in rural areas such as Fermanagh. We are
372
committed to the industry and supporting farmers in all areas of the United Kingdom through their difficulties. The assistance package announced by the Agriculture Minister in September 1999 provided Northern Ireland farmers with £8.5 million additional funding. The Government acknowledged the specific issue of, and problems being faced by, industries such as road haulage. The Chancellor's announcement of a reduction in road tax for large lorries is an example of the imaginative approach we take on these issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Laird, mentioned Harland and Wolff. We understand the disappointment felt when Harland and Wolff did not secure the order to build Queen Mary II. I assure the House that Ministers and departments in Northern Ireland and London worked hard and made strenuous efforts in support of Harland and Wolff s bid to win that contract. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that there was nothing further that the Government could do.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, also raised the issue of the Belfast Harbour sale. Officials are collating data to assist in evaluating the two principal options: transfer to the private sector or retention of trust status in the public sector. This will he used to inform the decision-making process in due course.
I should also say to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that Sinn Fein has to accept that it must deliver on commitments if it is to benefit from devolution. None of the pro-agreement parties are in any doubt that decommissioning is of central importance. It is essential that we should be able to have confidence in assurances that guns are silent and will remain so. I can assure the noble Lord that Sinn Fein is under no illusion about the importance of decommissioning, not only to Unionists but to everyone in Northern Ireland.
We hope to return as soon as possible to normal operation of the devolved institutions. It is sensible, therefore, in the meantime, to maintain the present number of 12 departments. The noble Lord, Lord Laird, sought an assurance that during suspension work is being progressed by Northern Ireland Ministers and that decisions are being made. I can give him that assurance. A range of decisions has been taken since suspension. I should like to write to him on the detailed points that he has raised because I am conscious of the time.
The Government fully recognise the importance of Belfast international airport and the importance of transport between Northern Ireland and the rest of the world generally. We shall continue to look for ways of improving transport within Northern Ireland.
This has been a wide-ranging debate which has covered a variety of important issues intrinsic to Northern Ireland. The experiences of some noble Lords are tragic and deeply moving—for example, those recounted by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. The views expressed reflected a diversity of experience and opinion. While I cannot agree with all the points made during the debate, I acknowledge the commitment of those who have spoken. I am sure that we all wish for a lasting peace.
9.2 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the hour is late and another debate awaits. I shall say only a warm thank you to every noble Lord who has taken part in the debate. It would be invidious to identify anyone; everyone made a valuable contribution. I should like particularly to thank the Minister for the trouble that she took to respond to the debate in such a meticulous way. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Disabled People
9.3 p.m.
Baroness Wilkins Baroness Wilkins rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have for the future of personal assistance support for disabled people of working age in order to further the Government's policies for independent living, welfare to work and the prevention or social exclusion.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the subject of tonight's debate is the support that many disabled people must have in order to function and take part in daily life—help to get up in the morning, to wash, to dress, to eat, for some even to breathe. We are talking about a basic and fundamental need; it is not a matter of choice.
The Government are to be congratulated at the outset on setting goals which meet the long-held aspirations of disabled people. The emphasis they have given to independent living, to the prevention of social exclusion and the opportunity for work rather than welfare has provided a clear focus in approaching the complex subject of disability policy and provision.
The existing policy on long-term care—or personal assistance support, as disabled people prefer to call it—is particularly complex and confused. In many ways it runs counter to these goals. This confusion has continued to fester while we await the Government's response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Long Term Care. The commission proposed that the provision of personal care should be free, paid for out of general taxation. I hope that tonight's debate will demonstrate that this is essential if disabled people are to be given a level playing field to contribute to society and to be included in the Chancellor's "Britain with opportunity for all".
The current complex patchwork of personal assistance support has three main problems—it is rationed; it is discretionary; and it is means tested—all of which conflict with government policies for independent living, welfare to work and the prevention of social exclusion.
There are three different sources of personal assistance for disabled people of working age. The first is through the independent living funds (ILFs). There are two funds: the original, more generous, fund set up in 1988 called the extension fund, and now closed to new clients; and the 1993 fund which works in liaison with social services departments. The latter have to contribute a minimum of £200 in cash or services
374
towards a disabled person's care package before ILF help can be offered. The ILF is a discretionary fund with assessment procedures which are not transparent.
The second source is the local social services department, either through a direct payment or by direct services such as a home carer or district nurse. Again, local authorities have a large degree of discretion in how they provide direct payments, and in parts of the country—particularly the north and Wales—many authorities have still not done so.
The third possibility, if you are in paid employment, including self-employment, is the access to work scheme. Again, implementation is very variable around the country. In some areas people have been told that their access to work PA may not assist them with going to the lavatory as this is "personal care", not "work related".
This range of provision is complex and confusing. Users have to account for each source of money differently, completing a series of complicated forms. Each of the three sources carries out its own assessment, with different eligibility criteria, so that it is a geographical lottery whether one's needs will be met. This creates huge insecurity, fear and anger. All that disabled people are asking for is a level playing field so that they can contribute to society like everyone else.
Surely it is scandalous that we can be complacent about a situation where disabled people live in daily fear of their basic needs not being met—not being got up in the morning, fed or taken to the lavatory. Is it not time that personal assistance was recognised as a fundamental human right?
It is to the social services department that a disabled person first goes if one has care support needs to be met—and here is the first major difficulty. This basic care is rationed, more and more strictly, according to each local authority's eligibility criteria and resources. So it is a postcode lottery whether one gets any help at all.
Out of Services, the report published today by the Needs Must Coalition, sets out the appalling effect that this rationing is having on disabled people's lives. Cut-backs in local authority budgets, charging policies and the effect of the Gloucestershire judgment which allowed local authorities to consider their resources before providing services has led to a crisis in community care provision and a huge decrease in support for independent living.
I welcome the Government's commitment made in last year's White Paper, Modernising Social Services, to end this postcode lottery through such measures as the fair access to care initiative. However, initial reports of this are disappointing, particularly for severely disabled people who want to work. The Fair Access to Care framework ranks people into priority groups. Risks to life and limb invariably rank highest, which means that quality of life needs, including going to work, emerge as a low priority. What is more, Fair Access to Care does not remove the problem of people who need to move to take up a job: they cannot take their agreed care package with them but have to start

375
all over again with a new authority. That is an impossible, time-consuming hurdle for most job offers. If the Minister would consider "portable" personal assistance packages, so that people moving to another part of the country could at least take their package with them, it would do much to relieve the problem.
