Sitting of 28 March 2000

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time on Tuesday 4 April.
GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS BILL (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Tuesday 4 April.

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

    Beta Interferon
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: What estimate he has made of the additional cost to the NHS of permitting prescription of beta interferon wherever clinically indicated. [115148]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): No estimate has been made, since opinions vary about when beta interferon is clinically indicated. We have referred beta interferon to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, and we expect to receive its draft report at the end of May.
    Mr. Stunell: I am sure that, in the next 60 minutes, we will hear several times about the large amounts of money going into the NHS. Will the Minister give an undertaking that when the decision on beta interferon is made, affordability will not be a barrier, and that treatment levels of the drug will rise to the European level of 12 per cent. against the current 3 per cent?
    Mr. Denham: It is for NICE to give guidance on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of beta interferon to enable us to make the best use of resources. It remains, as it always has been, the responsibility of Ministers to determine the level of resources available in the NHS.
    202
    I am particularly pleased that, in last week's Budget, a substantial increase in resources for the NHS was announced.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Has the Minister seen the league tables in The Mirror today which show the health authority provision of medicines and drugs, with a variety of provision for beta interferon? Some areas are not supplied, some are partially supplied and some are fully supplied. What lessons does my hon. Friend draw from that information?
    Mr. Denham: I draw the lesson that the Conservative party is the mother and father of the postcode lottery in care. The following of the guidance on the prescription of beta interferon, which was introduced by the previous Government, remains, and has led to this situation. I am pleased that this Government have been able to set up NICE, which will tackle the postcode lottery of care, and that we have been able to announce a substantial increase in resources for the NHS to enable spending on the treatment of patients to increase.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: The national health service is supposed to be precisely that—national. Multiple sclerosis patients have a right to expect that, where it is clinically approved, they should have the drug of their choice. When will the Minister take charge of the situation, and not use NICE as a cop-out?
    Mr. Denham: The hon. Lady must know that the guidance currently being followed by the NHS was introduced several years ago by the previous Administration. It is precisely because the Government were not happy with that situation that we created NICE. We referred beta interferon to it as one of its first year's programmes of work. We look forward to receiving advice later this summer, as this is the only way in which we can tackle the postcode lottery of care from which so many people are suffering.
    Mr. Nick Ainger: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is another drug, prostocyclin, with the same problems as beta interferon, in that health authorities cannot afford to pay for it? As a result, patients are dying. In the United States, the same British-made drug is four times cheaper than it is here. Is not the solution that those high-priced drugs with relatively small use are modulated, in that their prices drop to an affordable level while the general price of drugs provided by the same drug company is slightly increased? If so, the price to the NHS would remain the same; we would not have postcode prescribing; and, in the case of prostocyclin, patients would live.
    Mr. Denham: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concerns about the use of prostocyclin for pulmonary hypertension. This drug has not been licensed to treat that condition, which means that it is prescribable only on a named-patient basis. That means that it is being prescribed in small numbers, and there are not the economies of scale that are seen in America, where the drug is more widely licensed. In general, US drug prices are some 70 per cent. higher than in the NHS. The pharmaceutical price regulation scheme will save some £200 million in the coming year from the drugs budget, which will become

    203
    resources that are available for the NHS to treat patients. Treatment of the condition is being considered by the national specialist commissioning advisory group at present.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: The fact that affordability was slipped into the criteria used by NICE by virtue of a statutory instrument amending the Health Act 1999 would mean that NICE, in deciding on treatments such as beta interferon, could be at odds with the Secretary of State, who said on 8 March:
    "I take decisions about affordability."—[Official Report, 8 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 1022.]
    If NICE agrees that beta interferon is an effective treatment, will the Minister still stand in the way by saying that it is not affordable to the NHS?
    Mr. Denham: As I have already said, the ultimate determinant of affordability is the level of resources available to the national health service. I am very proud that, over the next four years, this Government are committed to putting a level of resources into the national health service that will be twice the rate of increase achieved by the previous Conservative Government, under whose stewardship so many of the problems arose. If a Conservative Government were returned to power, they would return to a policy of postcode lottery and underfunding. They would promote a policy of forcing patients to buy their own drugs.

    Health Action Zones
    Mr. Michael Clapham: What assessment he has made of the improvements brought about by health action zones. [115149]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Our own monitoring of health action zones and independent evaluations both show that the extra resources that we have committed to them are helping them to modernise health services and tackle health inequalities. Today, I am making further funds available for health authorities in health action zone areas, and for authorities in all parts of the country.
    A total of £600 million is being allocated today from the extra resources that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced for the NHS in his Budget. The new resources will put local health services on a sound financial footing. They will help in preparing better for winter, in tackling waiting lists and waiting times, and in putting NICE recommendations into action.
    I am directing health authorities to pass all the money directly to primary care groups, which in turn will pass it on to NHS trusts and hospitals, so that patients feel the benefit in better, faster front-line services. There will also be a bonus fund of £60 million to reward good performance in achieving local targets.
    I am writing today to all hon. Members, including those in health action zone areas, with details of these extra funds.
    Mr. Clapham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and I especially welcome the new resources that he is to make available to health action zones. The health
    204
    action zone in South Yorkshire that covers the coalfield areas is running a number of progressive projects that are improving health and reducing health inequalities.
    I hear what my right hon. Friend says about the money going straight to primary care groups, but will he ensure that there is a close working relationship between the PCGs and the health action zones so that, in tandem, they can tackle the priorities identified in the health improvement plan?
    Mr. Milburn: I am aware of the work of the health action zone in my hon. Friend's constituency—indeed, I think that I launched it a couple of years ago. I am glad that it is making progress, and that my hon. Friend is closely involved with it.
    I can assure my hon. Friend that we want the health action zones, the primary care groups, the NHS trusts, the health authorities and the local authorities to work very closely in tandem. We want there to be one care system in future, rather than the competing care systems that may have existed in the past.
    I can further assure my hon. Friend that I have a very clear message for the health service. The Government have provided the extra resources that were being demanded for the national health service. The challenge now, for health services in my hon. Friend's area and elsewhere, is to use that money to good effect, to get it to the front line, and to start to make a difference that patients can see.
    Mrs. Marion Roe: I was most interested in that reply from the Secretary of State, but I should be even more interested to hear his response to the findings contained in the report entitled "The Widening Gap". It found that the areas selected for health action zones are vague, and that they are not based on greatest health needs. What is the right hon. Gentleman's response to that?
    Mr. Milburn: If the hon. Lady had bothered to visit the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham)—who I think would be very happy to extend an invitation and where I am sure that she would be extremely welcome—she would understand about health inequalities and the sort of problems that my hon. Friend's constituents face. The Government are determined to achieve two things. First, we aim to improve the health of the population overall, which of course is the right thing to do. Secondly, we aim to improve the health of the worst off at a faster rate—precisely in order to narrow the health inequalities that are a scar on our nation.
    Mrs. Linda Gilroy: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham). He is very welcome to visit the health action zone in Plymouth, as is the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), who seemed so sceptical about its ability to deliver.
    Last Friday, we launched a parents forum in Plymouth. My right hon. Friend earlier mentioned partnership values: does he agree that it is very important to involve parents in the future health of their children?
    Mr. Milburn: I welcome the initiative with which my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton

    205
    (Mrs. Gilroy)—and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson)—are closely involved. I have to keep on the side of the Whips, Madam Speaker, because otherwise I will get into dreadful trouble.
    There is an important lesson for the health service in general here. In the future, we want to see much better engagement, not just with parents but with patients. After all, that is what the national health service exists to do—to provide services for patients. In the health action zones, and in other parts of the country, now that the NHS has the resources that it was calling for—the significant increases in funding at historic levels on a sustained basis—we want to see a real engagement, not just nationally but locally, with patients organisations, so that patients receive the services they deserve.
    Dr. Peter Brand: I am sure that the Secretary of State will accept that all the country is a health action zone of one type or another, and that much work has been done to create the health improvement programmes that are the basis of health delivery in a given locality. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the criteria set for the money flowing down into localities, and the bonus payments, will be local criteria, accepted by the Secretary of State as part of his health improvement programme, but that the determination of the flow of money will be made locally rather than at Richmond house?
    Mr. Milburn: I should explain to the hon. Gentleman that today I am making available two sources of extra funding for the national health service from the money that the Chancellor announced last Tuesday. First, there is £600 million extra for the NHS to deal with the very real service pressures that the hon. Gentleman, and others, have been banging on about for some time. That money was called for by the NHS Confederation the weekend before the Budget statement. It is to deal with the issues of winter, waiting, and getting back into financial balance. On top of that, a further £60 million is available, but that is dependent on good performance. Frankly, once we provide these extra significant levels of resources—twice the level of real-terms growth that we have seen in the NHS over the past 25 to 30 years—there should no longer be any excuse for poor performance. Patients in every part of the country want excellence, not excuses, and the new fund is designed to incentivise good performance.

    Personal Social Services
    Helen Jackson: What steps the Government are taking to improve the quality of personal social services. [115150]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): We are taking a range of measures to improve the quality of personal social services. Our quality protects programme is improving quality and consistency in children's services. The Care Standards Bill will establish a new independent regulatory system in residential care homes, so improving standards in care settings. Our new performance assessment system will, for the first time, provide a national benchmark by which we can measure change. We shall also be consulting in
    206
    the very near future on a quality strategy to plan a range of further steps that we wish to take in improving the quality of personal social services.
    Helen Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. I also welcome the commitment to extra resources that we heard last week in the Chancellor's statement. Does my hon. Friend agree that vulnerable citizens, whether they are elderly, children, physically or mentally disabled, need the assistance of personal social services, and that they, in particular, need to be treated as individuals? That requires a professionalism about the provision, whether it is delivered by the public, private or voluntary sector. In areas where there is a mixture, how will my hon. Friend ensure that those standards of quality and professionalism are delivered across the board in personal social services?
    Mr. Hutton: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of additional resources. She will be aware that we are increasing the total resources available to local authorities in England for personal social services spending at twice the rate of inflation. That is important. However, my hon. Friend is also right that it is not just a question of resources, which is why the Government have developed a new approach to raising the standards of care provided in social services departments. It is totally unacceptable that similar authorities have a completely different range of outcomes in relation to the services that they provide.
    I also agree strongly with my hon. Friend about the need to improve the protection for vulnerable citizens against abuse. That is why last week we launched a new drive to protect vulnerable adults from the risk of abuse. It is a very serious problem, and we are determined to work with local authorities to provide better protection for our vulnerable citizens.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: I welcome the Minister's comments on protecting the vulnerable against abuse, but is he aware of the concern among nursing homes in East Kent caused by his "Fit for the Future?" document, especially some of its more bureaucratic provisions, which have been cited as the reason for the closure of one nursing home already? Is he further aware of the impact that the programme is likely to have on bed blocking in the acute hospital sector? Two of our three hospitals have this very week been closed for a while to new admissions.
    Mr. Hutton: Yes, I am aware of the concerns that he and other hon. Members from Kent have made about "Fit for the Future?" It is inappropriate to say that "Fit for the Future" is the reason why homes are closing, because it is not in operation yet and is unlikely to be so for several years to come. We are making it clear to care home providers that, whatever decisions we eventually make about the national minimum required standards, those standards will be fair, affordable and realistic. We have no intention of driving good care home providers out of the sector. Far from it, good care home providers have absolutely nothing to fear from "Fit for the Future?"

    Student Nurses
    Mr. Brian White: What steps he has taken to increase the number of student nurses. [115152]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): We have increased the number of nurse training places and we have increased pay for nurses and midwives. As a result, we have also increased the number of applicants for training. Last year, over 70 per cent. more people applied for nurse training courses.
    Mr. White: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of a problem that a number of student nurses have brought to my attention? When they come back to training, they have an interaction with the benefits systems that cause them problems. One constituent was promised that she could continue to receive the working families tax credit, but when she became a student nurse, she found that she could not.
    Mr. Milburn: I am aware of some of those problems. As my hon. Friend is aware, a review of the NHS bursary schemes through which student nurses are paid is under way. I can reassure my hon. Friend that the review is taking place not only inside the Department of Health, but in conjunction with our colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Social Security.
    Dr. Liam Fox: Can the Secretary of State tell us how much money the Government will save as a result of the decision to cut travel allowances for student nurses on clinical placement?
    Mr. Milburn: I am not aware of the amount of money that we will save, but the investment that we are making in nurse training and in expanding the number of nurses in the NHS is good news for patients and good news for nurses, and stands in marked contrast to the cuts in nurse training places and in the number of nurses that we saw under the Conservative Government.
    Dr. Fox: It is clear that the Secretary of State does not understand that his Department is cutting travel allowances for some of the poorest nurses currently on clinical placement. That is proving a great hardship. If the right hon. Gentleman had contacted the Royal College of Nursing, he would have been more aware of it.
    The Secretary of State might know the answer to my next question because I gave him notice of it in the debate last week. It is clear that the Chancellor's announcement of 15,000 nurses was untrue. The Secretary of State talks about 10,000. Over what time scale will they be recruited? Will there be 10,000 whole-time nurse posts or 10,000 nurses in total, with some working part-time? If the number is 10,000 in total, how many full-time posts do the Government intend them to fill?
    Mr. Milburn: I have in front of me what the Chancellor told the House last Tuesday. He said two things. He said that, with the extra resources and the reforms that were still to come, we would be able to recruit at least 10,000 more nurses next year and the year after and that, as a consequence of the historic levels of
    208
    funding that we had put into the NHS, there would be even more nurses to come. That stands in marked contrast to what happened under the previous Government. The number of nurse training places was cut. The number of qualified nurses fell. We are now beginning to turn the corner on nurse shortages. There are now 4,500 more nurses working in the NHS today than just a year ago. If the hon. Gentleman had any sense whatever, he would welcome the extra resources and nurses that the Government are putting into the NHS.
    Dr. Fox: Two questions; no answers. The Secretary of State does not know that he is cutting nurses' allowances, and he is unable to answer—for a second time—detailed questions that the RCN has put to him in writing. He betrays the fact that the Government are making it up as they go along. What a bunch of waffle.
    When the new nurses join the NHS, which I welcome, they will find it packed by the Secretary of State with Labour placemen. They will find a twilight world of deceptions and bullying in which bed numbers have been cut by 9,000 since Labour came to power. They were told that all NHS units would be modernised—untrue. The Chancellor said that there would be 15,000 more nurses—untrue. The Prime Minister told the House that spending on the NHS would be 7.6 per cent. of gross domestic product—untrue. What sort of ethical signal does it send to those joining the NHS when those at the top cannot be trusted to tell the truth on any subject?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are becoming excited, so I shall leave some basic facts with them. From 1 April, an extra £600 million will go into the NHS—delivered by Labour, opposed by the Tories. The NHS will receive an extra £2 billion for the next financial year—delivered by Labour, opposed by the Tories. The NHS will receive an extra 6.3 per cent. in real terms over the next four years—delivered by Labour, opposed by the Tories. The NHS will receive an extra 50 per cent. in real terms over five years—delivered by Labour, opposed by the Tories. The truth is that the Tories are desperate to talk of spinning because they cannot match our spending. They have made their choice about the NHS, public spending and taxation policy—tax perks for the privileged, not a health service for the people.

    Mental Health Services (Racism)
    Dr. Ian Gibson: What studies he has undertaken of the incidence of racism in mental health services. [115153]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): Last year, the Department of Health and the Royal College of Psychiatrists jointly produced a detailed study into ethnicity and mental health. It recognised the problems of racism and set out practical solutions to problems identified in clinical practice. These have been reflected in the national service framework for mental health as we have sought to address specific needs of black and ethnic minority mental health service users.
    Dr. Gibson: I congratulate my hon. Friend. At last, a Government are taking mental health services seriously

    209
    after years of neglect, and are resourcing those services. Is my hon. Friend aware of the MIND charity report that contains evidence that mental health services discriminate against black and minority ethnic communities? Is he aware that a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) died under restraint procedures in a hospital in my constituency, and that an inquest is still awaited a year and a half later?
    Mr. Hutton: My hon. Friend makes two points. First, we recognise the need to improve mental health services. That is why they are one of my Department's major priorities. We are introducing significant new reforms to mental health services, backed by significant new resources. Many people from black minority populations feel that they do not receive a fair deal from mental health services. Many parts of the national service framework try to address their concerns, including those on primary and non-institutional care, and that will benefit patients from black minority ethnic backgrounds.
    Secondly, on David Bennett, we should all wish to express our regret about his death to his family. My hon. Friend will be aware that that death remains the subject of a police inquiry, and the coroner's inquest will not be held until the inquiry has been completed. Under those circumstances, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on that tragic incident.
    Mr. John Bercow: Has the Minister discussed his concern about racism in the provision of mental health services with the Home Secretary in the context of the recent Second Reading of the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill?
    Mr. Hutton: Yes, these matters are discussed across government. We must address that serious issue. There is a temptation among some Opposition Members—the hon. Gentleman may not have fallen into the trap—to pretend that there is no issue relating to black people's access to mental health services. We are determined to address problems, and we are doing so seriously. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to support us.