One of the worst effects of local authority rationing is the ever-present threat of residential care with which disabled people with high support needs have to live. There is a ceiling on ILF funding. If someone's care needs exceed about £32,000 a year, the full cost has to be borne by the local authority. That leaves people with the highest support needs vulnerable to the fluctuations of local authorities' budgeting. For example, a year ago, users in Tower Hamlets were shocked to discover that in order to make savings of £250,000 the council was about to introduce a policy whereby anyone whose independent living package cost more than residential care should actually be placed in an institution. That meant that severely disabled local users, like Dr Ian Basnett, a deputy director of public health in inner London, might be forced into residential care, losing his job, and liberty, while society lost his contribution and that of disabled people like him. Public protest removed the threat that time, but there is nothing to stop it happening again.
The Government's acceptance that there should be a ceiling to the cost of independent living is causing great fear. That rationale is not applied to other public services. Someone with four school-age children is not told that only two of them can be sent to a local state school. I urge the Minister to bring an end to this ever-present threat of institutional care.
Finally, it is the means testing of provision which is the current urgent focus of concern. The ILF and many local authorities impose a means test on disabled people needing personal assistance which ensures that there is a permanent major barrier to employment, and especially to any form of advancement. The ILF trustees themselves raised this problem of "work to welfare" with the Government and in January the Minister relaxed the rules. ILF clients may now keep 45 per cent of their earnings between £30 and £200 a week. Above that figure, they still have to pay everything they earn towards the full cost of their care.
Now there is a new crisis. The ILF has written to all clients asking, within the month, for up-to-date information for a financial reassessment, warning that it could,
"affect the amount we are able to offer you under the new rules".
Dave Morris, who started Independent Living Alternatives, points out that a large number of working disabled people have negotiated support packages with the ILF and social services based on the fact that their income is not taken into account. If those people are now to be financially reassessed and
376
have to contribute a large amount to their care, the majority will be forced out of the employment market and back onto benefits. As he says of his own situation,
"I estimate that if my income is taken into account the bulk of my funding will be withdrawn by the ILF. I will face a pay cut of roughly £400 per month or give up paid employment … The fact is that unless you are seriously rich, if you require more than 30 hours personal assistance per week, then it is not worth your while working".
What is the point of the Government pursuing this damaging means-testing policy? It is self-defeating. Not only does it directly conflict with the welfare to work policy; it merely results in lost revenue to the Exchequer from income tax, council tax and the additional costs in benefit. It is totally demoralising to disabled people, containing the implicit assumption that if you need personal assistance you cannot reasonably expect to achieve the same in life as non-disabled people.
The Government have stated that they want to focus help on "those most in need". ILF money is not a social security benefit. It is there to fund disabled people's support in the community to avoid residential care. The only result of "targeting" ILF resources on the poorest disabled people will be that everyone in need of ILF support is trapped on benefits at far higher cost to the state.
I have been able merely to headline some of the problems in this vital area of concern for disabled people. What is needed is a fundamental review of the funding of personal assistance in order to ensure that disabled people are given a level playing field to contribute to society.
Last December, the Government gave a disappointing response to the House of Commons Education and Employment Committee recommendation that a cross-departmental working party be set up to tackle the barriers to employment posed by the "personal assistance trap". Will the Minister reconsider that recommendation, expanding its brief to cover all the areas of concern touched on in this evening's debate? Most importantly, the working party must include the expertise of external organisations with direct experience of personal assistance.
In the meantime, will the Minister give an undertaking that the ILF will be asked to suspend its financial reassessment of clients and that all means testing of earned income should be suspended pending review? That would go some way to reduce the current panic and would reassure disabled people with personal care needs that the Government are serious about enabling them to work and to live independently and about preventing their social exclusion.
9.14 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, for introducing this question. She is a distinguished recruit to this House and to the mobile bench, which is one of the glories of this House. She has taken us into many areas which urgently call for scrutiny. Her remarks about the ever present threat to

377
residential care should equally move humanity and the Treasury. Very few can achieve both those objectives at once. I congratulate her.
Since this is a disability matter, my noble friend Lord Addington speaks from the Front Bench, I speak from the Back Bench. We have agreed that I shall deal with welfare to work and that he will deal with the independent living fund. If I do not develop the noble Baroness's points on the question of the independent living fund, it is because they will be dealt with by my noble friend.
The Minister knows that I have quite considerable theoretical misgivings about the basis of welfare to work. I shall not develop those now. They seem to me to be beside the purpose of today's debate. But, if the approach can be well placed anywhere, it might be in relation to people with disabilities, where the level playing field to which the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, referred is still quite a long way off, and where a programme of assistance with job seeking, job selection and so on, funded by the state and guided by a personal adviser, could be of very great value. The question is whether it will be, or whether it will be clouded by a series of assumptions in government thinking which are somewhat wide of the case.
Welfare to work is by its nature a top-down approach to the problem of employability. People are being fitted into holes. They may be square pegs in round holes but they are still being fitted into them. We on these Benches would be much happier to think in terms of the creation of opportunities, making it easier for people to do not what the Government have thought they ought to do but what they themselves want to do. There may be a very large area of overlap, but it is vital that we should find the right starting point.
The conditions under which a welfare to work programme for people with disabilities might succeed would include, first, that there is not too much counting of the cost. In the light of the noble Baroness's remarks about residential care, that could be an economy. I remember watching the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, in another place, when he had an enormous teletext machine with which he very effectively followed the debates. That sort of equipment clearly is not provided for nothing. It was an investment, and a very valuable investment in the public interest as well as in the noble Lord's interest. If that sort of thing is to be done on any large scale, it cannot be clone cheaply. Secondly, it must be done for equality of opportunity, for the level playing field that the noble Baroness mentioned, not for any overall reduction in unemployment. Thirdly, the disabled person, not the adviser, must be the final judge of what it is considered the disabled person may be able to do. Nobody else can possibly know how much it hurts; nobody else can possibly know how much exhaustion it causes; nobody else can possibly know for how long it is possible to sustain the posture in which the job must be done.
378
With regard to the question of the cost of personal assistants, I shall not gild the lily of what the noble Baroness has said. It is pointed out by RADAR that there is no financial provision for the cost of transport. With many, but not all, types of disability, transport is one of the gravest and most expensive problems. If you cannot get people to their places of work, there is no point in making them employable. What the noble Baroness said about people being able to take their care packages with them is also well worthy of thought.
So far, we have had an underspend in relation to this cost. This is because at this stage we have only pilots. It may not be significant. But there has been quite severe underspending in other areas of the New Deal—the over 25 pilots and lone parents—causing The Times to remark yesterday that this is a Government which contacts but does not spend. As the new deal for the disabled goes forward, I hope that it will not prove necessary to repeat that approach.