    Financial Allocation Formula
    Mr. Mike Gapes: What plans he has to review the financial allocation formula for health authorities. [115154]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): A review of the formula is already under way. We want a fairer formula that contributes to our goal of reducing health inequalities. All parts of the NHS will benefit from the cash boost announced last week. Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority's share of the first £660 million is more than £6 million. That will give the health authority an 8.23 per cent. cash increase for the coming year.
    Mr. Gapes: My hon. Friend's announcement of extra money will be most welcome in Redbridge and Waltham Forest. However, does he agree that the existing allocations formula, with its staff market forces factor, causes difficulties for several London health authorities for whom there is a distinct cliff edge between one authority and its neighbour? Will he look closely at the
    210
    impact of higher wages in the City of London? Those high wages mean that, because of the formula, people in outer-London boroughs lose out financially.
    Mr. Denham: The advisory committee that is considering the formula is examining many issues; for example, market forces; rurality; and the number of the older population. They must all be taken into account; it will be some time before there is any prospect of a change to the formula.
    However, with the additional £6 million, on top of the large increase in resources already announced for next year, the key priority for the health authority, the trust, and, indeed, for my hon. Friend, must be to ensure that every penny is used effectively, so that we do not just spend more money in his area but modernise the health service and improve services to patients.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the serious difficulty that has arisen in West Sussex as a result of the extremely bad funding arrangement for West Sussex county council? That has left many geriatric beds in hospitals blocked with people who should rightfully be cared for in old people's homes. Will the hon. Gentleman liaise with his colleagues in other Departments to see what help can be given to West Sussex county council to overcome that problem? It has led to the council being unable to cope with its obligations.
    Mr. Denham: I hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I am not familiar with the details of the situation in West Sussex, although I know that social services departments throughout England received a good increase in their standing spending assessments last year. I shall look into his particular concerns.
    However, the additional £9.95 million of health resources heading to the West Sussex health authority, under the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today, will make a significant difference. Among the matters that we have suggested that health authorities should consider is the development of intermediate care provision—to offer that bridge between hospital and home that can prevent bed blocking.
    If the hon. Gentleman really believes that that amount is not enough, he should look back at the record of the previous Government. During 18 years, they never dreamt of investing in the health service in that way.
    Mr. David Hinchliffe: Do the allocation arrangements mentioned by the Secretary of State today, which bypass health authorities, indicate some thinking about the possible future role of those authorities?
    Mr. Denham: We simply wanted to achieve one important effect: we want the money to be spent on real services and not on red tape. We want to put it into the hands of front-line doctors and nurses in primary care groups, who, in any case, would have been responsible for commissioning at least 60 per cent. of services from this April. By making it clear that the money must go into front-line services for patients, we can ensure that the extra investment will have the fastest possible impact on real patients and their treatment in the health service.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: Can the Minister give the House an assurance that he will

    211
    use the allocation of £600 million to address the grotesque distortions in funding between NHS areas? That distortion means that, for example, in my constituency, where NHS spending is just £615 per head, the percentage of patients waiting for 12 months or more for surgery is 10 times higher than in the Secretary of State's constituency, where NHS spending is £730 per head—nearly 20 per cent. higher than in mine.
    Mr. Denham: In answer to an earlier question, I said that a review of the allocation formula was under way. It will consider a wide range of factors. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting that a Conservative Government would wish to adopt a purely per capita system of funding that took no account of, for example, providing services in rural areas, inequalities in health needs or the size of health populations, that is astonishing. Such an approach would amount to a huge shift of resources away from those people who suffer most from ill health and who die earlier towards those areas where health provision is best. Some changes may be necessary to the allocation formula in relation to a range of issues. However, the hon. Gentleman should think again about going in the direction that he suggested.

    Meningitis (Yorkshire)
    Mr. John Healey: If he will make a statement on progress with the new immunisation programme against meningitis C-type in Yorkshire. [115155]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): The first phase of the new meningococcal group C vaccine programme in Yorkshire and across the country is progressing well. We are on target to offer the vaccine to all under-18s by the end of this year. I welcome the hard work of those across the national health service and that of the manufacturers who have done so much to put the programme in place so quickly.
    Mr. Healey: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. She will remember the three local teenage deaths in nine days last winter from the C-type killer. Is she, therefore, aware of the strong support in Rotherham for the Government's determination to make the United Kingdom the first country in the world to use this new vaccine in a national immunisation programme? Will she pay tribute to the health authority, the schools and other local agencies in Rotherham which together have achieved 91 per cent. coverage among the vulnerable 15 to 17-year-olds in schools? In particular, Rawmarsh comprehensive has achieved a 99 per cent. immunisation rate. Will she confirm that we have not seen such figures for any vaccination programme for that age group in the past?
    Yvette Cooper: I certainly pay tribute to the work done in Rotherham and to the high take-up rates that have been achieved. I am pleased to tell the House of the impact of the meningitis C vaccination programme so far. The data we have suggest that the new vaccine has already cut winter cases in the groups who were immunised first by 75 per cent. and that the number of tragic deaths from meningitis C in those age groups has fallen already. That proves how right my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was, as the former
    212
    Secretary of State for Health, to take the decision to bring in the vaccine as rapidly as possible and far more quickly than many people thought possible.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister ensure that there is proper publicity, so that everyone who is eligible for the vaccine will be assured of it within a year? Will she join me in encouraging hospital staff and medical care workers generally to have the vaccinations to which they are also entitled?
    Yvette Cooper: I welcome the hon. Lady's support for the meningitis C vaccination programme. We have already begun television advertising to make people aware of the programme. Vaccinations for children of school age are being carried out in schools, and awareness in schools is also important.
    Mr. Kevin Barron: Despite the excellent targets that are being met in the schools in Rotherham, some people are excluded from the programme. Will my hon. Friend ensure that there are means of contacting people who are not in schools, so that as many people as possible receive the vaccinations? Through my hon. Friend the Minister, may I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who spent a lot of time and energy when he was at the Department of Health making sure that we had the type of protection that our country and our children deserve?
    Yvette Cooper: I certainly support my hon. Friend's remarks. It is worth reinforcing the point that we are the first country in the world to have this vaccination programme in place. It is a tribute to the work of the NHS that we have managed to do that. My hon. Friend is right to say that there are groups of people—particularly 15 to 17-year-olds who are not in school—that we want to find other ways to reach. The under-fives and the 15 to 17-year-olds who are not at school will be reached through their general practitioners, but we are keen to make further progress on that in future.

    Heart Disease
    Fiona Mactaggart: What priority he will give to areas with high levels of heart disease in allocating new resources for improving cardiac care and surgery. [115156]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): The national service framework, which I published earlier this month, is a 10-year programme of action, which will mean that everyone can get top-quality coronary heart disease services wherever they live. As a first step, the extra £50 million to increase heart operations is being distributed using a formula that takes account of deaths from heart disease.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Under the Conservative Government, the town that I represent, despite being in the prosperous south-east, became unhealthier. It is one of the top 10 towns in the country for deaths from coronary heart disease among people aged over 65. Unlike the rest of the country, in Slough the rate of increase for deaths from

    213
    CHD is continuing. I am glad that the targeted £50 million will be connected to deaths from heart disease. May I take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend for that money? That sum, together with the £600 million that he announced earlier, will mean that Slough, where people have been allowed to die for 20 years because of the ignorance of those who were not focusing on the health needs of the community, will no longer have the only district general hospital in the country without a dedicated coronary care unit.
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I think that all right hon. and hon. Members are aware that, by international standards, we have a high incidence of coronary heart disease in the United Kingdom compared with other developed nations. There is also an unfortunate coincidence in that the very parts of the country that often have the highest levels of coronary heart disease often have the lowest levels of cardiac surgery interventions. That is something that we must put right. We must get resources into the right places. That is the right and fair thing to do.
    As for cardiac services, we shall be rolling out the new mechanisms described in the national service framework first into the areas where they are needed most, precisely to deal with some of the big health problems and to narrow the health inequalities that my hon. Friend describes.
    Mr. Michael Jack: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the cardiac thoracic unit at the Blackpool Victoria hospital on its excellent work in increasing patient throughput and on the quality of the surgery that it has performed? Will he take this opportunity to remove the cloud of doubt that hangs over the future of the unit? It is much needed in Blackpool and Fylde, and the doubt must be removed. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that, in his distribution of moneys, the North West Lancashire health authority has sufficient funds to ensure that patient throughput can again rise at Blackpool?
    Mr. Milburn: As I understand it, the issue about the unit to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is out for consultation. It is a matter that will need to go through the appropriate mechanisms, and it will be determined locally. If it is referred to me, I shall examine it carefully.
    Mr. Dennis Turner: I understand that my right hon. Friend is currently considering demand projections for a fourth cardiac unit in the west midlands. In Wolverhampton, we have not only the highest number of deaths from cardiac disease in the west midlands but the lowest level of access to surgery in the west midlands. Will my right hon. Friend give sympathetic consideration to a new cardiac unit being sited in Wolverhampton?
    Mr. Milburn: I am not aware of the particular local circumstances. If my hon. Friend cares to write to me, I shall examine carefully the issues that he has raised. It is important that all right hon. and hon. Members understand that we have severe capacity problems with our cardiac services and units. As a result of decades of neglect of cardiac services, we have only 170 cardiac surgeons in the NHS in England. We are expanding the
    214
    numbers pretty rapidly by more than 100 during the next five or six years. That will be an increase of about 60 per cent.
    Progress is dependent on the number of surgeons that we have, and it will take time to train them. However, no one should doubt our commitment to increase the number of cardiac surgeons available and to increase the number of heart operations that we are able to carry out. Equally, and in some ways even more significantly, we are committed to nipping some of these problems in the bud. We must get the right emphasis on treatment and on prevention.
    Dr. Evan Harris: Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that he is aware that it takes more than surgeons, welcome though they will be, to perform cardiac surgery? Will he guarantee funding for intensive-care and high-dependency beds and the anaesthetists who will be needed to increase the number of operations being done?
    Mr. Milburn: It is not only those members of staff who are necessary, important though they are. We also need cardiac nurses and other back-up staff, who will be extremely important. The hon. Gentleman is aware that if we are to expand the capacity of major services to deal with our country's biggest killers—coronary heart disease and cancer—we require an expansion in the number of staff, including doctors, nurses and therapists. That of course requires an increase in the number of available beds, but as I have said to the hon. Gentleman before, it is pretty easy to get beds; it is harder to get trained staff, and I am afraid that it takes time.

    Infliximab
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: When the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will examine the drug infliximab. [115157]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham)rose—
    Mr. Owen Paterson: What about Gisela? Give her a go.
    Madam Speaker: Order. That is disgraceful, juvenile behaviour. I call the Minister.
    Mr. Denham: We are considering a number of possible topics for appraisal by NICE during the year 2000–01, and an announcement will be made as soon as possible.
    Mr. Robathan: Crohn's disease is an extremely unpleasant condition, which is not terribly common but common enough for those who suffer from it. Infliximab, which was licensed last August, appears to be a very effective treatment for many cases. Does the Minister remember the remarks of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—then a Minister of State—on 30 June 1998? He said:
    As of now, no one will be denied the drugs that they need. That is a guarantee.—[Official Report, 30 June 1998; Vol. 315, c. 143.]

    215
    Could he explain to Crohn's disease sufferers in my constituency and throughout the country why they are being denied infliximab and why, when they ask for it, they are told that it has not yet been evaluated by NICE? That seems to them to be rationing by proxy, and they would like to be given the drugs that they need and which their consultants believe they need.
    Mr. Denham: In preparation for this question, I have endeavoured to establish whether any parts of the country are experiencing problems in the prescribing of that drug for Crohn's disease, and I am assured that in the great majority of health authorities, including Leicestershire, treatment with infliximab is now being funded in appropriate cases. If doubt about that remains, the hon. Gentleman may want to contact me. He will of course welcome the additional £11.3 million of resources that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has allocated to Leicestershire today—at least I hope that he will welcome it—because that will undoubtedly enable the health authority to meet a variety of patient needs, including increased drug costs.

    Private Finance Initiative
    Dr. Lynne Jones: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of private finance for health capital projects. [115158]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The private finance initiative option for every national health service capital investment project must demonstrate that, overall, it is better value for money when compared to the publicly funded alternative, the public sector comparator. Under this Government, 18 major hospital PFI schemes worth nearly £1.4 billion have been approved and are currently under construction. That is the biggest capital investment in the history of the national health service.
    Dr. Jones: My hon. Friend will be aware that approval in principle has been given for a new hospital to replace the Selly Oak and Queen Elizabeth hospitals in south Birmingham. Although there is considerable public support for the new hospital, there is anxiety that the additional cost of private finance could lead to the provision of fewer beds and a reduced service.
    I note my hon. Friend's reply, but the Select Committees on Health and on the Treasury have exposed the lack of rigour and transparency in the assessment of value for money of private finance schemes. Will my hon. Friend assure my constituents that those problems will not arise in the case of our hospital, and that if, after a fair evaluation, it is found that the public sector comparator offers best value, adequate public capital will be made available so that our hospital can go ahead?
    Mr. Hutton: We have not yet received the outline business case on the investment in Birmingham to which my hon. Friend referred. However, I hope that I can allay some of her fears about the issues that she has raised. In total, the first wave of major PFI schemes will provide slightly more beds than would have been the case if they had been built under the conventional public capital method.
    216
    May I also remind my hon. Friend that the Government commissioned Arthur Andersen to examine PFI projects? That report, published in January this year, showed that, on average, PFI projects were delivering savings of 17 per cent. over traditional forms of procurement. The evidence of value for money certainly exists, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming the recent finding of the Select Committee on the Treasury that
    the promotion of PFI projects has clearly led to a considerable and welcome increase in investment in our hospitals.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: The Minister may know that it was private finance alone that built the breast cancer unit at the Glenfield hospital in Leicestershire, and that it was the Secretary of State for Health's predecessor who opened the unit last November. It is now threatened with closure. When will the Minister, on behalf of the entire ministerial team, be able to make a pronouncement about the future of the unit? I appreciate that the magic word "consultation" is being bandied about, but the people of Leicestershire and of the Trent region need to know the Government's attitude towards the future of that hospital.
    Mr. Hutton: If changes in services are proposed in the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency or anywhere else, there must be proper public consultation. If issues are raised in the course of that consultation—for example, if a community health council opposed the service reconfigurations that were being proposed—it would be for Ministers eventually to decide the outcome of that process. We are not there yet, but there will be plenty of opportunity for the hon. and learned Gentleman to raise those concerns with me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in future months.
    Mr. Andrew Reed: Does my hon. Friend accept that the public sector route has a vital role to play in rebuilding our national health service, and that we should not rely on private finance initiatives alone? On that basis, may I thank him and the rest of the team for financing the £9.5 million Loughborough hospital, which will start work this summer and is financed solely by the public sector? Will my hon. Friend visit that site, along with the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who visited it recently, to see Labour delivering its health promises?
    Mr. Hutton: That is probably an invitation that I shall not be able to turn down, so I look forward to visiting my hon. Friend's constituency. Ultimately, what is important is what works, and what delivers the new investments and the new capital projects for the NHS on time and on budget. The PFI has an outstandingly good record on delivering those projects on time and on budget, but of course my hon. Friend is right to say that a significant amount of investment is still taking place through the traditional public sector capital route, and that will continue to be the case.
    Mr. David Davis: I am glad to hear the Minister speak of the 17 per cent. advantage that an average PFI project has. As he has just commented, such projects are also significantly faster than the public sector route. Given that one of his problems with the extra money that he has will be capacity increase,

    217
    can we look forward to a dramatic increase in the use of PFI to accelerate the increase in capacity in the health service?
    Mr. Hutton: We want an expanded role for the private finance initiative. However, what matters not just for the right hon. Gentleman's constituents who are patients of the national health service, but for his constituents who are taxpayers as well, is that whatever route we take and whichever way we deliver new capital investment projects for the NHS, the system provides value for money. The PFI has shown its worth, and we are making sure that it will continue to play that role in future.
    Mr. John Smith: I, too, welcome my hon. Friend's comments on the effective use of PFI. What counts is what works. Does he suspect, as I do, that civil servants are sometimes reluctant to consider other uses of private finance initiatives, not just for capital projects but for the shared use of facilities and other imaginative proposals that could allow us to retain vital health services in smaller hospitals, which have sometimes been under-utilised? I am sure that there are plenty of good ideas out there, but I sometimes sense a reluctance to push ahead with them.
    Mr. Hutton: I reassure my hon. Friend that we are in the market for new ideas. We are examining all sorts of ways of encouraging the closer partnerships to which he has drawn attention. I am particularly interested in making sure that, in relation to social services, for example, we encourage greater use of the PFI as a route to getting some of the important reinvestment that we need. There is a clear difference, is there not, between the Government, who have delivered that capital investment through the PFI route, and the Opposition, who spent almost 20 years talking about it, but never built a single hospital?

    Dentistry
    Mr. Mark Oaten: What plans he has to improve access to NHS dentistry. [115159]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart)rose—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Ms Stuart: I hope that Opposition Members will cheer equally loudly when they see the extra allocation for health authorities.
    The investing in dentistry initiative will generate up to 900,000 extra patient registrations, and by the end of this year there will be about 40 dental access centres in the areas that need them most. We are also implementing a new scheme to reward and extend dentists' commitment to the NHS.
    Mr. Oaten: Is the Minister aware that in large parts of the country it is almost impossible to gain access to an NHS dentist? How much of last week's new money will be spent on trying to reverse that trend?
    Ms Stuart: We now have a record number of extra dentists. In the last 12 months, the number has increased
    218
    by 480 to 17,746. The real issue, however, is not just the total number of dentists, but their commitment to the NHS. We have accepted all the recommendations of the doctors and dentists review body, which means a 3.3 per cent. increase in dentists' remuneration, along with the package rewarding extra commitment to the NHS. That amounts to some £17 million. In the current year, a total of some £50 million extra will be spent on NHS dentistry.
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: As my hon. Friend will know, following guidelines issued by the General Dental Council in 1998, the use of general anaesthesia in dental practices has virtually ceased. That, however, leaves the problem of patients who suffer from anxiety which must be controlled. The best method is through sedation techniques, but the British Dental Association has pointed out that not enough dentists are trained in such techniques, and that there are not enough facilities for them to be trained. Is my hon. Friend aware of that, and, if so, can she say what the Government are going to do about it?
    Ms Stuart: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue. Because there is some anxiety in the profession, we have set up a review body which will shortly recommend guidelines on the best way in which to proceed.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I want to be kind to the hon. Lady. Will she join me in congratulating South Cheshire health authority on its proposal for a dental access scheme, which is currently out for consultation and which, if implemented—providing a new centre in Macclesfield, and others elsewhere—will dramatically increase the number of people who can gain access to NHS dentistry? Does she agree that healthy teeth can lead to a healthy nation?
    Ms Stuart: I am delighted that, in being kind, the hon. Gentleman did not feel that he had to be cruel first. I hope that he will welcome the extra allocation of more than 8 per cent. to his health authority.
    Some six dental access centres are currently in operation, and about 34 applications have been made. The centres will improve access for those who cannot be registered. We are also supporting the establishment of schemes in schools to encourage them to register with dentists in areas where fluoride is not regularly put into the water. We also want to increase the use of such simple devices as tooth brushes. The hon. Gentleman is right: we must start with children, and healthy teeth are the beginning of overall health.

    Accident and Emergency Departments
    Mr. Bill Michie: How many accident and emergency departments are being improved as part of the modernisation programme; and if he will make a statement. [115160]
    Mr. Steve McCabe: How many accident and emergency departments are being modernised; and if he will make a statement. [115164]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): The £115 million capital investment in accident and emergency services is enabling 244 improvement schemes to be carried out in 182 hospital trusts in England.
    Mr. Michie: When considering the modernisation of accident and emergency units throughout the country, will my hon. Friend also consider the role of the ambulance service?
    Ms Stuart: My hon. Friend is right: the modernisation review, examining the way in which patients are treated in accident and emergency departments, must go much further, and ambulances play a vital role. As well as giving extra money to the ambulance service and implementing the modernisation programme, we are piloting schemes in parts of the country to separate category C calls, which are less urgent, from those involving the patients in greatest need. We want to ensure through NHS Direct that the ambulances that are needed most urgently to take such patients to accident and emergency units are used as effectively as possible.
    Mr. McCabe: Labour Members welcome the improvements to accident and emergency units. However, we are not simply considering facilities. Anyone who has recently visited an accident and emergency unit must be aware of the tremendous pressures on staff. What is the Minister doing to help the people whom we employ in accident and emergency units?
    Ms Stuart: My hon. Friend is right to say that as well as modernising the processes in accident and emergency units, we must recognise that our most valuable asset is the staff. Last October, we published a joint initiative with other Departments to support all hospitals in preventing violence, including attacks on staff. I recently visited Sandwell health authority, which has launched a successful anti-violence initiative. One of the most pleasing aspects was the announcement by the chair of the local bench that an assault on national health service staff would be considered an aggravating factor by magistrates sentencing in that area.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Time is up. I hope that the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) is happy, as he has heard a great deal from the Minister now.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Dr. Liam Fox: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Twice last week after the Prime Minister's statement on health, I raised a point of order about inaccuracies in the details that he gave. For example, he said that 7.6 per cent. of gross domestic product would be spent on the NHS. A Sunday newspaper confirmed that that figure was incorrect. "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" makes it clear that when misleading figures are given to the House, Ministers should provide a correct figure as soon as possible. Has the Prime Minister or any Minister suggested that that is to be done? It is disgraceful that figures are corrected in Sunday newspapers while the House is treated disdainfully.
Madam Speaker: If I understand the hon. Gentleman's point correctly, I believe that a correction is being made in answer to written question 11. I have also gained the impression that the hon. Gentleman may hear from the Prime Minister, although I am not clear about that. However, there is a question on the Order Paper that relates to the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. With characteristic honesty, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), said that 182 trusts would benefit from the modernisation programme for accident and emergency departments. However, the Department of Health issued a press release stating that all accident and emergency departments would be modernised. That is obviously an untruth. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. These are questions of argument, which I cannot resolve. If the hon. Gentleman has a genuine point, he should make it by using the Order Paper and tabling a question or an early-day motion to draw the Department's attention to it.
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Further to what my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said—
Madam Speaker: Order. I deal with one point of order at a time; I have dealt with that point. [Interruption.] Order. I am on my feet. Is the hon. Gentleman making a different point of order?
Mr. Bercow: Yes.
Madam Speaker: It is a different a point of order: therefore I must hear it.
Mr. Bercow: On 12 January, the Prime Minister wrongly told the House that 170,000 young people had left the new deal to go into unsubsidised employment. I have corresponded with the Prime Minister about that. Department for Education and Employment figures have shown his comments to be factually incorrect. My concern is for the equal treatment of all hon. Members. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring is a splendid fellow, if he gets an apology for an error, is not it right that I should also receive—
Madam Speaker: Order. I made no point about anyone receiving an apology. I said that there was a question on the Order Paper, which I assumed would lead to a correction, and that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) might receive a letter from the Prime Minister. I do not know the contents of that letter: they are between a Minister and an hon. Member, and are nothing to do with me.
Mr. Philip Hammond: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Several weeks ago, I raised the question of the roadworks in Parliament square and the obstruction to hon. Members who are trying to reach the House. A trench has been progressing down Millbank from Lambeth bridge over the past couple of weeks and is now approaching Chancellor's Gate.
It appears to me that, within the next day or two, that trench will prevent Members from turning right from Millbank through Chancellor's Gate. Many Members use that route during Divisions when arriving by motor car. Have the Officers of the House had any further discussions with Westminster city council? If not, would you ask them, as a matter of urgency, to do so?
Madam Speaker: I remember the hon. Gentleman's point of order and it was a very sensible one, too. It resulted in our having closer relationships on such matters with Westminster city council. I am not aware of the matter of which he speaks, but he can be sure that I shall make inquiries and do what I can to be helpful.

Local Government (Access to Information)
3.35 pm
Mr. Gareth Thomas: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision in respect of local government in England and Wales, for disclosure of information to the public and for convening meetings in public; and for connected purposes.
Local government is undergoing great changes as part of the Government's agenda of modernising councils and making them more effective, more flexible and more responsive to local needs. The Local Government Bill has completed its passage in the other place and I broadly support its essential principles and the inclusive way in which the Government have proceeded by publishing a draft Bill, convening a Joint Committee of both Houses and undertaking extensive consultation.
Many Members will accept the need to move towards new political structures—whether mayors or cabinet-style executives—with clearer and more transparent lines of accountability. However, there is increasing concern that the new structures of local government should be both open and accountable and seen to be open and accountable. The general public and, indeed, non-executive council members must have ample opportunity to discuss and influence important decisions—on education, social services, planning or, as in my own constituency recently, the sale of council land that had been used as playing fields for many years—before they are made.
The role of the overview and scrutiny committees will therefore be crucial, as will the requirement that decisions be recorded with the reasons for them and the advice given by officers. It is essential that local government retains the trust and confidence of the community that it serves. The Bill's purpose is to ensure that that trust is retained because, once lost, it is extraordinarily difficult to regain.
224
The Bill would extend to the new structures of local government the existing requirements on openness and access to information in part V of the Local Government Act 1972. Meetings have to be open to the public and the media, although exempt information can be discussed and decided on in private. If the meetings are open, agendas, officers' reports and background papers must be publicly available three days in advance.
As the Local Government Bill stands, there is no requirement that cabinets should meet in public or disclose their agendas in advance, but it is vital that decisions that could affect a community greatly should not be made in private. That perception has to be removed. My Bill would require such bodies to meet in public unless particular types of exempt information were involved, which would maintain the current openness and transparency.
In respect of decisions not involving meetings—those taken by elected mayors or individual members of an executive cabinet—my Bill would give the public equivalent rights to see papers before they were taken. In addition, it would require a short delay before executive decisions could be implemented and provide powers for non-executive councillors and scrutiny committees to call in and review such decisions. My Bill is based on the premise that open decision making is better decision making.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gareth Thomas, Mrs. Betty Williams, Dr. David Clark, Mr. Mark Fisher, Mr. David Drew. Mr. Gwyn Prosser, Mr. Huw Edwards and Mr. John Smith.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION)
Mr. Gareth Thomas accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision in respect of local government in England and Wales, for disclosure of information to the public and for convening meetings in public; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 99].

Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
3.41 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is an important step in our drive for a more effective and targeted criminal justice system that works better to reduce crime and so protect the public. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 and the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) No.2 Bill—recently before the House—have all been introduced to that end. The Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill is a further step to the achievement of our goals.
The Bill will restructure the probation service, so that it is more effective and focuses on its key tasks of enforcement and public protection, with a separate service for children and family courts. It will give the police, courts and others the additional tools that they need to tackle crime through drug testing, electronic monitoring and police access to driver information, as well as dealing more effectively with truancy. It will provide particular safeguards for the most vulnerable people through measures to prevent unsuitable people from working with children.
As I told the House on 13 March, amendments will be tabled to the Bill to bring the sentencing and release of those detained at Her Majesty's pleasure into line with the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Thompson and Venables.
The probation service does a vital job. Its officers work in a difficult environment, sometimes with dangerous offenders. I hope that the House will join me in paying tribute to their professionalism, yet there is a need for greater efficiency and focus in the service. Enforcement rates against offenders who break probation conditions are simply not good enough. A survey by the Association of Chief Officers of Probation in September last year found that only 44 per cent. of those who broke probation were actually breached—that is, sent back to court for re-sentencing—and then only for a third or subsequent failure. That has led to probation being seen by too many offenders as a soft option.
Moreover, the service is fragmented into 54 autonomous units, with only limited accountability to central Government. That fragmentation is well illustrated in turn by huge variations in performance on almost any measure one can choose. The rates of breach—bearing in mind that it is at the third or subsequent failure to observe an attendance requirement of a probation order—can range from 89 per cent. in respect of the best county, Cornwall, to 8 per cent. for Essex. Nine out of 10 offenders who breach national standards and who have failed to turn up on three or more occasions in Essex are not subject to any further action.
Jackie Ballard: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Straw: I will later.
226
We have watched some services give enhanced early retirement deals to senior staff who have failed to perform to the standard required. Until now, no Home Secretary has had the power to prevent them from spending taxpayers' money in that way.
We have to build on the best of past experience and on current practice to deliver a probation service that concentrates on its core aim: enforcement of sentences and public protection. The service is a law enforcement agency, and must act as such.
In our judgment, that efficiency and effectiveness can best be achieved by a unified service—renamed in the Bill as the National Probation Service for England and Wales—with stronger national leadership. As hon. Members will have noticed, clause 2(2) provides clear statutory aims for everyone working within the service—that the persons concerned must have regard to

(a) the protection of the public,

(b) the reduction of re-offending,

(c) the proper punishment of offenders.

The Bill will establish a unified and centrally co-ordinated service, with 42 local areas matching police authority boundaries. The new service will work more closely with police and other agencies and with local crime and disorder partnerships. Local probation boards will work to deliver their services in a way which serves their locality better. Each board will be responsible for developing its own work plan within an overall national strategy, and the boards will be more representative of the local population.
Greater central direction of the type that the Bill envisages will promote more consistent use of an evidence-based approach that is based on what works. It will also promote a joined-up criminal justice system, so that there is co-ordination between all agencies involved in dealing with any given offender.
Mr. Edward Garnier: On the subject of a joined-up justice system, I look again at clause 2(2)(c), on the "proper punishment of offenders." Currently, those who breach a probation sentence passed in the Crown court are returned to the magistrates court to be dealt with for the breach. Does the Home Secretary agree that it would be sensible if those who breached Crown court probation orders were brought back to the Crown court, to prevent any delay or lack of punishment powers?
Mr. Straw: The hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely correct to say that, and I should be very happy to have his support in ensuring the implementation of such a proposal. It is an obvious and important point.
Mr. Simon Hughes: We share the Home Secretary's view that it would be right to make the probation service conterminous across the country with police authority boundaries. Such an arrangement seems both sensible and good. However, will the Home Secretary think again about the power that he is giving himself in the Bill to appoint those who will chair all the probation committees?
May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that his predecessor started with a plan that the Home Secretary should appoint the chairs of all police authorities, but that the current Home Secretary and other Labour Members supported us in opposing the proposal and it was

227
thrown out? The previous Lord Chancellor wanted to appoint all the chairs of the magistrates committees, but that proposal, too, was thrown out. Can the Home Secretary resist taking more power to himself, when an otherwise good idea is about to be spoiled by excessive interference by the Home Secretary?
Mr. Straw: I always resist opportunities to take more power to myself—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] My record of transferring power and responsibility to the level at which it should lie, as we have done in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, precedes me.
Mr. John Bercow: Buck passing.
Mr. Straw: I do not think that that accusation fairly lies against me. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) accuses me of coming to the House too often—not, touch wood, so often this year, but certainly for a time last year. She also said that I was responsible for something that had not gone perfectly and asked what I was going to do about it. One cannot have it both ways. The right hon. Lady's former boss used to think that it was possible to come to the House to say that not he, but someone else who was not an hon. Member, was responsible for something. I have taken the opposite view, although sometimes, in the short term, it makes the situation more uncomfortable than it might have been. But that is my job, and I am delighted to do it as long as the Prime Minister wishes me to do it and the House gives me its approbation.
I ought to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). He will know that schedule 1 makes provision for the appointment of the local boards. He is right to say that we propose that the chairpeople should be appointed by the Secretary of State. I understand his point, but I do not accept that there is a direct parallel with police authorities, which are representative of local authorities as well. He will know that the independent members of police authorities have to go through a shortlisting procedure, subject to the Secretary of State's approval. There is a similar arrangement for magistrates.
As with all the appointments that I have made, there will be a proper system, approved by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, to ensure that the arrangements and candidates are the most suited for the job. As I have said before, no Bill that I have taken through the House has been perfect in all its particulars.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: This one is not.
Mr. Straw: There is an important point to be made about the role of Parliament. The right hon. Lady did not follow that when she was a Minister and had to come to the House more frequently than I have to explain the most extraordinary examples of maladministration over which she had presided. That is the purpose of a Committee stage. I am not saying for a moment that we intend to shift from our current position, but of course we will listen
228
to the arguments. No doubt the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will also advance them when he speaks later in the debate.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): At length.
Mr. Straw: At length, as my right hon. Friend says.
A co-ordinated and targeted approach should mean that, from arrest to the end of their licence, each offender will be dealt with appropriately and effectively. In the criminal justice system envisaged in the Bill, if an offender has, for example, a drug problem that could lead them to reoffend, it should be recognised and dealt with throughout their contact with the police, the courts, prison and the probation service. We are determined to ensure not only that the service is effective, but that it offers value for money. If any of the 42 new boards show themselves unable to perform to the high standard required, the Secretary of State will have the power to contract out those services.
Miss Widdecombe: Why is the power to test for drugs and to tackle the problem to be used only against those who have committed acquisitive crime rather than including those who have committed more serious crimes, such as violence against the person?
Mr. Straw: The provision is confined at the moment to those who commit acquisitive or drug offences, because, as I shall say in more detail later, the evidence suggests that such offenders have the highest propensity to commit further offences as a result of their drug offending. However, of course we are open to argument about whether the list in the schedule should be extended.
The restructuring of the probation service provides a timely opportunity to create a new service that focuses on the needs of children and families going through the court system, principally in respect of civil proceedings. At present, those functions are carried out by the probation service family court welfare services, the guardian at litem and reporting officer service, and the children's section of the Official Solicitor's office. The Bill will create a single service to replace them—the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, which will no doubt be known by its acronym, CAFCASS. CAFCASS will be responsible for safeguarding the welfare of children before courts dealing with family court proceedings. Its aim will be to put children first and to offer a fast, flexible and consistent service. The probation service will then be able to concentrate on its main purpose of law enforcement.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Has the Home Secretary considered whether that is the appropriate acronym? Would it not be more sensible to bear it in mind that anything involved in family court services has to be careful to avoid ridicule? Has not the Home Secretary thought that, inevitably and sadly, the acronym will lead to the organisation being renamed "carcase"?
Mr. Straw: Those of us who know the phonetic alphabet know that there is a difference between an F and an R, and I do not think for a second that there will be any trouble. There are plenty of acronyms like this one, and I am sure that it will be perfectly satisfactory.
Mr. Bercow: Does the Home Secretary recall that when the Minister of State wisely abandoned plans for the

229
renaming of the probation service, he pointed out that the concept of community punishment and of rehabilitation would remain central to the purpose and workings of the service, but would not be included in the title? On the same principle, why is it not possible simply to incorporate the words "advice", "advisory" and "support" in the working of the organisation, but not to include them in what is now an unnecessarily lengthy and cumbersome title?
Mr. Straw: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I am sure that some complicated argument was made as to why the words should be included so as not to confuse people in terms of the children and family courts service. This is not one of the world's most important issues. We have ensured that the name is not open to parody. I think that it is satisfactory, but if better titles which will not lead to confusion with other services can be proposed in Committee, we are open to argument.
Mr. Barry Jones: With regard to magistrates family courts, can my right hon. Friend say whether they have a good future? Will they continue, because there is evidence that work on family matters is migrating from the magistrates courts up to the higher court, at county level—perhaps because there is more to be earned by advocates there? I have raised this matter with the Lord Chancellor, and I wish my right hon. Friend to consider that there should be a good future for these courts.
Mr. Straw: I believe that there is, and I have seen nothing contrary to that. I am assured that that is the case by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department. One understands the economics of legal advice—to which my right hon. Friend referred—but I know that the Lord Chancellor has taken vigorous steps to ensure better control of the bills for civil and criminal legal aid.
Community sentences, supervised by the probation service, need to be a credible sentencing option for tackling offending behaviour. At present, the system is not working as it should. I have mentioned the ACOP survey's disturbing findings on the enforcement of probation conditions. This failure to breach offenders defying their probation orders is happening, despite the 1995 national standards for probation, which require that offenders be subject to breach proceedings if they miss three attendance meetings without an acceptable excuse.
The Bill seeks to improve the enforcement of community sentences. These measures build upon work already undertaken to tighten national standards which come into force on 1 April this year. The Bill gives the new enforcement standards a statutory basis. Under the new regime, where an offender over 18 is not immediately returned to court after the first unacceptable failure to comply with an order, there will be a duty on the probation service to issue a warning, and to return him to court on the second unacceptable failure within any 12-month period, or within six months for a curfew order made by the court. If the offender is found to be in breach, save for exceptional circumstances, he or she will be sentenced to up to three months' imprisonment, or longer if the original offence allowed for a greater term of imprisonment.
230
Our message to offenders should be loud and clear—community service orders and sentences will no longer be a soft option. Breaches will be dealt with speedily and firmly.
As well as improving public protection, the Bill will make community sentences more credible, both to the courts and to the public. The courts need to know that they have a range of flexible sentencing options with which to target the particular needs of offenders so as to stop them reoffending and to protect the public. The sentences also need to be understood. We are therefore renaming them, so that their purposes are clear from their names.
One of the most important tools in our drive to make community sentences more effective, and therefore to protect the public better, is electronic monitoring. Trials of electronic monitoring, or tagging, as a sentence of the court took place in seven probation areas between 1995 and 1999. The trials proved very successful, with a success rate of over 80 per cent., which compares favourably with other community disposals. From 1 December 1999, courts throughout England and Wales have been able to sentence offenders to an electronically monitored curfew order for a wide range of offences, including theft and burglary.
In turn, this Bill will give the courts the power to order the electronic monitoring of any offender serving a community sentence. Courts will also be able to make that order in a variety of ways, such as by means of a curfew order, or by requiring proper electronic monitoring of an offender's attendance for community service, at a probation office or on offending behaviour programmes.
The Bill is structured in a way that will allow us to keep pace with changes in technology. It provides for this disposal to be made available area by area, as the technology and contracts are let on a rolling basis. We have learned from the previous Administration's successful experience in piloting curfew as a sentence of the court and then rolling it out area by area.
Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: I shall make a little progress and then, as ever, give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provided that selected offenders on sentences of imprisonment of between three months and less than four years could be tagged. That allows prison governors to place on electronic curfew offenders in the last period of their custodial sentence for a period of between two weeks and two months, according to the original sentence length. The provision was, as the House will recall, endorsed by a unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee on Home Affairs in its third report for 1997–98.
Prison governors have shown great care in their risk assessments. About 31 per cent. of eligible offenders have been placed on home detention curfew, and the success rate has been over 90 per cent. Its value is to ensure a better transition between custody and the community. One requirement of HDC, for example, is that the offender have a suitable home address. That often forces offenders who want to benefit from HDC to make better post-custody arrangements.
Miss Widdecombe: The Home Secretary says that there has been a 95 per cent. success rate, but does he