With regard to the question of increasing employment, we are told that the new deal for disabled people in its pilot form has created work for 2,000 people. The noble Baroness and I had some exchanges last week on the subject of substitution, as a result of which I was profoundly unsatisfied. We agree on both sides that there is no evidence of substitution; namely, that when someone is put into a job because of welfare to work it means that someone else does not get that job. What I cannot understand is how there can be any increase in the overall number of jobs created by the programme except if the welfare to work programme gives the person the skills to take a vacancy which would otherwise have remained untitled. It may be stupid of me, but I cannot see any way round that. If the Minister can help me I shall be interested.
But the most important factor is the ability of the individual to be judged. Mr John Denham, answering a Question for Written Answer on this subject in November 1997, said that for people of working age work was the best form of welfare. If he had only inserted the word "normally" I would have been completely happy. Not all disabled people are capable of work; not all disabled people who are capable of work are capable of every kind of work. It is vital that those who cannot should not feel liable to any kind of stigma for that reason. After all, it is no fault of theirs and not the kind of thing that anybody ever does voluntarily.
It is also worth remembering that there is not a single activity known as work. People who are, for example, paraplegic may be perfectly able to work as telephone operators. I would not recommend that job to someone with hearing difficulties. Someone with hearing difficulties may be perfectly well able to do a job involving heavy lifting. Therefore, there must be a real fitting of people to jobs and jobs to people, and that is an area where the judgment of the disabled person must be vital. What I do not want to hear, as casework anecdotes emerge from the pilots, is evidence of people being put under pressure. That can happen both ways. There are reports of advisers making a blanket assumption that because people have

379
disabilities they cannot work. That is wrong. Most people can do something; and it may well be a job that most of the rest of us cannot do at all. But it must be the right job, and the individual must have the right to judge whether he or she can do it. I should like to be sure that I shall not need to repeat this once the programme goes forward.
9.23 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am most indebted to my noble friend Lady Wilkins for initiating so important a debate for disabled people this evening. She said that current provision is complex, confusing and self-defeating and that it creates huge insecurity, fear and anger among people with disabilities. Hers was, as my noble friend Lady Hollis will appreciate, the authentic voice of severely disabled people who know from personal experience the reality of living (in my noble friend's own words),
"in fear of being forced into residential care".
My noble friend Lady Hollis will, I know, share my admiration for our noble friend and my indebtedness to her for initiating this debate.
Lifting people off welfare and into the world of work is one of the Government's central strategies. But, as the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation's recent and authoritative report, Mind the Gap: Disability, Opportunity and Employment, makes plain, many barriers still litter the path from welfare to work for disabled people. At the same time, there are rules and regulations, like those of the independent living funds (ILFs), imposing a 55 per cent tax on the earnings of the disabled people they help to support, which create a major disincentive to work. Yet the help the ILFs were funded to give is for unavoidable and disability-related expense, such as that of personal assistance in washing, dressing, eating and getting to and from work.
Time is at a premium and I want to spend most of the few minutes still available to me in describing and addressing the implications of a case—that of Colin Hughes—which I find especially disturbing. My noble friend Lady Wilkins said in her opening sentence tonight that this debate is about disabled people who need help to wash, dress and eat, and some who require personal assistance even to breathe. Colin Hughes is one of them. He has to ventilate at night simply to stay alive and, in the words of The Times, the ILFs gave him the ultimatum:
"Leave your job or pay for your care".
Colin is very severely disabled by muscular dystrophy and has had his care funded by the ILFs for some 10 years. His grant has been used to employ a live-in carer who helps him with all his daily living tasks: getting up in the morning, washing, dressing, eating, going to and from work, and functioning as a human being. Without that help he would no longer be able to live and work independently in the community. The grant he receives has enabled him to work in radio producing BBC Radio 4 programmes such as "Does he
380
take sugar?", and "You and Yours". More recently he has worked as a television producer of "Despatch Box" and "Westminster Live".
However, last November he was told by the ILFs that his funding would be cut drastically because of his earnings. His grant, they decided, must be cut from £390 a week to £80 a week, leaving him to pay the remaining £310 a week out of his net earnings. That would have left him barely better off than he would have been on benefits.
The ILFs explained that they were imposing the cut of £310 a week because they had not realised that his gross earnings were £30,000 a year. They made it clear also that, unless he could convince them that capital of £30,000 which he had saved over the past 10 years should be disregarded, his funding would end altogether. The ILFs did not care that he will not reach pensionable age, or that he has scrimped and saved for 10 years in keeping with the Midland Bank's advice to him that he should save every penny he could for when he is no longer able to work.
Colin's funding was originally due to end on 6th February but the date was extended to 6th March. Following the recent changes to their rules, the ILFs told him that he would be required to contribute £234 a week towards his care. They would, they said, now disregard 45 per cent of earnings between £30 and £200 above income support. But the new level of contribution is still punishingly high and is a perverse disincentive to work; nor does it help the Government, since it costs much more to have a disabled person unemployed than in work. As a policy it is thus not only punitive and perverse but fiscally unsound. Colin Hughes wonders how many people would consider working if they were made to surrender up to 70 per cent of net salary to pay for their care. He says,
"This seriously undermines the Government's stated policy of giving disabled people an equal opportunity to work alongside able-bodied people".
Following a meeting with them on 14th March, he is currently trying to put together proposals for dealing with his savings in a way that will be acceptable to the ILFs; but he will still have to contribute a grossly unjust amount of his net earnings towards his care. Clearly he enjoys his work at the BBC, but he is now having seriously to consider his future employment.
He points out that it is not only the ILFs which use means testing. Local authorities, as the Prime Minister pointed out in a letter to me about Colin's case, have the primary responsibility and use means testing too. Their policies vary enormously. They are inconsistent, difficult to understand and impossible to defend. Some charge in line with the policy the ILFs have now discarded; others charge much less; and some do not charge at all.
One most disquieting case drawn to my attention by the British Polio Fellowship, of which I am a vice-patron, is that of a 73 year-old man who was paralysed after an accident at the age of 28. He lives independently—on an industrial injuries benefit and the minimum state retirement pension—and requires help in his home for up to 14 hours a week. He was

381
charged £12 a week for this help. Now his local authority has pat the charge up to £112 a week: a tenfold increase. That must surely be shocking to everyone participating in this debate wherever they sit in your Lordships' House.