231
accept that the failures have included some extremely serious cases? For example, two people later charged with rape would have been in prison had they not been let out early on the tagging experiment. Will the right hon. Gentleman apologise to the victims of people who do not serve the full sentence that a judge says that they should serve because they have been let out into the community?
Mr. Straw: I shall treat that intervention in the manner that it deserves. The right hon. Lady was prisons Minister in the previous Administration, and knows very well that prisoners coming to the end of their determinate sentences are released on licence. The ludicrous arrangements entitled "Honesty in Sentencing" that she had inserted into the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 would have ensured early release for many prisoners before the court date that would otherwise have been set, and without electronic monitoring.
It is no good the right hon. Lady trying to rewrite history. Home detention curfew was backed unanimously by the Select Committee on Home Affairs. A member of that Committee was the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who endorsed the proposal. He said that HDC
will provide adequate protection to the public because of the tagging element, and will give prisoners an opportunity to readjust to life outside prison.
We accepted that endorsement. Moreover, the right hon. Lady was a member of the Opposition when home detention curfew issues were being debated in the proceedings of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. She and her right hon. and hon. Friends decided not to oppose those arrangements.
Of course there is an element of risk with any arrangement that involves the release of prisoners before they die. Prisoners may well be released and then reoffend. I regret any reoffending by those on HDC, or those on licence. When she was a Home Office Minister, the right hon. Lady let out many offenders, no doubt on licence, who then went on to reoffend, and I do not recall her apologising. We will get the figures, because there are bound to have been offenders whom she and the then Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), let out, such as mandatory lifers who reoffended and had to be recalled. The right hon. Lady knows that very well. Frankly, this kind of hollow mischief making impresses no one.
Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way, but I think that on this occasion his spin doctors at Millbank may have let him down. If he looks carefully at that Home Affairs Committee report, he will realise that I was not even appointed to the Select Committee until midway through that inquiry. In any event, the evidence that was heard by that Committee, including much evidence that was heard before I was even a member, was not about the scheme that he has talked about introducing, and then introduced. So it does not support his contention, and I hope that next time he will ensure that his researchers read the whole report, including the information about when people were appointed to the Committee, before he makes such cheap points.
Mr. Straw: I think that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath is called Mr. Nick Hawkins. It says here that he
232
was appointed to the Committee on 2 March 1998. It then says—I have checked this carefully, because I would not for a moment wish to traduce the hon. Gentleman—that there were proceedings of the Committee relating to the report. Right hon. and hon. Members who have been members of Select Committees will know that Select Committees receive evidence and then go through the draft report, usually prepared by a Clerk, line by line. What do I find? There were only four meetings of the Committee to deliberate on the report, and on 14 July, Mr. Nick Hawkins was present when the Committee deliberated. On 21 July, Mr. Nick Hawkins was present when the Committee deliberated. On 22 July, Mr. Nick Hawkins was present when the Committee deliberated. On 28 July, the Committee deliberated, Mr. Nick Hawkins was present, and it was agreed unanimously that
the Chairman do make the report to the House.
The hon. Gentleman has no case. He had four opportunities to move an amendment to the report. He failed to do so. I am afraid that he must stick by what he and other members of the Committee Select said, which was that HDC
will provide adequate protection to the public because of the tagging element, and will give prisoners an opportunity to readjust to life outside prison.
The hon. Gentleman tries to wriggle, and suggests that what was being talked about was not the home detention curfew included in the Crime and Disorder Act. That is completely incorrect. It was exactly about that in every particular, spelled out in paragraph 163. I think that the hon. Gentleman has the report there—I suggest that he read it. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he really wants more pain.
Mr. Hawkins: I am not suggesting for a moment that I was not at the meetings. If the Home Secretary had listened to my original intervention—which, plainly, he did not—he would know that I said that the inquiry and its evidence was already well under way before I was appointed to the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman and members of his party may well be told by Alastair Campbell and by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), to vote on matters when they have not heard all the evidence. However, if the Home Secretary is suggesting that it is appropriate to vote in favour of or against a report when one has not heard all the evidence, he should think again. He is suggesting that I should have voted against a report when I had not heard all the evidence. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is in a hole and should stop digging.
Mr. Boateng: You have caught him bang to rights.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman forgets the advice of Lord Healey, that "if you are in a hole, stop digging." My advice to him is not to wriggle but to sit there and take it. He had four months in which to consider the evidence.
Mr. Hawkins: I had not heard half the evidence.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is being silly. If he felt that he had not heard the evidence, why on earth was he taking part in the Committee's proceedings? He should have absented himself altogether.
Mr. Robin Corbett: As a member of the Home Affairs Committee at the time, I can

233
confirm that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) was a member of the Committee and was present at the four meetings that my right hon. Friend mentioned. It does the hon. Gentleman no favours to say that, because he had not heard all the evidence, he could not vote against the report. He had not heard all the evidence, but he agreed the report with the rest of us. He cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Straw: In any event, just so that we are clear about this, Madam Speaker, the hon. Gentleman was appointed on 22 March and the main evidence was taken after he was appointed. On 21 April, evidence was taken from the inspector of probation and the National Association of Probation Officers. Home Office evidence from the now chief executive of the Prison Service and the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), was given on 5 May, well after the time when the hon. Member for Surrey Heath was appointed.
Mr. Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Straw: Yes, and then I will get on.
Mr. Bercow: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his statement on 29 November last year, at column 27 of Hansard, that he had no plans to provide for electronic tagging to facilitate the early release of serious, including sexual, offenders, with the response of the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) to a written answer, at columns 559–60W on 22 March this year, in which he stated that just such an extension could take place, thereby facilitating the early release of at least an extra 230 prisoners a year?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman anticipates me. I had the feeling that he might wish to be better informed about the matter, and I was about to come to it.
Electronic monitoring also has the potential to enhance the security of the public and the management of offenders who are released at due time on licence without HDC. What I am talking about now is different from the home detention curfew. The arrangements for release on licence currently apply to all adult offenders sentenced to 12 months or more, to young offenders aged 12 to 21 serving any period in custody, and to any prisoner released on temporary licence.
The Bill provides for electronic monitoring for such prisoners. It may be helpful if I explain to the House the arrangements for the release of both short-term and long-term offenders. Those who are sentenced to a year or less are released at the halfway point without licence. They are also eligible for HDC. Under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 offenders sentenced to between one and four years are released automatically at the halfway point of their sentence. Those sentenced to four years or more can be considered for parole at the halfway point, and must be released at the two-thirds point. In respect of both the shorter-term prisoners sentenced to between one and three years and the longer-term ones sentenced to four or more, the licence operates until the three-quarter point of the sentence.
Electronic monitoring, for which the Bill provides, will reinforce the licence conditions in a direct way and may provide significant improvements in the offender's resettlement, the better to protect the public.
234
I commend the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on his ability to remember column numbers, as some people remember train numbers. It is an entirely innocent habit. I am sure that there are worse things that could be said about the hon. Gentleman, but I will not mention them. As he said, on 29 November 1999—I think in the debate on the Loyal Address—I told the House:
We have no plans or intention whatever to provide for electronic tagging to facilitate the early release of serious or sexual offenders.—[Official Report, 29 November 1999; Vol. 340, c. 27.]
I am happy to reiterate that undertaking.
The availability of electronic monitoring for sex and other high-risk offenders should not in itself influence the parole board when making decisions on their release, and I will be directing the board to that effect.
In answer to the parliamentary question to which the hon. Member for Buckingham referred, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South stated that, in finely balanced cases, the availability of electronic monitoring as a condition of licence could be considered. That may be the case for certain offenders, such as those serving more than four years, who may need the punishment of a longer sentence but who pose no wider risk to the public. The existence of electronic monitoring will not be a consideration in decisions on parole for sex offenders or other high-risk offenders.
The new electronic monitoring provisions will be a valuable added protection for the public. Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, we gave the courts power to impose extended sentences—up to 10 years—in respect of serious sexual and violent offenders. The Bill will enhance that extended supervision by electronic monitoring.
The Bill also provides better protection for victims of domestic violence or stalking through the creation of a new exclusion order. It will use reverse tagging to deter an offender from approaching a certain place or places, such as the home of a spouse or partner against whom the offender has been convicted of violence. It will also be generally available as a licence condition.
There is the clearest evidence of a link between drug misuse and crime. In the drug testing of arrestees research programme, more than three out of five of those surveyed tested positive for an illegal drug. In some places, the total was nearly four out of five, with a third of them testing positive for heroin and more than a quarter positive for cocaine. We must do all we can to break the link between drug abuse and crime. To do that, we need a joined-up criminal justice system that deals with the problems posed by offenders at every stage. We believe that that can be done. Evidence from one study in the United States showed that prisoners who received treatment during sentence and on release were less likely to be arrested 12 months later than those who received treatment only in prison.
Conversely, recently published Home Office research on the effectiveness of care and resettlement work with drug-addicted offenders highlighted the need for enforcement agencies to work together. It concluded that unless there is an effective multi-agency approach to tackling offenders' drug misuse before, during and after custody, they are likely to relapse and reoffend. I am pleased to draw the House's attention to an announcement that I made yesterday in a written answer—that the new

235
money announced a week ago by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer included, among other things, £5 million for post-release drug treatment hostels.
The Bill is intended both to deter drug abuse and to identify offenders who need treatment. From the successful introduction of mandatory drug testing in prison, which the previous Administration began, we know that the availability of testing can in itself help to reduce drug abuse. I accept that there are clear differences between the closed environment of a prison and the community, which, by definition, is open. However, there is no doubt that early identification of whether individuals are drug offenders, and appropriate use of that fact either in community punishments or in prison, can help to cut the link between drugs and crime.
Mr. Hilton Dawson: In detailing the Bill's drug-testing provisions, will my right hon. Friend confirm that excellent drug arrest referral schemes, such as a pioneering scheme in Lancaster which has attracted a Queen's nursing award and in which nurses have been placed in police stations to work with people at the point of arrest, are entirely complementary to the provisions of the Bill?
Mr. Straw: I shall indeed confirm that. Under the Bill, police will be able to test at charge offenders who commit high-volume acquisitive crimes, such as burglary, and those whose drug habits are bound up in a criminal life style. Those arrangements will be piloted, and detailed guidance will be provided under clause 42 after consultation with the police service.
The Bill's powers will be complemented by a new drug abstinence order and by existing programmes such as the drug treatment and testing order currently being piloted in three areas. In addition, and this relates to my hon. Friend's point, we are providing an extra £20 million over three years for a roll-out of drug arrest referral schemes across the country. The Bill seeks to build on proven measures such as the Prison Service's programme of counselling, assessment and throughcare—CARATS—which links work done in prison to effective drug counselling and support on release into the community.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Home Secretary comment on two matters? The Standing Conference on Drug Abuse, which is a reputable body, has been critical of the Bill's proposals; in general, it regards them as likely to be ineffective. More topically, this morning, the Runciman report pointed out that, nationally, 62 per cent. of the budget is spent on law enforcement on drugs, but only 13 per cent. on treatment. Is the Home Secretary minded to work across the Government to ensure that there is a significant increase in the resources for treatment for drugs, inside and outside prison? All the evidence appears to show that treatment is more effective than many of these new and somewhat untested criminal justice proposals.
Mr. Straw: I have great respect for the standing conference, but I do not accept its analysis. We intend to pilot the arrangements. The history of criminal justice measures under all Governments is that some people always criticise new proposals; they say that they will not
236
work or are inappropriate. Some proposals do not work, but that is not a reason for not trying them. However, many do work.
I point out to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald that, in the late 1980s, when curfew arrangements were proposed, there was great scepticism about whether they would work effectively. That criticism was partly related to the then availability of the technology. However, those arrangements did work and have produced considerable benefits.
I do not accept the view of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that treatment and enforcement are spending alternatives. I should prefer that those who become addicted to drugs stay out of crime and undergo treatment as quickly as possible. However, the reality is that a high proportion of addicts—especially those addicted to opiates and cocaine—get involved in crime to pay for their habit. We have to break that link. We are putting as much extra money as we can into treatment both inside and outside prisons. I am working closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to ensure that there is better co-ordination of drug treatment in the health service for offenders and for non-offenders.
I shall deal briefly with some of the items in the Bill. Building on the provisions of the Protection of Children Act 1999, the Bill will make improvements in the protection of the most vulnerable in society. Those proposals form a vital part of the measures needed following the terrible abuses uncovered in children's homes and described in the recent report by Sir Ronald Waterhouse.
The measures will provide a comprehensive, integrated system to help stop unsuitable people working with children, and will make it a criminal offence for anyone so identified to apply for or to accept such work, or to offer services that involve it. In particular, we want to ensure that where someone is identified as a risk to children in one sector of work, he or she cannot move with impunity to another.
The Bill will also protect children through tough new measures to tackle truancy—part of our wider strategy for dealing with truancy and social exclusion, and with related juvenile delinquency. On any one day, about 50,000 pupils are off school without permission. As well as being a major contributor to youth offending, truancy can have a devastating impact on a child's later life and prospects.
The Bill challenges the culture that tolerates truancy, and targets the parents responsible for allowing it. The Bill will increase the penalty on parents for failing to ensure that a registered child attends school regularly. By making that failure an offence punishable by imprisonment, it will allow the courts to issue warrants for the arrest of offending parents, to ensure that they attend court. Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment wants any parents to be jailed for their failure to ensure that their child attends school regularly, but under the current law, it is impossible to get four in five of the parents who are summonsed for their child's truancy even to appear in court. Four in five of those parents simply cock a snook at the system and fail to answer the summons. The main purpose of making the offence imprisonable is to ensure that it is possible to enforce the legal process.

237
Finally, to assist the police in tackling crime effectively, the Bill will enable them to gain bulk access to information about drivers from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency rather than approaching it on a case-by-case basis, as at present.
Since the general election, recorded crime has fallen by 7 per cent., and the number of offenders brought to justice rose by 7 per cent. in 1998 to its highest for 20 years. We know that, under the previous Administration, crime doubled while the number of criminals brought to justice fell by a third.
Mr. Boateng: Those are the facts.
Mr. Straw: Those are indeed the facts. [Interruption.] I am not surprised that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald laughs. It is a record that she seeks to forget, but which everyone else remembers.
The Bill's financial effects are set out at the end of its financial and explanatory memorandum. We are also ensuring that the police and other criminal justice agencies are better resourced, so as to make best use of the measures in the Bill. One important aspect of that are the resources available to the police. Between 1993 and March 1998, under budgets set by the previous Administration, the number of police officers in England and Wales fell by about 1,400. That was despite a pledge to the House by the right hon. Lady that numbers would be increased by 5,000. Numbers have fallen under the first period of this Government under the spending plans regarded as reckless by the Opposition. We are now, however, putting in place a co-ordinated programme to boost recruitment to ensure that more officers are used in front-line operational duties and to bring about in two years the recruitment of the additional 5,000 officers that was originally planned for in three years.
Yesterday, I gave details of the £157 million investment under the capital modernisation fund for a range of new information technology systems and other measures to speed up justice and to reduce the unnecessary bureaucratic burdens on the police and others who work in the criminal justice system.
The Bill is a coherent package of measures that builds upon proven successes and harnesses new technology in the fight against crime. The restructuring of the probation service, the new enforcement regime for community sentences, and the enhanced role for electronic monitoring and drug testing will all promote an evidence-based approach to fighting crime. The enforcement regime, drug testing and electronic monitoring measures will also enable the courts and others to adopt a more targeted approach to offenders.
Together, the measures will promote a tough, effective and focused approach to reducing both crime and the fear of crime. I commend the Bill to the House.
4.27 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I could hardly believe the utter complacency of the right hon. Gentleman's peroration. Until then, this debate had been almost sensible, but, listening to him, one would not have thought that, for example, the steepest falls in crime since the second world war actually happened in the last three years of the previous Government. One would never have thought, from listening to him, that we now have the
238
first rise in crime for six years and that he has presided over a fall of 2,300 in the number of police officers. However much he may seek to blame us, the fact remains that that has happened under his stewardship in the past three years. Listening to him, one would have thought that thousands of drug dealers, sex offenders and killers were not being let out of prison early.
I found entirely spurious the right hon. Gentleman's argument that the previous Government let mandatory prisoners out of prison early, because we never let out a single mandatory prisoner who had not completed his tariff. My objection is not that he is letting people out at the earliest point at which release is possible, but that, under his tagging rules, they are let out before that point. Enough of them are reoffending to cause a sane person serious concern, but not apparently the Home Secretary. If he believes that soundbites and smoke-and-mirrors tricks, such as his famous fiddle on police numbers, will cut the crime rate, he is even more out of touch than I thought.
Unlike the right hon. Gentleman and his friends when they were in opposition, we shall not oppose measures that aim to cut crime. Therefore, we will not divide the House on Second Reading. Although we support some measures in the Bill, others will need refining and will certainly need a more open-minded approach than the right hon. Gentleman demonstrated in his response to some of the interventions that he took. Other measures will need substantial scrutiny and major amendment. That is a responsible attitude, which is in complete contrast to his behaviour when he was in opposition.
The Home Secretary might like to recall that Lord McIntosh of Haringey, then the Labour party's Front-Bench home affairs spokesman in another place, described the mandatory sentences for drug dealers and burglars proposed by the previous Government as "nonsense" and "gesture politics". That was as late as 1996. I doubt whether the Home Secretary would repeat those words now that he has taken credit for rolling them out, as he likes to phrase it.
I had hoped that, when the Minister of State announced the U-turn on the name "community punishment and rehabilitation service" in response to the timely question of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) two weeks ago, the Government's fervour for mind-blowing political correctness had at last been extinguished. Unfortunately, my hope was short-lived. Having dropped the outlandish new name for the probation service, the Home Secretary has decided to press ahead with changing the names of probation, community service and combination orders. It is extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman, having finally realised that his zeal for political correctness was a step too far, even for the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) and for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn), has decided to retain the probation service and to change the names of the orders instead. So we shall have a service with one name, but the measures that it enforces will have names that were not good enough, even in the Government's eyes, to be retained for the service as a whole. Perhaps the Bill's provisions show us all the true mess of the third way.
Under clause 10, the Home Secretary will have wide powers to take over the new local probation boards in almost any circumstances. Even at this stage, he has no faith in the way in which his new creations will work. All appointments to the boards will be made by the Home