No doubt both local authorities and the ILFs will argue that they can help only to the extent that their resources allow and that, with more resources, they could give more help. But that cannot be argued by some other sources of help. For example, of the £195 million New Deal for Disabled People funding, which was allocated to help with employment for people with disabilities, little more than £11 million has so far been spent, three years into this new Labour Government. Way could not some of that money have been used to help disabled people now in work?
I have dwelt on Colin Hughes's case because I have known and respected him for many years as a person of excelling integrity whose life has been one of moving triumph over daunting adversity. I hope very much that his plea will convince the Government that further change is urgently necessary. In a message to me this evening, he states:
"While current means tests remain in place, major planks of government policy are severely compromised. They turn social inclusion into social exclusion. They turn 'from welfare to work' into from work to scrapheap'.
People who have to ventilate at night shouldn't have to pay through the nose for the help a wealthy, modern society based on equal opportunity should be willing to pay".
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, reminded me this afternoon of the wisdom of St Paul in saying that:
"No law can compel a man to do the impossible".
My Lords, let us not ask severely and heavily dependent disabled people to tolerate the intolerable.
9.32 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, for initiating this debate. I have known the noble Baroness for a very long time and I pay tribute to her record of helping with many disability issues over the years.
Many aspects regarding disability came to the fore after the passing of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, then Alf Morris, the honourable Member for Wythenshawe, whose Bill it was. I had the ptivilege of making my maiden speech on that Bill in your Lordships' House. In 1975 I founded the Spinal Injuries Association, a self-help organisation for people who break or damage their backs and necks resulting in paralysis, with all the complications and difficulties which can ensue. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, was one of our first management members of the SIA.
Also, 25 years ago the Crossroads care attendance scheme was founded, which gives help to disabled people when they need it. This came about when a young man called Noel Crane, who had broken his neck, contacted the director of the television programme "Crossroads" as a disabled person was wrongly portrayed in the programme. The director
382
went to talk to Noel at his house in order to find out the correct image to portray. At about 11 p.m., when Noel's 70 year-old mother was nodding off in her chair, the director asked Noel, who is well over six feet tall, "How do you get to bed?". He said, "Mum puts me to bed and what's more she gets me up and dressed at 5 a.m." He could then get to work as an inspector at a Coventry car factory. Once Noel was helped into his car, he could drive to work using the specially adapted hand controls.
Thus, the Crossroads Care Attendance scheme was founded by Noel and others, with funding from the television programme. The scheme is a great help in the areas in which it exists, but the service does not exist in rural areas. Throughout the country, the scheme is patchy and is run in some areas but not in others.
Some time ago, the Spinal Injuries Association conducted a survey. It was found that many of its members needed only a little help once or twice a day. But that help was crucial in enabling them to leave their homes and go to work. Many members who have been injured and become disabled are highly trained and skilled people. To be a taxpayer is the best way to full rehabilitation and self-esteem, but with the huge handicap placed on them, and with the difficulty of obtaining reliable help and having to cope with the extra costs of disability, it is diabolical that costs cannot be set against tax.
Furthermore, means testing on top of the stresses of disability adds insult to injury. Even with tax relief and no means testing there can never be an equal playing field because all disabled people start at a disadvantage, be it in so many different ways.
On 2nd March, I attended a conference held by the Royal College of Nursing on disability awareness and nursing. Among the speakers were three qualified nurses who had become disabled. Two of them used wheelchairs. One of the nurses was also a trained psychologist and was specially trained in the treatment of asthma. They were most frustrated at being unable to gain paid work, even though their qualifications were much greater than those of some of their colleagues. They said that their Royal College had not given a positive lead in encouraging and helping them to work. The situation must be even more frustrating when lesser qualified nurses are being imported from foreign countries.
I hope that the conference highlighted the problems. The nurses who spoke were a good example of discrimination in the workplace. Can the Minister do something to help and encourage employers to take on disabled people? The sickness benefits are loaded against employers, many of whom might believe that the risk of employing disabled people is just too great. That might not always be the case, but in some cases there might be periods of illness. Could not some scheme be put into action to encourage, rather than to discourage, employers to give disabled employees at least a chance?
I know that there are various types of support, and they are welcomed, but the process of applying can be complicated with various complex forms. That often

383
wears down the disabled person and his employer, thus jeopardising relationships. The employer may be asked to make a contribution to the overall costs. That may be the straw which breaks the camel's back.
Disabled people need to be helped with access to work through a flexible approach across the country. That does not happen in some areas where people have been told that their access-to-work personal assistant may not assist them with using the lavatory as that is "personal care", not "work-related". A disabled person needs holistic help, not a destructive, narrow interpretation.
We hear a great deal about joined-up government. Many disabled people need joined-up help. I hope that the Question tonight will help to encourage the Minister to improve the position of disabled people who wish to work. I hope that it will also encourage employers to give disabled people employment, thus preventing social exclusion, which has been the lot of so many disabled people.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I want to add my warm congratulations to my noble friend Lady Wilkins. She was great! It was a star performance, and she will obviously make a major contribution; she began that tonight. I give her my warmest congratulations.
I recognise that the Government are committed to helping disabled people and have done some very valuable things. I know that my noble friend Lady Hollis is fully committed to doing what she can. Nevertheless, I have some harsh things to say about this Government.
The fundamental question which underlies the debate is whether or not the Prime Minister's promise to create "equal opportunities" includes disabled people. In other words, do the Government see severely disabled people as they see others or as a race apart, condemned to be unable to benefit from incentives to work and permanently unable to fulfil their potential? That is a simple but fundamental question.
It would be a political scandal if disabled people were excluded. However, the facts are that with present government policies many disabled people are faced with disincentives and can never achieve their potential. That issue lies at the heart of the debate. In many areas, the provision by the Government and local authorities for independent living and care for severely disabled people is pathetically inadequate. The policies simply do not match the rhetoric. The research, the briefings from all the organisations and, above all, the personal experience of disabled people themselves—I was very glad to hear the noble Earl, Lord Russell speak about the importance of the disabled person's view—all confirm the problems outlined by Lady Wilkins that the provision is rationed, discretionary and means-tested. Insecurity, patchy help and barriers to self-help abound.
384
This Government's fine record for disabled people is blotted if it allows disabled people's living standards to be damaged because of their disability. Yet, that is exactly what is happening. The great majority of severely disabled people rely for personal care on local authority assistance. However, since the dreadful, infamous Gloucester judgment, our fears have been realised and it is clear that the quality of that assistance has deteriorated sharply.