239
Secretary and the Lord Chancellor. There is no guidance in the Bill on who will be appointed. We know from last week's report by the Commissioner for Public Appointments that the Government have packed the national health service with their cronies. [Interruption.] It was an independent report.
We can only hope—[Interruption.] It was probably indignation at their iniquity. We can only hope this week that the Government will not end up packing the probation service. [HON. MEMBERS: "Do not be absurd."] But why is it so necessary to take control of every appointment? Why is it absurd to ask for assurance that there will be independent appointments?
If the Home Secretary had any concern for democracy and for the scrutiny that the House is supposed to give to Bills, he would want to answer my questions rather than sit on the Government Front Bench as if invalid questions are being asked. An independent report shows—the right hon. Gentleman did not heed it—that the Government packed the health service.
I welcomed the Minister of State's answer yesterday that the Government are working to ensure
the highest standards of openness and transparency.—[Official Report, 27 March 2000; Vol. 3471, c. 13W.]
I am sure that the Government will wish to be judged on their record, which has not stood up to much scrutiny so far.
It is strange that the nationalisation and centralisation of the probation service has been undertaken by a Government who, when they were in opposition, attacked national control and centralised appointments. Has the Home Secretary forgotten his own attack on the Crown Prosecution Service's "monolithic nationalised system" in 1996? Does he not recall the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)—his deputy both in opposition and in government, before he went away to make a mess of Wales—attacking the concept of central appointments to police authorities as "highly damaging".
Does the Home Secretary not recall the early-day motion tabled by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth of 11 January 1993?
Mr. Straw: I have forgotten.
Miss Widdecombe: I understand that the Home Secretary's memory is short, so I shall refresh it. It was signed by the current Minister with responsibilities for the probation service, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and by other current Home Office and Cabinet Ministers. It stated that any attempt to introduce "nominated boards" of the Home Secretary's own choosing would do terrible damage to "accountability and public confidence".
Does the right hon. Gentleman remember the words of the then shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who has since moved on? He said in a press release that the notion of central appointments was a disastrous proposal and stated:
We need more, not less, local accountability on appointments. Perhaps the Home Secretary will enlighten the House about his party's change of mind.
240
The House will need to look in detail at how disqualification orders will work in practice. The Home Secretary did not devote much attention to those orders in his speech. I do not criticise him for that because he could not cover everything, but I want to raise one matter with him. I wish to make it clear that Conservative Members totally abhor those who abuse, or otherwise take advantage of, vulnerable children, whether physically or sexually. Those criminals are among the worst and should expect to face the full force of the law. However, the Bill contains several apparent loopholes that may need to be plugged. For example, the new disqualification order will apply only to those sentenced to 12 or more months' imprisonment.
I remind the Home Secretary of the case of Paul Gadd, who is perhaps better known as Gary Glitter. In November, he was rightly jailed for possessing indecent photographs of children that were described by the judge as filthy and revolting, but he got just four months in prison. The Bill would not automatically disqualify from working with children somebody committing a similar offence and receiving a similar sentence.
The list in schedule 4 of offences that will qualify offenders for disqualification orders does not include assault occasioning actual bodily harm. More alarmingly, it does not include the supply of controlled drugs. Is it the Government's view that drug dealers who sell to children should expect to face the severest punishment, including tough mandatory sentences, which is what we have proposed? It is strange that those who peddle drugs to children should not be subject to the new disqualification orders proposed by the Home Secretary.
As I said to the House in November, we welcome the introduction of drug testing for criminal suspects, but we have a number of concerns about the detail of the Bill. The Home Secretary has said that drug tests will be used to identify those who commit crimes to feed their habit, but is it not the case, as I asked him earlier, that those who use drugs commit sexual and violent crimes as well as acquisitive ones, and that there is often a direct link between their drug use and those crimes?
Last week, for example, Christopher Tilling, a heroin addict, was jailed for 12 years for manslaughter after he set fire to a house, killing a seven-year-old child, in return for £200 to feed his drug habit. If the Home Secretary is to break the link, as he puts it, between drug habits and crime—we do not dispute that aim—the provision should be extended to all serious crime, and not apply only to acquisitive crime. Tilling did not commit a property crime, so there would have been no mandatory testing under the Bill and no establishment of the link that the Home Secretary seeks to substantiate.
Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend confirm for my benefit and that of the House that a disqualification order could not have applied, for example, to the Bay City Rollers' drummer, who last week received a sentence of only 300 hours' community service for child pornography offences?
Miss Widdecombe: Yes, that is true. As in the Gary Glitter case, the sentence is substantially less than

241
12 months, so the disqualification order would not have applied, and indeed it would not have done so even if the sentence had been only fractionally less than 12 months.
Mr. Straw: I accept that this matter is complicated and that it needs to be examined carefully in Committee, but I may be able to reassure the right hon. Lady. Clause 48 says that testing can be done where
the person concerned has been charged with a trigger offence
and those offences are as she has described them. Testing can be done also where
the person concerned has been charged with an offence—
that is any offence—
and a police officer of at least the rank of inspector, who has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the misuse by that person of any specified Class A drug caused or contributed to the offence, has authorised the sample to be taken.
In most of the examples cited by the right hon. Lady, testing would have occurred under the second of those conditions.
Miss Widdecombe: I was dealing with disqualification orders. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has taken me a point back, but I shall now come on to discuss the clause from which he quoted.
The tests will be limited to class A drugs, such as heroin and cocaine. Does that not, whether intentionally or unintentionally, send out yet another message that the Government have given up the war against class B drugs, in particular cannabis? What will happen to those who test positive for heroin or cocaine, but against whom the main charges are subsequently dropped? What action, if any, will be taken against them to address their habit or to charge them in relation to their drugs offences? Is that not another potential loophole?
Jackie Ballard: Will the right hon. Lady explain to the House what offence would have been committed in those circumstances? As I understand the current law, it is not an offence to use heroin or cocaine.
Miss Widdecombe: That is quite true, but the presumption must be that if people are found to have consumed heroin or cocaine, investigations could be carried out to test for possession.
My point should be clear to the Secretary of State. If the charges relating to the actions in connection with which the person was arrested are dropped, what happens if he is then found to have heroin or cocaine in his system? The question arises with regard to the penalty, if possession is established—
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. Part of the purpose of the measure is to ensure that drug abusers are identified at an early stage and put into drug arrest referral schemes. It happens that quite a number of people who are arrested are not subsequently charged. We are concerned that intervention should take place at an early stage. As we know, not least from experiments such as those that have been taking place in Lancaster and elsewhere, drug arrest referral schemes are working well and ensuring that people reduce their drug abuse, and they often get off drugs entirely, over time.
242
What would happen is that those people would go into treatment. They could not be forced into treatment, as they have not committed a criminal offence. On the right hon. Lady's other point, the consumption of any kind of drug is not an offence, and her Government never proposed to make it an offence. We do not have time to go into that, but there are substantial objections to making it an offence. The criminal law impacts on possession or dealing.
Miss Widdecombe: My point was that if a person was found to have consumed such material, it is possible that he would be in possession of it, and that a search of his lodgings or home would reveal that. I am trying to ascertain how far the matter will be taken seriously, particularly in cases—
Mr. Boateng: Very seriously.
Miss Widdecombe: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is right. I am trying to point out that there are loopholes in the current provisions. We shall try to tighten them up in Committee. As the right hon. Gentleman says that the matter will be taken very seriously, I hope that he will consider equally seriously any amendments tabled in Committee.
Does the Minister agree that yet another clear and undesirable message would be sent out if the fact that a suspect tested positive for heroin or cocaine was not addressed, even by way of a caution or a fine to acknowledge the criminal offence of possessing those class A drugs? That is subject to the qualifications that I mentioned earlier.
How does that fit with the comments of the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), two days ago in a BBC interview, when he said that the Government had no plans to decriminalise drugs or to de-penalise drug possession?
Mr. Boateng: We have no such plans.
Miss Widdecombe: I am pleased to hear that there are no such plans, but why then limit the measure to class A drugs?
The Bill enables the Home Secretary to tag prisoners released on licence. The Opposition would not oppose such a move, which could provide an additional safeguard for the public, were it not for the fact that the Home Secretary intends to add it to the provisions of what can only be described as a revolving door prisons policy. That policy has already resulted in 18,000 convicted criminals being let out of jail early on tags, before the minimum point of their sentence. Indeed, under the Home Secretary's arrangements those sent down for six months could be out in as little as six weeks.
In November last year, in response to concerns raised by Opposition Front Benchers—in this case, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington)—the Home Secretary told the House:
We have no plans or intention whatever to provide for electronic tagging to facilitate the early release of serious or sexual offenders. Let me make that clear, with a full stop—none whatever.—[Official Report, 29 November 1999; Vol. 340, c.27.]
However, when I asked in a written question whether any prisoners would be let out earlier because of the

243
electronic-tagging provisions in the Bill, the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South replied:
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 approximately 230 prisoners granted parole per annum.—[Official Report, 22 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 559–60W.]
The words
the wider availability of electronic monitoring may influence release decisions
are crucial.
Earlier today, in response to interventions, the Home Secretary said that he would direct the parole board not to take into account the availability of electronic tagging when reaching decisions. That contradicts the answer given by the Minister of State. I am not making a political point; I am trying to introduce some order to the Bill. There is a contradiction between what was said by the Home Secretary and what was said by his right hon. Friend. I am therefore not willing to assume that the Home Secretary's good intentions will be honoured in a direction to the parole board, and I will seek to make it explicit in the Bill that these provisions will not apply to sexual or serious offenders. We shall pursue that aim, so that there is no reliance on a direction from this or any other Home Secretary.
Mr. Corbett: I, too, do not want to make party political points. However, the right hon. Lady may recall that, in its third report—on alternatives to prison sentences—the Home Affairs Committee noted, on the basis of the evidence, that there was little or no difference in the reoffending rate between those serving custodial sentences and those serving sentences in the community. The exceptions were cases in which special effort was put into rehabilitation before prisoners were released—as happens at Blantyre House in Kent—and targeted community sentences, in which offenders addressed offences such as aggression or arson. In those cases, the rates were lower.
Miss Widdecombe: What I conclude from that is that rehabilitation is imperative in our prisons. As the hon. Gentleman will know, that has been a consistent theme of the policy that I have recommended since taking my current role. I agree that that factor is crucial and needs to be expanded vastly. I am fully committed to expanding it when the happy day comes for me to swap places with the Home Secretary.
In his written answer, the right hon. Member for Brent, South referred to sentences of more than four years. To serve more than four years in jail, a person must have committed pretty serious offences, such as repeat burglary, rape, grievous bodily harm with intent, armed robbery or drug trafficking. Perhaps the Home Secretary can tell us what kind of offences that were not serious would attract four-year sentences, and what non-serious crimes will have been committed by the criminals who will be let out of jail earlier as a result of the Bill.
244
I shall not use a word like "misleading", Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you would not let me; but it seems to me that either the Home Secretary was not being entirely accurate when he told the House last November in categorical terms that he had no plans or intentions to facilitate the early release of serious or sexual offenders, or he has changed his policy between November and last week. I would like to know which is the case.
I also note with surprise the words of a Home Office spokesman, who, on Saturday night, was quoted as saying:
There is absolutely no question of electronic monitoring for sex offenders and high-risk offenders.
Yet the Bill clearly provides for that. Perhaps the spin doctors do not realise that sex offenders, child abusers, convicted killers and more than 2,000 drug dealers have already been released early under the home detention curfew scheme. I have the written answers from the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South here. It will therefore do the Home Secretary no good to protest his ignorance.
Perhaps the same Home Office spokesman reassured the Sunday Telegraph in October, in the face of incontrovertible evidence from the Treasury letter, that there would be a net increase of 5,000 police numbers as a result of the Home Secretary's massaged conference pledge.
I want to consider the current scheme for early release on tagging. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that we were making mischief; I would say that we were expressing genuine anxiety. There is potential for mischief: six people who have been released early on tags were in prison for escaping lawful custody. The reward for escaping lawful custody is apparently to be let out early on tags. As I pointed out earlier, two people charged with a crime as serious as rape have been let out early. Among those who were let out early are five who have attempted murder. It must be reassuring for the public to know that such people are selected for early release.
Although the Home Secretary makes much of rolling out mandatory sentences for burglary, many burglars and several thousand drug dealers have also been let out under the scheme. Fifty people have disappeared—we do not know where they are or what they are doing; 852 people have been recalled for breaches of their licence; and 185 have been charged with offences, which, even if we leave rape aside, include serious matters, such as threats to kill, assault, wounding and burglary. In 20 cases, people originally imprisoned for burglary have been charged with committing burglary while out on tags.
The Home Secretary should take those figures seriously because every crime means the creation of a victim. Some are victims of serious crimes. They will undergo life sentences as a result of those crimes long after even the ordinary release date of those criminals. That level of reoffending is wrong. However successful the scheme is in other ways, the Home Secretary does it a disservice by belittling the serious nature of some of the crimes that have been committed. He must take responsibility, because if those prisoners had been in prison for the minimum length of time to which the judges had sentenced them, the victims would not have been created.
I do not wonder at the Home Secretary's spending £1 million of public money on 20 extra press officers and internal communications advisers. His spin doctors will

245
soon have their own spin doctors. It pains me to say it because I have a soft spot for the Home Office, but from the evidently ignorant comments emanating from it, its communications need some improvement.
If the Bill receives a Second Reading—we assume that it will—we will table an amendment tonight to make it clear that, to use the Home Secretary's words, the Bill's electronic monitoring provisions are not used to facilitate early release. I hope that the Home Secretary will accept the amendment and that the Bill will finally match his vigorous rhetoric. It has failed to do that hitherto.
Mr. Dawson: Perhaps the right hon. Lady can clarify her remarks. She seems to be denying that well-prepared planned releases involving all the technological surveillance that can be brought in and all the support that is necessary can help to protect the public and rehabilitate a person more effectively than simply remaining in prison until the end of the sentence.
Miss Widdecombe: No, quite the contrary. Planned release has an essential role to play. Provisions for post-release supervision are extremely poor and have been for a long time. The link between the work done by the prison and that which the ex-offender will receive in the community thereafter is often extremely weak. That is why I pay tribute to the drugs rehabilitation scheme at Lancaster prison, whose main strength is that it carries on that work after the prisoners have walked out of the gates.
Not only have I nothing whatever against proper plans for release, but I strongly support them as an integral part of preventing reoffending. However, there is a difference between planned release with proper arrangements for supervision and early release on a scheme that is producing reoffending. That is my problem. Whatever else my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) might or might not have supported when he was a member of the Select Committee, he would not have supported a scheme that released those categories of person to reoffend while still on tagging.
Mr. Straw: I am afraid that I do not follow the right hon. Lady. There is no difference in principle between release on HDC and release on licence before a determinate sentence is due to end, except that under HDC, as the figure shows, there is a much lower risk of the person reoffending. Is she seriously telling the House that she would remove any idea of an offender being released on licence before the automatic release date?
Miss Widdecombe: The automatic release dates and entitlement to parole occur at set and statutory points of a sentence. Judges know that when they pass sentence. Indeed, when we introduced "Honesty in Sentencing", we took into account the fact that, when judges pass sentence, they in turn take into account how much is likely to be served. My point is that, going against that judicial decision, releasing before that point people who have committed such a range of offences and who then reoffend, and brushing that aside as inconsequential is not how any of us who might have supported the scheme—I did not—would have envisaged its operating. Most people would have expected a very different application.
246
If the Home Secretary is honest, and I am sure that he is, his answer to a rising prison population is 18,000 early releases.
Mr. Straw: May I press the right hon. Lady because, uncharacteristically, she has not answered the question? As an experienced prisons Minister, she well knows that under the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which was passed by a Conservative Administration, prisoners are routinely released early on licence—before their automatic release date—on the basis of a risk assessment. Some will reoffend. Such prisoners are not released automatically. Is she saying that, in government, she would abandon any early release of prisoners on licence?
Miss Widdecombe: I am obviously not making myself clear to the right hon. Gentleman. There is an earliest point at which somebody becomes eligible for parole. If parole is refused, there comes a point at which he is allowed automatic release, subject only to the requirement for good behaviour. As an experienced prisons Minister, I well know that I was always being told when that earliest point was. A judge passing sentence knows how long a person would serve as a minimum because that earliest point is worked out, but my point is that the Home Secretary has introduced another set of considerations that are not taken into account by the judge. That means that people can be released early and let out into the community on tagging.
I have explained the matter as simply as I can. If the Home Secretary still does not understand, I will ask some of my hon. Friends to try to reduce the language even more, so that he will perhaps be able to understand in Committee.
The Government have squandered the legacy of falling crime that they inherited. [Interruption.] They inherited three years of continual falls and they now have a rise in crime. They cannot deny that. They have failed the police, of whom there are 2,300 fewer than at the general election. The Government cannot deny that. They have created victims of crime by letting people out before the minimum point of the sentence that the judge expected them to serve is reached. They are not, apparently, apologetic towards those victims, even when the crimes are as serious as rape and assault.
The Government's record shows that there are serious flaws in the Home Secretary's approach, whatever soundbites or fiddled figures he tries to use to hoodwink the voters, who remain resolutely unhoodwinked because they can see what is going on around them. The Bill will not make up for any of that. It will not change the fact that the Government have squandered the legacy of crime reduction.
Mr. Dawson: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Miss Widdecombe: No. I am going to finish my speech.
The Bill will not change the fact that thousands of drug dealers, burglars and convicted killers are being let out early. It will not change the fact that our response to a rising prison population was to supply more places, not to let 18,000 out early. We will not oppose the Bill, but the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister should be under no illusion that the effects of their policies—which