Perhaps I may explain that. This morning I hosted the launch of a report by the Needs Must Coalition. It revealed that refusals, reductions and complete withdrawals of services for disabled people were very common. Those were the words. Seventy-two per cent of people in the survey reported a reduction or total cut in help with bathing (72 per cent!); 70 per cent with help using the toilet (they cannot even go to the toilet!): 79 per cent with dressing; 89 per cent with help to prepare and eat meals; and 90 per cent with housework. Those are severely disabled people. When one considers the 86 year-old woman with Alzheimer's, waiting for a bath or a shower, who has to be strip-washed at the kitchen sink, those facts are absolutely scandalous.
This report on a serious situation in community care suggested that the Government's measures will have to he carefully implemented. Of course they will. But more crucially, the Government will have to be extremely generous.
Because they are not receiving the right support package, disabled people are excluded from employment at great cost to society and at enormous cost to themselves. Yet, incredibly, of the £195 million pledged with an understandable fanfare of trumpets by the Government for a New Deal for disabled people, only some £12 million—and I differ from my noble friend Lord Morris, who referred to £11 million; it is about £11¾ million actually—has been committed. Why is that? What complacency there is. What a lost opportunity. Let us think of the frustration of disabled people who want to work. Who is responsible for this scandalous state of affairs? What urgent action is being taken? I hope that my noble friend is listening very carefully and will give a comprehensive response to those points when she replies.
No one will dispute that we live in an incentive society. But it holds no incentive for those severely disabled people reliant on the independent living fund. They are subject to an onerous means test. That system, the ILF, conveys a sad, bleak and unambiguous message to disabled people: because you are disabled, you should not have the average standard of living, let alone one above average, regardless of your efforts and talents. That is my interpretation of the message.
As household earnings are taken into account, it means that a working spouse must pay the care costs of a disabled partner. It does not take an Einstein to work out the psychological effect on the disabled person and the financial effect on both of them.
I know that the Government feel that a scheme that can fund an individual for up to £32,000 per year should be means tested. I agree that millionaire types

385
should be means tested. But it is wrong to means test that vital service so harshly, because personal assistance is a disability cost, not a luxury frill. As my noble friend Lady Wilkins said, such impositions do not apply to other public services. Why should this system stand alone? Let us imagine the public outcry if a person having an expensive heart bypass operation was told that that operation depended on a means test. But that applies to personal care and is accepted with equanimity.
Jane Campbell, a disability activist, sums up the dilemma for severely disabled people better than I can, and better than most people can. She has said:
"To expect disabled people to work hard and then relinquish the fruits of their labour in exchange for essential assistance to live, is a denial of our basic human rights".
A bedrock of this Government's policy is that work is the escape route and that they will help with that. Of course Ministers do try to help, and I appreciate that—especially my noble friend Lady Hollis, who really does wonderful work. But I believe that it is to the enormous credit of disabled people that, despite crushing disabilities, they are willing to work and work hard to secure a better life for themselves. Yet the Government's escape route is closed to them. The idea of hard-working, talented disabled people earning a high living standard is a pipe dream under existing government policies.
So we face the lamentable fact that disabled people are denied basic rights and the Government are denied the benefits of taxation. That way, nobody wins and everybody loses. They are the economics of the madhouse and t !ley need to be changed.
9.49 p.m.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, for raising this important Question, which is close to the hearts of all three of us on this "mobile Bench". I for one would certainly need a personal assistant now if I had to be here by 9 a.m.
I first met the noble Baroness when she had been tetraplegic for one month. She was lying flat on her back in Stoke Mandeville hospital and I was asked to go to see her. She seemed to be bright—and, dare I say cheerful? No!—she had a sense of humour and she seemed okay. I reported back and said that I believed that she would do all right. I believe that she has done all right.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I congratulate the noble Baroness on her masterly portrayal of how the complex web of various and varied provision and the admirable goals of furthering employment opportunities and ending social exclusion fail to dovetail. The noble Baroness knows a good deal about the subject. I find that I grow more confused the more I read about funds and payments.
I welcome the Government's promotion of the provision of direct payments. Only by having control of one's own care package can one achieve the
386
flexibility needed in personal assistance if one is to hold down a job. I welcome also the local personal assistance support schemes which can help users to fulfil their duties as employers. I support the noble Baroness's suggestion of portable personal assistance packages. Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I believe that that would at least ensure the same level of care when one moved area. Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, were most eloquent about the effect that rationing has and the way in which it impacts on the lives of others as well as that of the user. It seems to be operating to thwart the Government's aims. I shall give three brief examples.
First, it affects one's return to work. There is a man whose care package is so limited that the extra support of informal care—in this case, by his wife—is essential rather than an extra. She is currently in hospital with pneumonia, so he cannot go to work. Luckily, he has understanding employers.
Secondly, it can have a detrimental effect not only on one's immediate family but also on the lives of their immediate families. There is a woman who needs 24-hour assistance. Her care package of £548.93 per week—the maximum allowed by the I LF and the local authority—does not meet all her assistance needs, so her daughter has had to give up her university course to look after her.
Thirdly, rationing can contribute further to social exclusion. I think of a young man whose care package of £575.63 per week does not pay for the 24-hour care needed. He has to rely on his family, whereas, like most young people, all that he would really like is to be independent and to go to see his family when he wants to see them. He tries to manage on his own and so his life and his social life are restricted.
Means testing is causing huge concern. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, gave a graphic description of the case of Colin Hughes. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, gave a clear exposition of the overall situation and of the new crisis. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to her call for the ILF to suspend financial reassessment of clients and to ask local authorities to suspend their charging policies on direct payments. I ask the Minister why it is necessary to means test at all. If we accept that personal assistance is to level the playing field so that severely disabled people can not only survive but live their lives to the full in the community, compete for jobs and pay their taxes, is it reasonable, when they have been through all the complexities of care packages, job seeking and working hard at a job which may be satisfying, albeit stressful, to ask them to go through the far from satisfying experience of forfeiting their income to pay for their care, particularly since, as my noble friend Lady Masham said, there can never be a totally level playing field?
The National Centre for Independent Living believes that it was not really envisaged when the ILF started that significant numbers of clients would be able to work and that reform of the ILF needs to be approached in that context. If the disincentives were removed, many ILF losers—I mean users; sorry, that

387
was a Freudian slip!—would come off benefit and so go into employment. I particularly urge the Minister to do all that she can to end means testing of partners. It is quite illogical. It is not consistent with local authority charging policies; the community care service is not allowed to means test partners. It places undue strain on relationships and even prevents them. The NCIL quotes the predicament of a severely disabled man who is tetraplegic. He is a trained accountant. His wife is a teacher in work and they have a small child. When he asked the social worker what was her usual advice in relation to partners' incomes being assessed, she replied, "I tell them to get a divorce"! Is that not a swipe at the key building blocks of community and society?
Another man, again tetraplegic from the age of 19, needs 24-hour care from two personal assistants the whole time. For 11 years he has had an important, successful, stressful and demanding job with BT. He is deeply concerned at the possible implications of the current review. He may have to change his lifestyle and even give up work because he may not be able to afford his newly ordered, expensively adapted car in which case he could not get to work. He adds:
"The ILF also requires you to declare any income your partner or wife receives. This is a working tax that has to be borne by your partner or wife which I feel is totally unfair. Although as a single person I am not currently affected by this, however, how do I explain to someone that, 'yes, I would like you to be my girlfriend, but if we start living together you will have to help pay for my care?".
He also says:
"I have three friends who are all in exactly the same situation".
That does not make for social inclusion. The NCIL's information from the ILF in May 1999 was that part of their proposal submitted to the Government was the removal of means tests on partners. I urge the Government to end not only means testing of partners' income but also of the clients' income, to enable severely disabled people to have control of their lives and to play their full part at work and in the life of the community.
I warmly support the call of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, for a cross-departmental working party, including the expertise of members of organisations with direct experience of personal assistant services to examine in depth all these issues so as to get the provision to match up and meet the Government's aims.
9.56 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, on introducing the debate. Virtually everything that I have to say has been said in one form or another by at least one noble Lord which means that I shall not detain the House for long.
The major theme running through the debate is the problems encountered with ILF and the fact that it is means tested. It has the potential to drive people out of jobs or will not allow them to take one. A benefit that is supposed to allow people to live properly in fact stops them working.
388
The well crafted way in which the debate was placed on the Order Paper shows the absurdity of the situation. The Government have told us to fight for social inclusion. We must get people working so that they feel part of society. As my noble friend Lord Russell has already mentioned, there are one or two caveats to that approach. If we take social inclusion as the goal, we must deal with it as soon as possible. It is ridiculous that people are encouraged to work, to live a reasonable life in reasonable comfort, or at least are allowed to breath and live properly, but then we take away the vast majority of any income that they earn; the proceeds of work.
For many people in work their pay packet is their justification or status. Noble Lords may approve or disapprove of that, but that is a fact; "I am worth so much". It was said to be one of the great triumphs of the previous administration. We must bear that in mind when we say that disabled people cannot keep the money they earn because the state is keeping them in a reasonable condition, enabling them to live. Surely that is wrong.
There are clichés like, "Rome was not built in a day", but in trying to bring the whole thing forward in a new society, I should like to hear the Minister say that the problem will be dealt with in the near future because the absurdity of this has been spoken of time and again.
This is one occasion when I feel that the Minister should have five or six of her colleagues beside her. Most of the time when dealing with disability issues a question is put to a Minister, and the Minister bats it to another department. Transport is a classic example. How often have we spoken about the problems of getting to work? Personal assistance can be brought into the issue of transport. The noble Baroness should have someone from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions beside her. Personal assistance would probably not be needed if every train was accessible and taxis could be relied on to turn up and accept someone with a guide dog. I could continue on this theme. However, something must be done to ensure that personal assistance is made available to enable disabled people to cope with the world the way it is.
As a firm general rule, my party does not approve of means testing. This is one occasion when its removal would greatly help a group and would set a precedent. If people are to be helped back into work and helped to get access to their work, that policy must be backed by action. I heard an interesting story about someone with severe dyslexia who received help when training to become a legal executive. Unfortunately, that assistance would not apply if she chose to continue her training to become a fully qualified lawyer. She was in some danger of having her career path blocked. A case like that highlights the need for cross-departmental consultation on this issue.
We need to look at the whole package in this area. The notions of local support and direct payments for social care have already been mentioned by other noble Lords. However, the level of support differs

389
between areas, 'which is an absurdity. The Government must treat this holistically so that marginal costs are dealt with alongside core costs. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House strong reassurances on this subject.
10.1 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, on introducing this important subject to the House tonight. I was personally very moved by the sincere and knowledgeable way in which she made the case for personal assistance support for disabled people of working age. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said so wisely, it was a star performance.
Last year I broke my femur and for a time was confined to a wheelchair. I needed help with washing, dressing and other basic needs which until then I had always taken for granted. It brought home to me the day-to-day problems and social barriers faced by disabled people in a world largely designed to suit non-disabled people. I am now able bodied again, but most disabled people are disabled for the rest of their lives. For that reason, I am enormously sympathetic to the points made by the noble Baroness.
Personal assistance enables disabled people to control their own resources and support staff and helps them to lead lives as full and spontaneous as those of non-disabled people. The noble Baronesses, Lady Wilkins, Lady Masham and Lady Darcy de Knayth, are each one of them proof that disabled people with severe impairments can live active lives and contribute to society.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, made the point that the existing policy on long-term care continues to fester—I believe that was the word she used—while we await the Government's response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Long Term Care. Meanwhile, of course, the sale of an estimated 40,000 homes a year to pay for care home fees continues, causing great distress. I understand that the Government will make an announcement this summer. Can the Minister confirm that that is the case?
The noble Baronesses, Lady Wilkins and Lady Darcy de Knayth, and the noble Lords, Lord Morris, Lord Ashley and Lord Addington, all agreed on the problems surrounding the Independent Living Fund and means testing. Among some of the ILF younger clients who want the opportunity to work and develop their careers, there is a real sense of dissatisfaction towards means testing of clients' wages and those of their partners. The means test effectively caps the amount an individual can earn, creating a maximum wage for ILF recipients who work. In January new rules were introduced, supported by the Government, which mean that ILF clients can now keep £106 of their wages above the level of income support after housing and council tax costs are taken into consideration. While that is better than the £30 extra clients used to be allowed to keep, there is a deep sense
390
of anger and injustice among disabled people that the ILF and the Government have fudged this issue and failed to remove this particular means test.
By working, disabled people with complex needs not only lose their benefits but also access to community care grants and other sources of funding. While the ILF means test of wages is in place, it will continue to lead many disabled people who need high levels of personal assistance to believe that they can never take on paid work. That must be wrong. Some local authorities do not understand the potential of the ILF. Many have a poor record in applying on behalf of their disabled residents and deny them and their own social services departments a valuable source of funding. That, consequently, leads to great variation in the use of personal assistance throughout the country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, also mentioned direct payments by local authorities for personal assistance and the fact that many local authorities have still not introduced any form of direct payments. That is a particular problem for those with learning difficulties and, I understand, those with mental health problems. Can the Minister say if the Government will do more to encourage local authorities to introduce direct payments for personal assistance?