247
see crime rising, after the repeated and substantial falls that the Government inherited—will be felt throughout the country in the coming months and years.
I hope that, when we examine the Bill at further stages, it will not suffer the fate of previous Bills. We have stood here and said that we would not oppose the Bills in principle and would give them a fair wind, only to find that all the things that we considered merited at least some amendment and fair consideration had been brushed aside as inconsequential because the Government had such an enormous majority. I hope that there will be a responsible attitude towards this Bill—disqualification orders, getting the amendment about serious sex offenders into the Bill, extending the measure from class A to class B drugs and the other issues that I have raised—and that a serious approach will be taken. The Government's seriousness in tackling crime will be judged by the seriousness of their approach to this and similar Bills.
5.2 pm
Mr. Robin Corbett: The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) will forgive me if I do not respond in detail to her main point, but the public outside must be bemused when they look into these debates and listen to our accusations about whether crime has gone up or down. Like all hon. Members, they have a great interest in seeing crime reductions—no Member wants more crime.
It is true that Bills brought before the House, whether under the right hon. Lady's regime or by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, do not always work out as intended, but, as my right hon. Friend said, that is not a reason for not introducing it, trying it and working harder to restore the peace and security that too many of our local communities have had stolen from them.
It does the right hon. Lady's case no service to get into a stupid Dutch auction about which party will promise to put more feet on the beat in terms of police officers. It was her Government—it is no good rewriting history—who gave responsibility—properly, in my view—for spending resources to chief constables. [Interruption.] It is no good her moaning about it—soundbite Sue, I have news for you! Her Government did that. In my judgment, they were right to give chief constables responsibility for allocating resources. Those chief constables can have a row with the Home Secretary of the day about the size of those resources, but, when they have them, they must, in proper partnership with police authorities—whose role, I say in passing, is grossly undervalued—work out how to spend those resources.
Let us see if the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and I can agree on this point. Although police numbers—the number of officers—are of course important, chief constables will have told her, as they have told my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and other Labour Members, that success in combating crime hinges increasingly on much better and deeper responses to and co-operation with the public and on the increasing use of modern technology. This is not the day of Dick Barton; we have to use modern technology, just as criminals do.
Miss Widdecombe: In imposing one particular set of new technology on police—the public safety radio
248
communications system, which may have great merit in its own right—but in not funding it, the Home Secretary has made it more, not less, likely that police will have to cut recruiting.
Mr. Corbett: The right hon. Lady does not even help her own case. An assiduous reader of Hansard will see, both in the statements that my right hon. Friend has made in the House and in his answers to parliamentary questions, his references to the great sums—he referred to them again today—that have been allocated to police for the long changeover period for the new communications system. I hope that the right hon. Lady will not say that that is not something that she would have done.
Miss Widdecombe: It is not being funded.
Mr. Corbett: It is being funded. If the right hon. Lady had been listening, she would know that more than £50 million is being made available. Quite clearly, there must be more to come.
On spending priorities, chief constables and assistant chief constables across the country have said to me, "We can always make the case for more officers, but we probably have enough if we use them more intelligently and effectively. What we need is to spend more money on modern technology." I hope that that is not a contentious issue.
If we need reminding of the price that our police services pay to ensure public protection, I invite the Home Secretary and every other hon. Member to send a get-well message to PC McCrocker—a 33-year-old west midlands police officer who, when trying to apprehend a suspected burglar, fell 30 ft from a wall and impaled himself through his stomach and his thigh. That is what we expect officers to do on our behalf to give protection to the public and to bring criminals to justice. I am glad to say that PC McCrocker is in a stable condition. Nevertheless, it reminds us of the price that police officers pay every day of the week for doing the job that we ask them to do. It also perhaps underlines the fact that they, too, must be baffled about some of the squabbles that go on in this place about how we should try better to get to grips with restoring safety and security to our communities.
I tell my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that I am very pleased with the Government's actions and with the various measures—including this Bill—that they have introduced better to enable local communities to reclaim, with expert help from outside, the safety and security that too many of them have had stolen from them. I have said in the House before, but it bears repetition, that the biggest single issue raised by my constituents at the previous general election and since has been the very issue of anti-social behaviour shading into petty crime, and then growing into acts of violence.
All hon. Members have a duty, both in the House and in our constituencies, to help our constituents to get the courage and the confidence to stand up and win back safety and security for themselves, with the help that is available from the crime prevention strategy that my right hon. Friend has sensibly introduced. Birmingham has published its strategy for the first three years, and the first review of that is due this month.
We can all of us—because it is all around us—isolate some of the factors that lead to a loss of safety and security in many parts of our constituencies. It has much

249
to do with deprivation and poverty. It has much to do with the fact that a part of the so-called golden legacy left by the previous Government was that, in one in five households in which there were people of working age, no one had a job. However, when the current Government put their hands into the deep pockets of the former public utilities to extract billions for the new deal, they were opposed by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and her colleagues—yet the new deal has made a huge impact in getting despairing, hopeless and jobless young people into jobs. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) must not provoke me. I do not care whether the number is this or that—every single person put in training or in a job would have been left on the scrapheap had his Government been returned to power. It is very important that people in our communities are encouraged to have connections and to believe that life can be better. There is no better way of demonstrating that than having a job or training.
Miss Widdecombe: They are not getting that from the new deal.
Mr. Corbett: The right hon. Lady scoffs. If she does not like the new deal, let her get up and tell the House how she would have got youth unemployment rates down without it.
Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman consults the figures, he will find that youth unemployment was falling faster in this country when we were in power than in most other countries. I do not remember the hon. Gentleman supporting schemes that I proposed to get young people back into work—even when they were shown later to have been successful. All he did was pour scorn. He has one rule when his party is in government, and another rule when another party is in government. He would be more convincing had he supported our schemes, particularly those which were very successful.
Mr. Corbett: I am not interested in a trip down memory lane; I am talking about now. In my constituency, under the right hon. Lady's Government, unemployment among people of working age topped 30 per cent. That is no longer true. Many of those people who have found new jobs and training to divert them from the temptations of crime got those chances and opportunities under the new deal programme. The right hon. Lady can scoff as much she likes. I hope that the thousands in my constituency who now have the opportunities that her Government denied them will read how she has reacted to what I am saying in this Chamber.
Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is right to be angry about unemployment, but he is wrong to scoff at the significance of figures which contradict his own claims. How does he argue his case in the light of the factual, empirical evidence which shows that unemployment between April 1993 and May 1997 in this country fell at a faster rate than it is falling now? That is the evidence—what is his contradiction of it?
Mr. Corbett: I do not want to be rude about Buckingham, and the comparisons between Buckingham and Birmingham, but—
Miss Widdecombe: Answer the question.
Mr. Corbett: Hold on, I am getting there. For the last 30 years or so, unemployment levels in Birmingham have
250
run at about twice the national average. I know from my own constituency, leaving aside the rest of the city, that the biggest reductions in youth unemployment have been since 1997 when the new deal came in.
Mr. Dawson: The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was a valued and welcome visitor to my constituency on Saturday. When she stood at Lancaster prison, she was within half a mile of an area in my constituency where, during the years of Conservative Government, unemployment was at 24 per cent. and drug dealing and crime were rife and destroying a whole community. That community is being rehabilitated. Unemployment is falling dramatically, and single regeneration budget money is going into community development. I know young people who are benefiting from the new deal, and there is the prospect of further work to deal with crime fuelled by drug dealing. That is the evidence—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. That intervention was far too long. Perhaps I should say to the House that the debate is starting to spin away. No one denies that there is a connection between crime and unemployment that is to be argued, but perhaps we should concentrate on the main substance of the Bill.
Mr. Corbett: Than you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and some other Conservative Members—although not all of them—are in denial about what happened under the previous Government.
I turn now to the part of the Bill that threatens, at least, to get heavy with parents whose children truant, absent themselves from school or are expelled from school. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that about 50,000 children are known to be truanting. If that is the official figure, my experience suggests that it is a gross underestimate. For a variety of reasons, schools are loth to declare suspensions or expulsions for fear of the financial consequences. Exam results can also be affected. I make no big deal about that, except to say that one of the priority aims in the Birmingham crime and disorder strategy is to achieve a sustained reduction in offending among young people. I do not doubt that other parts of the country have set the same goal, but Birmingham has made it clear that part of its strategy is to improve school attendance.
The improvement of school attendance is a worthy and vital objective in its own right. It is a tragedy when young people going through the education system these days discover only at the age of 16 or 17 the dreadful price that they will pay for not making the most of the opportunities available at school. I do not want to get into preaching mode about that because I know that some families have problems. I deliberately put the matter that way around, as I consider that usage to be more helpful than the phrase "problem families". The value of the orders will lie in the fact that they will enable schools, local education authorities and others to offer assistance to children and their families at an earlier stage than is currently possible.
It is unacceptable—although in part understandable—that four out of five parents involved do not turn up in court, as my right hon. Friend noted. I was going to say that they do not bother to turn up, but the problem may

251
not be as simple as that—perhaps they do not see the importance of attendance. I do not want to make a party political point, but that is one of the arguments or battles that we must wage with the generation of low achievers for whom the giro coming through the door once a week or once a fortnight was all that mattered. Their society contained no effective role models, so it is perhaps not surprising that the children of that generation see the world in a different way. For them, school is a choice: they either go to school, or they do not, and they have too little understanding of the price that has to be paid for non-attendance.
I therefore welcome clause 55. As my right hon. Friend said, no one wants parents to go to jail. I agree with the organisation Liberty that sending one parent, or both, to jail carries little in the way of bonus for families. The clause's value is that it offers an extra tool of intervention that can be offered to families with problems.
The lower the educational achievements of today's children, the worse will be their chances of leading happy and fulfilling lives based around useful and interesting jobs. The days have gone when there was always an errand to be run or a floor to be swept. The jobs on offer now—the ones that will be available for children now at school—require brains more than brawn.
Some parents—sometimes they are single parents, but not always—find it difficult to exercise proper control. Mine cannot be the only constituency where children as young as five, six, seven or eight years of age roam the streets at midnight and at 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning. When I am in a good mood, I say that I did not know there were so many orphans knocking about. When I am not in a good mood, I get extremely upset at what I consider to be the gross irresponsibility of parents who enable or allow that to happen. Regardless of the effect that that has on their attendance at school, the huge risk that those children are subjected to either by older children or by adults—which is worse—cries out for attention. I hope that this clause is one measure by which we can start to address that problem and encourage parents with those difficulties to get the help that they need.
Miss Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for interrupting his flow—I tried to wait until what I thought was a natural break. However, I am anxious to raise this point of order while the Home Secretary is still in his place. There have been reports today about the absconding of six individuals from Oakington last night. Have you or Madam Speaker received any request for the Home Secretary to take advantage of his presence in the House to make a statement?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. The fact is that no such request has been received. I have no doubt that the Home Secretary has heard what the right hon. Lady has said, but I must say to her that there have to be other ways in which to pursue those matters.
Mr. Corbett: I hope that the powers in clause 55 will be used more as a way of offering advice and support than punishment. The power should be seen to divert rather than to punish.
252
Reference was made earlier to the third report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which I now have the privilege to Chair, on alternatives to prison, published in July 1998. The Committee called for a national probation service, and for it to be more rigorous in enforcing the community sentences. May I say in passing that we accused the sentencers and the media of not understanding enough about community sentences? When people receive a well-targeted community sentence, to say that they "walked free from court today" does nothing to help that understanding.
One Select Committee recommendation stated:
Strict enforcement of community sentences is vital if they are to represent a credible alternative to prison and retain the confidence of sentencers and the public.
So I welcome the provision for a national service. I am pleased that the Association of Chief Officers of Probation welcomes it as well. However, the association fears—I think mistakenly—that the Government's power to intervene under clause 45, which provides for the functions of the local boards that will be appointed to oversee the delivery of the service in the 42 areas, may be used prematurely or inconsistently in the event of perceived failure. I think that the association has got this wrong. The local boards have the authority and the influence—the Home Secretary is there only as a longstop. If the public investment in a modern probation service is not getting the desired results, the Home Secretary will act on behalf of the taxpayer and the offender to see that the matter is put right. I see nothing wrong with that principle. My right hon. Friend has made extra resources available to the service.
The Association of Chief Officers of Probation is also concerned at the provisions on electronic monitoring. Our report rightly called for this to be extended. The House has already heard that the results of the first years of operation in the pilot areas has shown compliance with the tagging conditions to be an astonishing 95 per cent.
I want to tell the House about a visit that we made to a centre in Manchester, or Salford, that monitored people wearing tags. It had experience of offenders ringing up and saying, "We are so glad that we are tagged because it imposes a discipline on us that is not normally there." It had others applying to be tagged when they had not committed any offences. It is a generalisation, I know, but young people with offending behaviour often have a chaotic life style, and one of the benefits of tagging is to impose some order on that.
The centre feared—I think it was a misreading—that there would be a swipe-card approach to the monitoring of tagging—what I believe is called in the trade "drive by and wave." That would reduce the personal contact which is part of the order that surrounds the tagging device. I am sure that that is not the intention because the point of community orders is to establish regular contact with the probation service and others if need be, the better to ensure success and public protection, and to reduce the likelihood of reoffending.
I am not clear about the attitude of the Opposition to tagging. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made that point to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. She and the whole House know that people are due to come out of prison at various stages and if someone is released slightly earlier than under the normal tariff with the assistance of a tag, it is because an

253
assessment has been made of the safety of the public and the likelihood of the prisoner obeying the terms of early release. We know that offenders can be recalled to prison if they reoffend.
Our report shows that there is little or no difference between reoffending rates of people sentenced to custodial sentences and people sentenced to non-custodial community sentences. That point is worth underlining. One of the advantages of community sentences is that they are cheaper than sending people to prison. I do not advocate non-custodial sentences only for that reason, but there is a benefit to the public in that less of our tax goes to keeping people locked up.
The exceptions are worth noting again. The Select Committee recently made an interesting visit to Her Majesty's Prison Blantyre in Kent. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will know about it because I wrote him a letter. The prison takes about 20 life sentence prisoners about a year before the end of their sentence. They are simply told that they are going there, and that is what happens. The other prisoners are on shorter sentences. The prison is a model in what it achieves. Every prisoner is either in full-time education or working: most of those who work do so well outside the prison, including those who commute to and from London regularly. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald will like this—the regime is simple. The rules are "One breach and back to Maidstone you go. No ifs, no buts; that's it."
The thing that most impressed us during that visit was that four former prisoners, all with heavy sentences, who had completed their sentences and been released and were all working—one of them with the help of a very good voluntary body—gave up their time to come back and tell us what the regime at Blantyre House had meant for them and literally how it had changed their lives. The other thing that came out of our exchanges—I think that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and I are at one on this—was the appalling picture that they painted of what goes on in the rest of the Prison Service. There is almost total absence of a coherent, positive approach to preparing prisoners in any true sense for release or rehabilitation. All of them to a man said, "Is it any wonder, with what goes on in our mainstream prisons, that too many prisoners come out with a warrant in their hand and are back inside in comparatively few months?" We will never break that cycle unless we have more regimes like that at Blantyre. Those who have proposed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that we should re-role—hateful phrase—Blantyre house should have their words stuffed down their throats, and should be told to think again. We must not risk destroying a regime that has demonstrated its success and that deserves to continue to do so. If anything, we want more places like it.
Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman made my point in his final words. There are too few resettlement prisons—Kirklevington and Blantyre, and pretty well no more. Instead of reducing the precious few facilities available, we should seek to expand them.
Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. I am told that some in the Prison Service see what happens at Blantyre house as risky. I cannot believe that any governor in the Prison Service is not exposed to some risk. There are no guarantees for those who do that job.
254
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will not entertain for more than 10 seconds the idea of change at Blantyre House.
During the inquiry, we found that some tailor-made educational schemes for community orders were immensely successful in addressing the causes of offences. For example, we met a young man in Manchester who had burned down a school, causing around £750,000 damage. The fire service, to which I pay tribute, was working with him one to one to address his need for arson. Similar schemes were run on drugs and other offences, and such schemes were immensely successful in diverting people from reoffending, which cut reoffending rates dramatically. That is the direction in which we should go.
I welcome the Bill's aim better to protect the public. It will allow us to intervene earlier in various ways and to try to divert people from the approach road to youth offending. Local communities want the Bill, and it deserves to succeed.
5.33 pm
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I shall be brief. Fundamentally, we support the Bill, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, we have some reservations and some detailed criticisms.
Any criminal justice Bill must be seen against the overall crime background, which immediately leads to arguments categorised as party political. I shall not dodge that point, but my remarks will be made in the context of Bedfordshire, which I represent. Use of that context will show the realities, and hon. Members may argue over whether my points are party political once they have heard what I have to say.
After nearly three years of the Labour Government, Bedfordshire is short of police. Our police number has dropped by 4.1 per cent., which represents about 61 officers—a serious change for a small force of around 1,100. That has practical effects, particularly on the rural community. Riseley police station was set up by the chief constable and was much appreciated by the parishes north of Bedford, but it is now manned for only a few hours because of pressure on police resources.
To the probation service, I pay a genuine compliment: I note with pleasure the sea change in the service during my 20 years as a Member of Parliament. Today, it is a service of which the country can be proud. That applies to the majority of probation officers. They do an extremely difficult job in a firm, effective and practical way, and deserve our thanks.
It is not always realised how tough the job of probation officer can be, nor what an important part probation officers play in the maintenance of law and order—especially in the monitoring and control in the community of often dangerous offenders. The job can range from dealing with tricky paedophiles, who can be a real danger if not properly monitored, to those on licence from a life sentence who need careful support and control. There is the problem of repeat burglars, multiple housebreakers and car crime offenders, all of whom need to be monitored back in the community. There is witness protection and even the monitoring of those with terrorist records or those who pose a potential terrorist danger. All that is part of the life of the modern probation officer.

255
We support the fact that the service is to become a National Probation Service. It makes good sense that probation services, which operate countywide—as in my constituency—should be tied in with the police force and the Crown Prosecution Service. We welcome and encourage that move. It already happens to a significant degree in Bedfordshire; as it is a small county, many of the services were largely coterminous. We can see the wisdom of that for the rest of the country.
On the basis that the Government are the sinner who repenteth, they are right to have backed down on their inappropriate name for the probation service. To call it the National Probation Service is sensible. That was, at least, the result of consultation with the service, whose deep concerns were heard. The name is an improvement. However, unfortunately, according to the feedback I have received, the consultation on the naming of the penalties—probation orders, rehabilitation orders, community punishment and so on—has been less complete. Indeed, highly respected people in the service feel that the service was not consulted as much as it should have been.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald pointed out, the names are not yet right. I hope that the Government will not think it a point of honour not to change their mind. There is much to be said for referring to the sentences as community sentences—the heading for part III. The court will impose a community sentence; it will then add the appropriate number of tough conditions. The offender will be told: "You will receive a community sentence. It will include 200 hours of community service, mandatory drug testing and, for that reason, a period of electronic tagging and, for that reason, you will be subject to an exclusion order—excluded from certain parts of your town during certain times. That will be monitored. Go away and don't do it again." The message will get across.
However, there are dangers in naming sentences by acronyms that can be all too easily misunderstood. I do not wish to lower the tone of the debate, but the acronym of a community punishment and rehabilitation order is CPARO, and that can easily become CRAPO. If it does, that will not enhance the order's status. I do not want to spell out that point in too much of a soundbite, but I draw it to the Government's attention.
Mr. Hawkins: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I shall not give way, because I do not want to over-emphasise this point. I know and respect my hon. Friend's point of view, but I wish to persuade the Government on this matter.
I come now to the issue of enforcement in cases of breach. I have read clause 46 carefully, but I have obviously not read it enough. It is quite difficult to tell exactly what it will mean in practice. I shall outline my concerns so that Ministers and those who handle the Bill's detail can think about them.
If the conditions placed on a community sentence are broken, it is entirely right that the offender should be breached, as it is known in the trade, and brought back to court, which should be able to give appropriate punishment. However, we must be careful to leave the court adequate flexibility because offenders vary greatly.
256
Too high a proportion of offenders commit deliberate offences—they know what they are doing and the risks that they are taking. Such offenders are out to make a living from crime and they deserve any punishment they get. Other offenders doubtless deserve punishment, but, for one reason or another, they are incapable of being responsible for themselves. Although that fact should not let them off, there should be no unexpected or unintentional results that would make them more of a burden on the community or the Prison Service.
I refer to the type of offender who, as the result of drug taking or drinking too much alcohol, or because he is feckless and of low intellect, finds it difficult to comply regularly with the precise terms of the community sentence that has rightly been imposed on him. The court must have a degree of flexibility or discretion. Otherwise, probation officers may be reluctant to return to court someone who has breached the terms of a probation order because they fear that that person will be put in prison automatically and that that will be counter-productive.
I am in favour of a firm and tough approach, but I have always been in favour of leaving a significant degree of flexibility to the courts. Although it is not the subject of the Bill, if I were asked why I supported mandatory sentences for three-time burglars, I would reply that I was satisfied that multiple burglars—they usually commit more than three offences—caused a huge amount of trouble to the community and that the average length of sentence that they received was simply too short. That legislation, which is a precursor to the Bill and the modern tough approach to crime that the Government purport to follow—I encourage them when they do—was right to tackle that issue. My plea is for a proper degree of flexibility for the courts so that the punishment for breach can be appropriate rather than suffering from a certain automaticity, which would cause it to be counter-productive.
The Bill provides for the advent of new technology, which can be beneficial. Now that electronic tagging has been proved to work, it is rightly being used much more widely. However, when we seek to enforce probation by methods such as the new swipe cards, let us be careful to ensure that they work properly and that they are capable of being properly monitored. For example, it has been suggested to me that to tell someone to report electronically by use of a swipe card may sound very nice, but the card could easily be given to someone else. That other person could swipe the relevant monitoring point for the offender. That system may not be effective. When handprints can be used—they cannot really be concealed—technology may meet the purpose for which it is applied. I am much in favour of new technology, but let it be used with common sense.
A portion of the Bill deals with court welfare officers and guardians ad litem, and the transfer of responsibility from the Home Office to the Lord Chancellor's Department. It has not taken up a great deal of time during the debate. However, it is an extraordinarily difficult matter for any Government. It is not party political.
There is quite a difference in culture at present between court welfare officers and guardians ad litem. Court welfare officers deal with day-to-day work for particular courts and undertake valuable work. They are full-time employees. Guardians ad litem are somewhat differently trained. They are estimable people who largely work free

257
lance. It is important that the Lord Chancellor's Department should be sensitive in moulding the two services together.
It should be realised that the Home Office was probably not wholly altruistic in passing responsibility to the Lord Chancellor's Department in these often extremely contentious matters. The whole issue of child care when dealt with in the courts, and of marriage breakdown, which is so often the background, is hugely contentious and is known to lead to many complaints. I see the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), looking characteristically and charmingly happy at the thought that the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock), who is blissfully ignorant because he is not sitting in on the debate, will carry the burden in the future.
The Home Office is a rather large Department compared with the Lord Chancellor's Department. The Lord Chancellor may be pleased to be enlarging his empire, but let him ensure that the formidable reputation on which he relies is effective in the courts a the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Otherwise, he will not have the budget to do the job properly. I wish him well, not only for his sake but for that of those in the service, who will depend on his success if they are to be able to do a very difficult job effectively.
I wish the Bill well. I hope that the Government will listen to our constructive comments and make certain changes to the Bill, in which event we shall have acted together to produce improvements to the law.
5.49 pm
Mr. Hilton Dawson: It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate, but it is sad that the House is comparatively empty for a debate on an important Bill. It was sad also to hear the earlier claims of golden legacies which are not borne out by my experience or that of many constituents. We can all hark back to the past but it is essential that we try to face the problems confronting people at the moment and deal with them sensibly.
Mr. Hawkins: If the hon. Gentleman thinks back a few minutes, he will realise that it was his colleague the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) who talked about golden legacies.
Mr. Dawson: We can argue about such particulars, but anyone who has sat in the Chamber for the past hour or so will recall the extraordinary claims being made by Conservative Members.
I welcome the Bill, which is immensely significant. Apart from the final remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), the debate has largely concentrated on the probation measures. However, the Bill is crucial for the 13 million children in this country whose protection it will greatly enhance and improve. It is enormously significant for the thousands of children who are caught up in public legal proceedings, care proceedings and the private law relating to divorce and issues of residence and contact, which are dealt with under section 8 of the Children Act 1989.
The Bill is enormously significant also for the comparatively small group of children who are dealt with by the Official Solicitor, who has the often grave
258
responsibility of resolving difficult moral, ethical and legal issues. Those children are sometimes caught up in the most extraordinary and damaging circumstances.
The Bill is also excellent for the public, who need a coherent system that will protect them from serious offenders. In many cases, their best protection will be dedicated probation officers. I am glad, as I think everyone is, that they will still be called probation officers, rather than being known by the bizarre acronyms that might have been foisted on them.
As other hon. Members have said, probation officers work in the most difficult, and occasionally dangerous, circumstances. They will have the opportunity to work under the new structures that the Bill will develop within the community safety framework established by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The Bill will present them with new opportunities to tackle the profoundly important issues at the heart of so much offending in this country. Those issues damage people, wreck lives, take the heart out of whole communities and sap the confidence of many of the people whom we represent.
Above all, this is a serious Bill. The Government are certainly taking a firm approach to the protection of children and the public. They are also creating a tremendous opportunity to enhance children's rights, and I shall return to that point later.
I give an unequivocal welcome to part H, which deals with the protection of children. It is a measure of the seriousness with which the Government address these issues that the Bill goes further than previous reports have recommended by creating two new criminal offences of working with children while disqualified from doing so and of offering such work to someone who is disqualified.
It is exceptionally important that the Government have defined work with children so that the Bill encompasses not only paid work but voluntary work and the full range of activities and circumstances in which paedophiles and people intent on harm can gain access to children. Experience has surely shown us that those who want to exploit and abuse children are cunning, ruthless and devious, and the Government are demonstrating that in protecting children they are prepared to be vigilant, thorough and severe.
I welcome the establishment of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. I could not think up an unlikely name for it, and I do not entirely take on board some of the quibbles about names that we have had this afternoon. Bringing together the family court welfare service, the guardian ad litem and reporting officer service and the official solicitor is necessary and possibly overdue. It is a good first step.
I accept the point about the difficulties of trying to assimilate different services, and there are many anxieties, particularly among guardians ad litem, who have rightly operated as independent contractors and who have had an informal employment relationship when carrying out their crucial role. They are concerned about how that role will marry up with the welfare service when it is included in CAFCASS, and we will have to wait and see.
Obviously it makes good sense to unite all those who report to courts in private proceedings, care proceedings and adoptions, where crucial issues relative to the care of children need to be resolved. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire thought that the Home Office had played a bit of a blinder by passing the

259
service over to the Lord Chancellor's Department, and I am concerned about that transfer. I am concerned about any social workers being in the company of lawyers. I wonder how well a social work service will fit into the framework of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
CAFCASS, or whatever it will be called, needs to be a children's rights service. It needs to have an independent and powerful influence so that it can ensure that children's voices are clearly heard when courts are making crucial decisions about care, supervision, adoption, residence and contact. I am not sure that it is entirely appropriate to place that service within the Lord Chancellor's Department, where it will be subject to inspection by no doubt worthy officers of the magistrates court service.
A great deal of work will be needed to preserve the independence of that service and to ensure that it abides by fundamental social work principles and the basic principles of the Children Act. It must also be firmly grounded in the principles of the UN convention on the rights of the child.
The service must be able to carry out an important task that is in some ways delicate and in many other ways robust. That involves getting alongside children, sometimes in extraordinary situations, and understanding their wishes and feelings when they are caught up in a legal process. The service must be able to hear the very small voices of children in the often bewildering circumstances of divorce, parental antagonism, abuse and neglect.
For me, and for many other hon. Members, I imagine, the debate on the huge change to be introduced by the Bill properly raises questions about the necessity for a children's rights commissioner in this country, to attend to the basic rights of children and to ensure that systems always work in the interests of children. We must ensure that the voices of children are heard, and that Government agencies and Departments always work together in the interests of children who, by definition in this country, are powerless. They have no vote.
The message from all the child abuse inquiries and all the appalling cases about which we have heard is that as well as having no vote, children often have no voice. That is probably a debate for another day, but the service would sit more comfortably if such a commissioner were in place, and if the Government followed the logic of their tremendous commitment to children, to the United Nations convention on children's rights and to joined-up government.
The measure is a good step, but it raises further issues that remain unresolved because the Family Law Act 1996 has not been fully implemented. A significant section of the 1996 Act relates to the breakdown of marriage, mediation, and the services required in those circumstances. The new service will not be fully developed until we have a coherent framework for mediation and the resolution of problems before they get to court. Many hon. Members are lawyers, but I hope that we all recognise that courtrooms are often not the best place to resolve crucial issues pertaining to the upbringing of children and their future.
The principle of independent advocacy needs to be extended further. The guardian ad litem service in relation to children facing care proceedings, coupled with the
260
independent representation of children in those proceedings, works. It ensures that the needs and circumstance of children are taken into account. Another unimplemented part of the Family Law Act 1996 deals with the independent representation of children in private law proceedings. I hope that that will be taken further, stimulated by the development of CAFCASS.
I have been in Parliament only a short while, but judging by my own experience I would be amazed if other hon. Members had not had parents, grandparents, and even children and young people coming to their surgeries to talk about the bad time they had had during the parents divorce. The children speak of their impression that they were not listened to by the judge, or by anyone who was part of those proceedings, about crucial issues such as where they would live for the rest of their childhood, and what contact they would have with their parents.
Until we address that fundamental issue, there will be continuing problems. For many children, childhood will be undermined, and they will not receive the attention and support that they palpably deserve. I hope that the new system will help us to put that right.
A tremendous training programme will be needed for the new advisory and support service, and its independence will have to be vigorously protected. People will be needed who can stand up for children and express children's needs in a courtroom setting that would daunt many adults.
A good management structure will be required for the new service, to ensure that the people carrying out the difficult task of listening to children and advocating their interests in a challenging setting are given the proper support, training and back-up. The social work service will operate in a legalistic milieu, and it is important that social workers have contact with other professionals working with children and families.
It is good that we will have a national probation service. I understand why some people are shy of the word "punishment", but I think they are wrong. The national probation service should take on board the fact that some orders contain an element of reparation, of making good and of service. That will be perceived as punishment by some people, but it is necessary, in addition to the advice, assistance and befriending which are the more traditional parts of the probation role.
It is essential that the programmes enjoy credibility with the public, the people carrying them out, and the people who are sentenced to them. The programmes must be seen as an effective way of making good with the community and moving on.
We have heard a lot of talk today about early releases, and what I considered inappropriate comments about reoffending. I hardly think that any of the victims of the crimes in question—some extremely serious—could feel happy about the fact that their horrendous experiences have been bandied around the Chamber. I do not believe that that had anything to do with concern for the needs of victims; I believe that it had a great deal to do with party political point-scoring, and I consider it deplorable.
If we are to move on, we must find a safe way of allowing serious offenders to return to the community, or to remain in the community. It must enable them to be monitored and to make good what they have done to society; above all, the public must be protected. But at the same time, it must enable offenders to be rehabilitated and

261
helped back into a more productive life. We cannot simply consign people to prison, let them rot there for years and then allow them back on the streets: that would be appalling and irresponsible. We must establish a policy which, while having community safety and public protection at its heart, will enable such people to become involved in programmes—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) described some of them—that the Government are introducing to help people to emerge from social exclusion and gain a proper place in society through training, work and other opportunities.
It is commendable that the national probation service will be based on police boundaries: no sensible person could disagree with that. The introduction of exclusion orders, drug abstinence orders and curfew requirements in the case of community sentences is intrusive and demanding, but it is absolutely necessary if we are to establish an effective link between the Prison Service, the probation service and the police, and then enable them to use an intelligence-led approach to target serious criminals and reduce offending.
The Government's approach gives rise to great optimism. I shall be chided by my colleagues for mentioning the fine city of Lancaster yet again, but I must point out that it has experienced serious levels of crime. Unemployment, poverty and deprivation are by no means the sole causes of crime, but they are unquestionably at the heart of the decision of many young people to become criminals—or, perhaps, the lack of a decision: some people just fall into crime.
Lancaster has been given real opportunities by the new deal and the regeneration programmes—the single regeneration budget, objective 2 status and assisted area status. Those programmes are bringing new investment to communities containing vulnerable people, particularly vulnerable young men. However, the city will also be helped by the programmes that the probation service is being encouraged to adopt—programmes that clamp down on people's behaviour, while offering help at the same time.
I am thinking of, for instance, drug referral programmes for people who have been arrested, which attend to the most serious underlying problems experienced by those people at a crucial stage. They may be in a police cell, wondering where they go from there. It is important that nurses—referred to earlier—have been present in police stations. That must be a challenging experience for nurses who are used to working in hospital wards, but the results are extremely positive. People have responded tremendously well.
Serious drug abuse is clearly at the heart of much offending. Hon. Members have asked why the Government are concentrating on class A drugs; I think it obvious from my experience of my constituency—and I suspect the same is true of many others—that it is class A drugs that dominate people's lives, so that they must find money to fuel their serious drug habit.
I think that there is cause for considerable optimism. The extra powers and duties conferred on the probation service will help tremendously. There is a serious debate to be had, and we shall probably engage in it for the remainder of the Session, but it is a shame that serious, honest intentions have been subjected today to carping, moaning and belittling. This is a fine Bill, which has the potential to transform areas of policy that have been
262
neglected for far too long. I look forward to its making real progress—and, most important, making a real difference.
6.18 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I am glad to have an opportunity, two and a half hours after the beginning of the debate, to present the Liberal Democrat view. I shall do so in respect of both the generality and the specifics.
According to a much misunderstood verse of the Bible, Jesus said that the poor were always with us. It is a much quoted fact that crime is always with us. That could well be true, but the challenge to politicians is how we can reduce the amount of crime and bring about a society in which all people can lead lives that are as law-abiding as possible.
As far as I can remember, we have dealt with a criminal justice Bill or a crime Bill, or both, every year since I became a Member of Parliament; but we clearly have not found all the answers yet. There are no easy answers, which is one reason why we keep returning to the subject. This is the first debate on these issues that I have led for my party, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). It is already a little tiring that some of the proposals that we are discussing appear not to have benefited from full and careful consideration, and also that we go around the same circuit every year without trying to ensure that we learn the lessons of the past while securing maximum agreement in the House. However, the Government have the right to introduce a Bill. They have done that and we must start from here.
Let us consider the big picture. There is a huge amount of crime and figures are rising. They had decreased, but they are rising again. It is paradoxical that, in one way, the increase in the figures may be good because it shows that we live in a society where more crime is reported and that people now speak out about crimes that they would not have reported some years ago. The large increase in violent crime is especially worrying. Reducing the amount of violent crime, much of which is alcohol or drug related or induced, is a challenge to us and our society.
On Sunday, I spent some time at a benefit event for a family whose husband and father of six children has disappeared and is believed to have been murdered. Some people have been arrested in relation to that. Wherever our constituencies are, we all live with recurrent, serious and searing crime. Much of it is ghastly and horrible, and undermines the core values of our society. We must try above all to deal with that. That sort of crime worries most the people whom we are sent here to represent.
The second current big issue is that people are exercised about whether there are enough people to undertake crime prevention and reduction. The debates about police numbers are therefore important. People notice when there are more or fewer police. We were glad about yesterday's announcement, in response to a parliamentary written question, that the money allocated to police authorities will be topped up yet again.
Until last summer, the Home Secretary claimed that police numbers were not up to him, yet since then he has twice announced more money for more police officers. Police numbers are therefore up to him to some extent—it is up to him to add to them, but never up to him to

263
reduce them. However, we welcome the increased resources for the police in the approaching financial year. Many of us have argued for that. The number of police at the end of the Parliament will still not match the number at the beginning. Those figures will not be achieved until well beyond the next election, if at all, but at least the Government have heard the public's message.
The third element in the big picture is that the number of people in prison has sadly and worryingly increased. The numbers will probably continue to rise, and the Government appear content about that; they accept it and are willing regularly to introduce measures that increase the numbers of people who are likely to go inside. It has been estimated that up to another 15,000 people who breach non-custodial orders might go to prison as a result of the Bill.
More people going to prison for longer does not constitute a solution to our problems. We cannot produce a better society by that method. There will always be people in prison and we must take away the liberty of those who cannot manage it properly; we have to punish. However, there is too great a temptation, in borderline cases, to put people inside rather than leaving them outside. More and more offences lead to mandatory prison sentences. We believe that the sentence should be left to the court; Parliament should not determine it.
On the other hand, the Government want to increase electronic tagging. Unlike the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), we welcome that. When the technology works, it is better that people who pass the risk assessment tests, and can be released safely, are outside at the end of their sentences rather than locked up.
Drugs constitute the fourth big issue. Viscountess Runciman and her eminent colleagues today produced a report, which has been published by the Police Foundation. We cannot have a royal commission, because the Government are apparently unwilling to establish a body that provides independent, objective advice on drugs, their misuse and reform of the relevant legislation. The Police Foundation has therefore acted as a substitute. We welcome the thorough report, which I have had the opportunity to glance through, as other hon. Members will have done. The public hope that the Government will respond positively to it. Early signs, as expected, are weak. The deputy head of the federal Bureau of Justice said, when he visited this country a year or two ago, that only a stubborn Government do not accept that the law on drugs may need to be reformed.
I hope that the Government are neither stubborn nor deaf on the issue of drugs, or on the recommendations of the Runciman report. I hope that they hear the clear message that, unless we distinguish between the severity and implications of different drugs, we cannot hope to reduce the number of people who are addicted or use drugs. An intelligent, considered response, drug by drug, to dealing with the user and the dealer is appropriate.
Lastly, the outgoing president of the Prison Governors Association told us today about the severe overcrowding in prisons and the difficulty that he and his colleagues now experience in doing their jobs. The criminal justice system is therefore in difficulties, and we must tackle that.
264
Like other hon. Members, I pay tribute to the Prison Service and its staff. I pay tribute, in particular, to the staff at Lancaster prison. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) knows that I recently visited the prison. My visit was interesting, informative and helpful. I was extremely impressed by the drugs rehabilitation work that I asked to see. I was impressed not only by the staff, but by the prisoners, who were motivated and clear about the benefits of the work. The more such work is undertaken in all our penal institutions, the better. Simply preventing drugs from coming into prisons is no good if sufficient work is not done with prisoners to ensure that they do not reoffend through drugs when they leave.
I add my tribute to those of other hon. Members to the probation service. It is delighted that it will keep its name. It does a good job and we all owe it a debt of gratitude.
The Government must balance trying to meet the public demand, which is misplaced in some ways, to be tougher and to be seen to be constantly devising new initiatives, with getting the policy right. As with other matters, the Government introduce plenty of initiatives, but many appear to be kneejerk reactions and the result of ill-thought-out ideas. Two current ideas appear to have sprung from unprompted and unheralded suggestions by the Prime Minister. It sometimes seems that policies are not rationally considered and are led, if not developed, by spin doctors. That is especially unhelpful in penal and criminal justice policy.
It is all very well legislating through providing for a power here and another there, but sometimes those powers are inappropriate. We need fewer one-off initiatives and more considered policy. We need joined-up government. Yesterday, the Government announced that they wanted more joined-up thinking on the youth service and young people. That is welcome. It should apply across the board, including to the Prison Service and the criminal justice system.
We should allow time for changes to bed down. For example, a set of orders is already available to the courts. They relate to drugs and include drug testing and treatment orders, and they appear to work well. Many people argue that the Bill provides for further and unnecessary orders when existing orders work adequately.
The precondition to all this is that we need as much crime reduction and prevention as possible. People around the country are all agreed that practical measures such as crime partnerships work well to deliver local ideas—some are societal, some are practical, some are to do with the design of houses, some relate to where to put play areas and some deal with how to bring up children and what their education they should be—but I repeat that having enough police out there on the streets is a key part of that exercise. We need police in the community and we need the neighbourhood wardens, which the Government have now introduced. We have long argued that more community-based policing is needed and the neighbourhood warden idea has now arrived, and not before time. In due course, we shall put forward further ideas on developing the police service to ensure that there is more coherent neighbourhood policing. We think that that is what the public want.
I want to say a word about young people, some of whom all too easily become young offenders. The more we can do to prevent young people from becoming young offenders, the better our society will become, although