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, spoke of the important Needs Must report, highlighting the urgent need for action by the Government in the field of community care, which I understand he launched today. Unfortunately, that is just one piece of the jigsaw. The bigger picture is no less challenging; a picture full of opportunities for government to show a much greater, practical commitment to tackling social exclusion. Those measures would maximise the impact of what is supposedly already government policy.
For example, the issues raised by this Unstarred Question are of direct relevance to the United Kingdom's 8.7 million deaf and hard of hearing who face numerous barriers within a system that is meant to help them. I agree wholeheartedly with the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the investment in the equipment of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, o enable him to follow debates.
Low take-up of disability living allowance among deaf people—8 per cent for the severely or profoundly deaf as against 30 to 50 per cent for disabled people in general—underlines the obstacles that deaf people face within a benefit system that is supposed to help them maximise their independence, their opportunities for employment and social inclusion.
Access to work is the key to effective transition from welfare to work. Financial support for essential equipment through the Government's Access to Work scheme is often crucial to disabled people's capacity to access the workplace and the opportunities employment brings for independence and social inclusion. Disabled people are more likely to be out of work than non-disabled people. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that the Government's plans to counter low awareness among both employers and potential and actual employees are inadequate. Last month we debated social exclusion in the important

391
debate on the Rowntree report tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Social exclusion is defined by the Social Exclusion Unit as,
"a shorthand term for what can happen when people or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems, such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health poverty and family breakdown".
The missing link that, in many cases, would connect at least six of these eight problems, but which is not included in the definition, is disability. This is a missed opportunity that risks undermining the whole social exclusion programme. As the All-Party Disablement Group, chaired so well by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has argued, disability needs to be at the heart of government policymaking; that means having a specific high priority on the agenda of the Social Exclusion Unit.
10.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate tonight, especially my noble friend Lady Wilkins. I believe that everyone has spoken this evening with passion and compassion about the rights of, and support for, disabled people. It is right that disabled people should enjoy the rights that others take for granted—the right to independence, the right to work and profit from that work, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said, the right to play a full and inclusive part in society. We have done a lot, but we have a long way to go.
Perhaps I may turn first to the core of tonight's debate; namely, the personal income support—the personal assistance packages—for disabled people. We have done a good deal to strengthen the incomes of disabled people. Although it was not spelt out tonight, we all know that disabled people, on average, have lower incomes with which to meet higher costs. As regards benefits, we have already introduced the disabled person's tax credit, which was raised still further in yesterday's Budget. This offers a lower income taper and a higher income threshold, together with improved help with childcare costs, thus making it more generous than the disability working allowance that came into being while my noble friend Lord Carter and I were sitting on the Opposition Benches in 1991.
To my delight, the working families' tax credit pays a double child credit to families with disabled children and is worth some £25 million to 25,000 families with a disabled child. We shall also introduce a disability income guarantee from April 2001 for the poorest disabled people with the greatest care need. This will provide nearly £6 a week extra for single disabled adults and children and over £8 a week for couples. Again, that will provide more assistance.
Although its payments are not strictly benefit, we have also recently—and this is at the heart of tonight's debate—made changes to the Independent Living Fund. I should like to spend a little time on this. The funds provide valuable assistance to help seriously
392
disabled people, who might otherwise be in residential care, to live independently in their own homes. I know, because disabled people have told me, how ILF moneys have turned their lives around. They have allowed disabled people to be at the centre of their own lives, to discover or rediscover spontaneity and to make decisions rather than having decisions made for them. For example, they allow people to decide when they want to go to bed, when they want to stay up late, and so on—indeed, everything that we associate with adulthood and take for granted.
Noble Lords raised the issue tonight of the upper limit on ILF care packages and the question of means testing, to which I shall return. However, my concerns are perhaps just a little different. The need and demand for independent living for disabled people is both overwhelming and humbling. Yet, ILF moneys—some £2 million, as my noble friend Lord Morris said—remain unspent. Nevertheless, 70 per cent of claims to the ILF are successful.
So why, taking just the 1993 fund as an example, is there so much discrepancy from place to place? Why is it that Wrexham in Wales has 77 clients on ILF per 100,000 of the population and Wakefield has three? Why has Coventry 25 per 100,000 and Kirklees two? Why has Rotherham 31 per 100,000 and Rutland no one at all? Why are not social services departments and disability organisations publicising the ILF, or helping us to publicise the ILF, more effectively? The trustees are giving presentations to local authorities, including the low take-up authorities. They have given 173 presentations since April 1998. But it is slow and hard work.
The limits on the maximum payments the funds can make have been increased and a new, more generous disregard of earnings has been introduced. This means that those seriously disabled clients of the funds who are able to work can keep up to £76.50 a week extra, which greatly, and rightly, enhances the incentive to obtain and remain in employment. I could give many examples but I shall give just one. Before the changes this spring, Mr Baker, a family man earning £25,000 a year, with two children and a care package of £500 and a local authority contribution of £200, with average housing costs and so on, would have had to contribute £66 a week out of his income, together with half his DLA. As a result of our changes he now contributes nothing at all except for the half of DLA. He is £66 a week better off. This applies to single people on lower incomes and to household incomes all the way up. These are real improvements that should be acknowledged tonight. There are currently only about 100 of the funds' 15,000 clients who are in work, although they have dominated tonight's discussion. It is right that they should find that work pays.
Clearly, difficulties can arise when people's earnings increase over time, affecting their contributions to their care package. This may have occurred in the case of Mr Colin Hughes that was described by my noble friend Lord Morris. However, no further such case has yet emerged. I can and do assure the House that the

393
trustees and stiff of the ILF will approach any such situation and respond within the letter and the spirit of the trust deeds as sympathetically as possible.
However, it is only right that I make clear that on the basic question of means testing within the ILF regime—this was raised by most speakers tonight—the Government are still of the view that this remains appropriate, as it is for local authorities. The reason, of course, is that ILF came out of the supplementary benefit social security scheme. It has never not been means-tested. When income support was introduced in 1988, severely disabled people lost some of the premiums that they had previously been entitled to enjoy. I understand that the ILF was created to cater for their needs. They comprised a group which at the time numbered only a few hundred. ILF, and its predecessor, has always been embedded in a social security means-tested scheme. But, having said that, it is right that government should continue to keep under review the level of income and the point at which some contribution to care packages kicks in.
We recognise—this was also recognised by noble Lords tonight—that there is wide diversity in the charging regimes for home care operated by local authorities. This gives rise to excessive and unreasonable variations. We intend to address those inequities. The Audit Commission will report on this in May. We shall then consider how to tackle the problems in the Eight of its information on the extent of variations in local authority policies and, of course, will consult on the matter. We are determined to take steps so that the charges levied by local authorities on people needing assistance with personal care are both reasonable and based as far as possible on a consistent framework to ensure fairness. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, I add that our proposals for financing long-term care will be completed this summer and we aim to publish a White Paper for consultation on them.
My noble friend Lady Wilkins and, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, asked about portable personal assistance packages. The fair access to care services policy guidance makes clear that, while local authorities may not have identical criteria on packages, none the less the receiving local authority—if I can describe it thus—is expected to continue the care packages that the disabled person previously enjoyed. If it proposes to reduce it, that local authority must provide a clear written explanation.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the issue of transport. He is of course right about the needs of disabled people. That is why Motability has been so successful that it is now the largest car-leasing firm in Europe. I am sure that he will be pleased that this year the Government are virtually doubling the sum they contribute to the Motability equipment fund, which allows us to tailor a car to a person's individual need.
I move on to the services for disabled people reflected in the direct payments scheme, a scheme which many of us—including the noble Lord, Lord Carter, myself, the noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy de Knayth and Lady Masham, and the noble Earl,
394
Lord Russell—championed when in opposition. This scheme was introduced in 1997 to allow local authorities to make payments to people who would otherwise receive care commissioned directly by social services departments, to allow them to control and purchase their own care needs. As the user of one DP scheme in Surrey said:
"I feel like a human being again. I feel I have my own life back, secure and better generally in myself".
Another said:
"I feel that I am now free; free to enjoy life with the additional support I would like".
The scheme has grown steadily. Most local authorities—at least two-thirds—now offer direct payments. I hope that the remainder follow suit. I do not know why they do not. We want to see a much greater expansion of direct payments because I doubt whether more than a couple of thousand people are yet receiving such payments. We have changed the regulations so that people over the age of 65 are eligible; we shall be supporting the Private Member's Bill of Mr Tom Pendry in the other place to extend it to 16 and 17 year-olds; we are keen to see direct payments going to people with learning difficulties, with mental problems, with HIV and AIDS, and to others; and the Department of Health is publishing a booklet to help to explain the scheme to people with learning difficulties. But, as with ILF care packages, I ask your Lordships why direct payments are not being more widely deployed. If we mean what we say about ensuring that disabled people have the dignity of making financial choices, why are the opportunities offered by the ILF and direct payments schemes being neglected in local authority after local authority after local authority?
My noble friend Lord Ashley talked about the Gloucestershire judgment and referred to the Out of Service report, which I gather was launched today. I have not had the privilege of having a copy and therefore, as yet, I cannot properly comment on it. The Government have always recognised the right and responsibility of local authorities to determine the allocation of resources and to take into account their own resources in so doing. However, this does not mean that local authorities are under no obligation to provide such services. Pressed in part by the work of my noble friend, the Department of Health reminded local authorities of their obligation, their duty, to meet those service needs in Circular 13 issued in November 1997.
The hour is moving on. I could talk about the New Deal: the fact that 9,000 people have so far participated and that 2,500 people have been helped into work. It is true that £12 million has so far been spent, but the House will be pleased to know that £61 million is already committed. Obviously this money is over three years. I could talk about rights under the DDA; I could talk about the reduction to 5 people in the employment threshold and how we are gradually bringing this down, but I shall not do so tonight.

395
I am sure that all noble Lords are delighted to see in place a Disability Rights Commission which will work towards the elimination of discrimination against disabled people; which will promote the equalisation of opportunity for disabled people; which will take appropriate steps towards encouraging good practice; and which will advise the Government on the operation of the DDA. Those rights are the other side of the personal support and assistance packages. To conclude, disabled people have the right to be treated with respect and dignity and to have the same opportunities that we should all have to fulfil our potential.
Some noble Lords, particularly those in the "wheelchair brigade", if I may so describe them, have said that all too often disabled people can live their life on a knife-edge of uncertainty, fearful, as Jane Campbell said on the radio last week, that any day someone could take their hard fought for liberty away from them by withdrawing their personal support. My noble friend Lady Wilkins quoted one or two such people who thought at one point that they might have to go into a home. I remember someone saying to me that, as a result of being supported by direct payments from the Independent Living Fund, he had moved from being a dependant in residential care into a home of his own, to having a wife of his own, children of his own and a job of his own—and, as a result, a life of his own.
396
We recognise those rights. We still have a long way to go. We are working with the Disability Rights Commission. I know that your Lordships will continue, rightly and properly, to be vigilant in the cause of disabled people. I hope that the House will accept that, on the front of independent living and direct payments, there is the capacity and potential to do much more than is currently being done. I hope that people will join with the Government in seeking to ensure that all those disabled people who can take advantage of the Independent Living Fund and of direct payments, and as a result turn their lives around, will be encouraged to do so.
Lord Carter: My Lords, in moving the adjournment of the House, perhaps I may move slightly outside our normal procedure and say that in our final debate I had a strong sense of déjà vu. So many of the speakers had also taken part in the many debates on disability that we have had over the years, and in which I and my noble friend Lady Hollis had also taken part. As Chief Whip, I note with some alarm that your Lordships have lost none of that effectiveness in castigating the Government in which I used to take part with considerable enthusiasm. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before it gets worse!
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past ten o'clock.

  EU Meat Plants: Veterinary Supervision
  EU Meat Plants: Veterinary Supervision
  Organic Milk Quota Restrictions
  Organic Milk Quota Restrictions
  Cattle Feed: Permitted Ingredients
  Cattle Feed: Permitted Ingredients
  Press Freedom
  Press Freedom
  Sudan: Oil Revenues
  Sudan: Oil Revenues
  Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
  Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
  Sudan: Bombing of Civilians
  Sudan: Bombing of Civilians
  Sudan: Displacements
  Sudan: Displacements
  Black Detained Patients
  Black Detained Patients
  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy: Sterilisation
  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy: Sterilisation
  Merrywood School
  Merrywood School
  School Performance Comparison Exercise
  School Performance Comparison Exercise
  Religious Education Policy: Legality
  Religious Education Policy: Legality
  Mexico: Trade Prospects
  Mexico: Trade Prospects
  UK Motor Vehicle Exports and Imports
  UK Motor Vehicle Exports and Imports
  Staff Officer's Handbook
  Staff Officer's Handbook