265
concentrating on prospective criminals of the future is not an excuse for not being equally attentive to the large number of people already in prison. There have been good initiatives and the Youth Justice Board is a good thing, but the reduction in the youth service around the country is a bad thing. The more constructive the activity young people undertake in and out of school, and the more they are educated for life through energetic pursuits that enable them to use their lives to the full, the less likely they are to be criminals.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), the Chairman of the Select Committee, was right: the more training and work that young people receive, the more likely they are to be full members of society, not criminals. It is more likely that there will be crime where there is less work and more unemployment and we have to reflect on the fact that many people at the bottom end of society, where there is still a large measure of social exclusion, are not doing well. Some people at the other end of society are doing very well indeed. The more unequal our society, the more likely it is that there will be crime among the have nots.
Dealing with truants is one of the crucial issues covered by the Bill. The proposal to move from a power to bring people before the authorities to a power to more than double fines on parents of truant children—and, prospectively, to send them to prison—does not seem to us to be a sensible answer. Although the Home Secretary says that the power is intended more as a threat than a reality, locking up the parents of truants is hardly likely to produce families that are more able to play a full and coherent part in society. Many things need to be done, and truancy is a big issue in constituencies such as mine, but locking up parents who have not fulfilled their parental responsibility to make sure that their children go to school is hardly likely to achieve improvements. Parents in prison often means children in local authority care. If children are in local authority or foster care, there is often a greater chance of them going into detention or prison in teenage and adult life. We must therefore be careful not to propose appealing but simplistic solutions to difficult problems.
Should people go to prison or should they not? The Bill's implication—by and large and in spite of the tagging option, which allows early release—is that prison numbers will go up.
Mr. Stephen Day: Although the hon. Gentleman's case may be welcomed by organisations such as the Howard League for Penal Reform, does he accept that the public—whether his view is right or wrong—feel safer when offenders are in prison? Rapists cannot rape and muggers cannot mug when they are off the streets. I understand many of his intellectual points, but he surely must accept that making people feel safe is a key element in providing law and order. To some extent, keeping people in prison provides that.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is half right. The facts, as well as people's feelings, are important. Some are interesting. In surveys, the public say that the courts do not give heavy enough sentences. If they are asked what sentences the courts give, they underestimate by about 50 per cent. They think that sentences ought to be tougher, but do not realise how tough they already are. If people are told that keeping 10 people in prison involves
266
spending what it costs to employ eight police officers, they begin to realise that it may be better to reduce prison numbers so that we can have more police officers. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but the answers are not that simple.
The public want offenders to be punished, but in general nobody argues that we should keep the punished people—apart from those who have committed the most severe offences—in prison for the rest of their natural lives. The sooner we rehabilitate prisoners so that they can play a full part in society outside, the better. That would also be far cheaper for society, which pays for people to be locked up, where they make almost no contribution to society, pay no taxes and put nothing back in the kitty, never mind the cost to their families, who may depend on the state for as long as they are locked up.
After my visit to Lancaster prison, I went across the Pennines to Full Sutton prison outside York. Like my hon. Friends, I am making more regular prison visits. The big issue in the Prison Service is what to do when people are in prison. How can they all undertake productive activity? If we could massively increase education and training, provide apprenticeships and offer drugs rehabilitation—making sure that those measures did not stop or quickly fade away as people walked through the prison gates, but continued—we would have a chance to make an inroad. The figures are terrifying: about 75 per cent. of crimes are committed by those who have been inside—reoffenders stuck in what is known in shorthand as the revolving door.
I do not want to speak for too long and shall deal with the specifics. Part I creates the National Probation Service for England and Wales. We welcome that and the retention of the service's name, but we have a couple of questions. I put the first to the Home Secretary earlier: will he please give less power over appointments to himself and more to others? The point was rightly made from the Conservative Benches that a recent report criticised the current and the former Secretaries of State for Health for their patronage in health authority appointments. Many Labour people have been appointed. However wonderful the system may be in theory, we do not want the boys and girls known by Ministers to be appointed to chair the new probation committees. That ought to be done much more independently and I hope that there will be a move on that. The Home Secretary did not appear to be against it.
I raise a further small question. Given that the Bill deals with England and Wales, might not it be appropriate in this era of devolution to consider establishing separate services for them? Welsh colleagues may take that up elsewhere.
The probation service is happy to do its job, but it points out that its budget has been cut by about 25 per cent. in five years. If we are to ask people to be more effective in working in the community and preventing people from going to prison, they have to be given the resources—people and other things—to achieve that.
The Bill also deals with the important matter of children and family welfare, and the new structure is welcome. In a previous life, I did some work in that environment in the courts. We need a more integrated system and that is proposed, which is welcome. The Bill will move the system in England and Wales nearer to the Scottish system. The proposals to make sure that children are better protected from people who might be a risk to

267
them are particularly welcome. The public are right to say that we need the most secure safeguards against the abuse and exploitation of children, whether physical or sexual. I have a couple of specific questions about that.
First, it appears that the Bill is flawed, as not only may some people be banned from working with children, but people who have been banned may never be able to have those bans lifted. In straightforward civil liberty terms, when it is clear that the risk has gone it must be right to lift a ban.
Secondly, in Committee, we need to look at the definition of "working with children". The Bill is fairly broad, but there are some practical questions. I am not saying that I have an answer, but, clearly, some people regularly employ young people: for example, to do a newspaper or milk round. There is no obvious reason why they should not be excluded from the protection provisions—the obligation provisions—any more than people in the youth club, the Church, the scout troop or anywhere else. We must have a common arrangement across the board.
Thirdly, clauses 26 and 30 contain the all-too-recurrent reverse burden of proof provision. We should put that in legislation only when we are all persuaded that there is no other way.
Fourthly, I have made the point about truanting. I simply observe that another piece of legislation that is going through the House says that, if people offend, they may lose benefits. I am not sure that social exclusion is reduced and that families at risk are helped greatly by a combination of legislation that might take parents away from a family where the children are not going to school, and might take benefits away where the adults are misbehaving. In both cases, that renders the children more vulnerable and more exposed, rather than less.
I have made clear our position on tagging; in principle, we support tagging, but the technology must exist. I gather that some of it is not yet up and running. The Home Secretary indicated that it will only be available in a couple of years. Clearly, we must ensure that tagging happens only at the end of the sentence, but I am satisfied that it is a good system.
What is a particularly good system, if we can get the technology to work, is tagging that prevents people from going somewhere, as well as tagging that watches them when they go away. Giving protection through tagging, particularly to women who have been victims of violence may be more effective than almost anything else in the system. Anyone who has been involved with those issues knows that guaranteeing security in any way is often very difficult.
The fifth big issue is drugs. I put it to the Home Secretary, and I repeat expressly: there is considerable scepticism about all the Bill's provisions on drugs and drug orders. One of the groups that put the scepticism most effectively is the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse—it happens to be based in my constituency but it is nationally recognised as competent, authoritative and well informed—which says that the Bill appears to introduce by the back door use of drugs as a criminal offence.
I hear what Ministers say, but the provision seems clearly different. In Britain, we have never before legislated for the use of drugs to be a criminal offence;
268
it is possession, supply and making money out of them that is the offence. We will need to examine the matter very carefully to ensure that clause 48 does not change the law. Some of the advice that we have received says that it does. If it does, it should not. We must ensure that the Bill is made clearer.
Mr. Boateng: What advice?
Mr. Hughes: The advice came not least from the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse and others, including Liberty. It is a perfectly reasonable question and a perfectly reasonable answer. The National Association of Probation Officers has, I believe, expressed the same view. I may be wrong, but it is not a view that comes without those people having looked at the legislation.
There is scepticism about pre-sentence drug testing for adults receiving community sentences. There is the view that drug-testing adult arrestees is very expensive; it costs about £0.5 billion in a full year. It could undermine constructive arrest referral schemes and lead to the misuse of police discretion as to who not to test. It could, therefore, lead to inconsistency in the application of the law.
Mr. Boateng: Liberty again?
Mr. Hughes: Not Liberty again.
The right to bail and the ability to attach drug-related orders to that is fine in theory, but, without the treatment, all those powers are relatively worthless. In many ways, it is far better to use well-resourced, targeted, highly supervised and structured bail support packages—for example, drug-testing orders, which we already have—rather than something that does not have back-up to ensure that people are given the rehabilitation that they want.
It is right that we have mandatory drug testing in prison. It is right that people, on release, should be able to be tested before they go out and that it should be a condition of release, in some cases, that testing continues. However, unless we have the infrastructure to stop people getting back on to hard drugs, we will not deal with what is, for them, the drugs menace.
The real question—it is why I put the case; it came in the Runciman report today—is whether we spend more money on prevention and rehabilitation and less than we currently spend on drugs law enforcement, and whether we begin to reverse the figures. If about £6 out of every £10 is spent on law enforcement, and if just over £1 in £10 is spent on rehabilitation, some people believe that we should change that significantly.
The best time to test people for drugs is after conviction and before sentencing, so that they have the appropriate sentence. There should be drug testing where someone is charged with possession of drugs, where they are arrested on a drug-related offence, or where there is reasonable suspicion of that, just as we should be able to test someone who is driving allegedly under the influence of drugs, but there should not be the general power to test anyone and everyone if drugs are unrelated to the reason for arresting and holding the person. Equally, we must not forget alcohol and alcohol abuse.
We are all determined to reduce crime and reoffending. We are all, I hope, committed to the view that there should be serious and agreed solutions, rather than ideas that have

269
not been thought through and worked out. I hope that we can have the flexibility to enable us to have a criminal justice system that responds to the many and different needs, but that there will be no stubbornness or refusal to examine certain solutions or proposals that are crying out for a Government response.
There is an opportunity to get the Bill right. It will need much work in Committee, but we will support it as the beginning of good legislation, provided that there is a willingness throughout this place to ensure that it is amended, potentially significantly, in the weeks ahead, before it goes on to the statute book.
6.47 pm
Sir Peter Lloyd: I agree with the point that was made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) about drugs and drug testing.
First, let me declare an interest as the parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation.
This is an important Bill. Its importance is perhaps obscured somewhat by the thin attendance in the Chamber, but the Bill covers much ground. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, it will need detailed examination in Committee, which I hope it will get.
What I want to do now is make some brief points on just one theme which goes right through the Bill: the need for effective programmes to deal with offenders during their sentences in prison and in the community. The provision on drugs, for example, which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey raised with the Home Secretary in an intervention, is absolutely right. It would introduce a new drug abstinence order. I am not completely clear what such an order does over and above the powers that are currently available, but what is plain is that it is no good expanding the practice of testing for drugs—which I welcome—or making orders about abstinence, especially where addiction is the causal factor in the offence, unless there are good programmes of treatment and support for the drug-taking offender. Far too few such programmes are available and there are waiting lists for them. If the Government will the testing, they must be willing to deal effectively and swiftly with the individuals who fail the tests.
Unfortunately, drug treatment is not cheap, although in the long run, it is even more expensive to identify addicted criminals and then keep them untreated in prisons, or under some "order to abstain" in the community—which, without the prompt treatment that they need, will be generally ineffectual.
The same type of issue is raised by the restructuring of the probation service. It makes sense, when practical, to organise the different agencies in the criminal justice system so that the administrative units of police, probation and Crown Prosecution Service cover conterminous areas. That obviously facilitates co-operation. However, the probation and prison services have the most need for a structure providing for regular contact and joint action. I realise that such a structure is not easily achieved, partly because the Prison Service has a regional administration, and not least because prisoners are frequently held far from the areas to which they will go when they are released. It is consequently very difficult to organise direct contact with the local probation service while prisoners are held in prison.
270
I think that the Government's intention was to tackle that problem with their initial idea of merging the Prison Service with the probation service. I believe that, at this stage, that would have been a step too far. However, it is all the more reason to ask the Minister, in his reply, to explain how the reorganisation of probation will be used to fill the yawning gaps between prison and probation.
Currently, prisoners who start drug treatment in prison seldom find it possible to continue it outside. The same is true of other education or offending behaviour programmes. Surely it is just at that point—when they are re-entering society—that many prisoners most need the discipline, support and opportunity of such programmes if they are to remain outside prison and lead a law-abiding life. Such programmes are badly needed.
As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, the number of prisoners who are released but back in prison within two years is very high—for adults, the figure is more than 50 per cent; for young offenders, the figure is near to 80 per cent—showing that prisons are not working. However, the Bill provides a great opportunity, if money is put behind it, to make a large difference in the rate of reoffending. I hope that Ministers will seize the opportunity.
I am not saying that joint working does not happen; it happens very often, sometimes in very difficult conditions. Great effort is made by probation officers and by prison staff to ensure that it happens. Joint working has long been the objective of successive Governments. It was known as "through care" under the mild and gentle regime of the previous Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). Perhaps the current Home Secretary prefers to be a little more robust and call it "through punishment", or perhaps "joined-up punishment", but what we are taking about is seamless rehabilitation—which is a much clumsier title. Although I do not think that that title will catch on, I hope that the idea does, so that the positive work in prison may continue outside, where experience suggests that it can often be more effective.
I am glad that the Home Secretary finally decided not to rename the probation service in his efforts to bring it more firmly into the front line of the criminal justice system. Far from helping to achieve desirable change, that would have undermined morale and self-esteem within the service and made its ability and readiness to accept change less positive and less successful. Perhaps the Home Secretary could share that psychological insight with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has not yet grasped that changing the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is seen by its members as a vote of no confidence which will reduce morale and make constructive change on the essentials of policing in Northern Ireland harder to achieve.
I am glad to see that the Bill extends the use of tagging. I am sure that it is right to proceed by careful stages in the extension of tagging, to ensure that we do not move ahead of the reliability of the evolving technology, and to learn how it can best be used and with what result. However, although it looks as if tagging will have a very important role in dealing with offenders, it must not be used as a punishment on its own. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), in his speech, made the point extremely well as he warned that tagging's contribution will be to provide, when it is needed, a

271
framework of discipline to community penalties, reinforcing sentences designed to keep the offender away from trouble and engaged in the programmes of work or education that have been designed specifically to counter the offender's criminal behaviour.
I believe that tagging will not work very effectively if it is not part of such programmes. It is not a cheap disciplinary alternative to such programmes, but a means by which they can be more effectively and safely delivered.
Eventually, tagging opens the way to the possibility of more flexible sentences, of which part may be spent in prison and part in the community, depending on the progress that the prisoner makes. That raises large questions on sentencing, however. Administrative action should not determine the proportion of a sentence spent in prison; the courts must do that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald is quite right in her concern. The courts should impose appropriate penalties that deliberately include the flexibility that is needed, and the management of sentences should be generally overseen by a judicial process. As that is not part of the Bill, I shall not deal with it more deeply now. However, the Bill is leading in that direction, and it would be helpful if—during the Bill's progress, if not in the Minister's reply—the Government could say in outline what they have in mind for the further evolution of their policy in that sphere.
Tagging should eventually have an impact on the way in which prison sentences are served in prison. There is a shortage of suitable courses and programmes in prison—courses that prepare prisoners for release and jobs outside. Prisoners have a variety of different needs, and they cannot all be effectively catered for inside. I doubt whether it will ever be possible to provide suitable courses for all prisoners, however liberal and generous the Treasury might become. Tagging should be used to enable suitable prisoners, at suitable times, to join appropriate educational and training schemes outside.
If there is no possibility under current law of using tagging in that way, I believe that the Bill should provide such a possibility. I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will tell us whether there is, or whether there will be, such a possibility. At any rate, I hope that he will tell us that that is a suggestion to which he is already giving positive thought—or that, if he is not, he will start doing so very soon after this debate.
6.59 pm
Mr. Gareth Thomas: I do not propose to detain the House for long, but simply wish to make a few general points.
I welcome the Bill. It is not surprising that it has received cross-party support, and that there will be no Division on Second Reading. It introduces various reforms which—I am sure many hon. Members will agree—are necessary to allow the Government to continue waging an effective war against crime, and particularly to deal with the very well established link between drug abuse and crime.
The Bill is a compendium of measures with no apparent overriding theme other than pragmatism. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary clearly takes penological
272
research to heart and has learned from it, but it is important that we listen to the communities that we represent as well as to the experts.
The Government's record on crime is good: recorded crime has fallen by 7 per cent. since the election, convictions have gone up and extra cash has been awarded to police forces to recruit extra officers. I welcome the emphasis on crime prevention, particularly the proposed new drug-testing powers. I endorse the comments of the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) that such powers are essential to break the link between drug abuse and crime, but that we must have well-resourced and accessible programmes for the rehabilitation of offenders to get them off the drug habit. I shall be particularly interested in any assurances that my hon. Friend the Minister can give us on that pertinent issue.
The provision to allow criminal courts to make drug abstinence orders as a condition of community sentences is eminently sensible, as are the provisions on electronic monitoring or tagging, which should not be a punishment in its own right. I know that the Home Office does not always listen too attentively to lawyers at the moment, but I stress that I am speaking not in a trade union capacity, but simply as a barrister with some experience in defence and prosecution in criminal law. The Government must acknowledge the pace of technological progress and expand the electronic monitoring programme. Those who are released on licence must be monitored in appropriate circumstances.
My view is not specific to Wales, but, in view of the recent conclusion of the Waterhouse inquiry in north Wales, I was particularly heartened by the robust measures designed to increase the powers available to protect children. My constituents will be pleased that the Government have responded to the widespread concern—I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) also made this point—about the infiltration of the system by those who want to prey on children. The Waterhouse inquiry is testament to that. We must have an integrated system for protecting children. I congratulate the Government on creating a new criminal offence of accepting or applying for work with children for those who have been disqualified by reasons of previous sexual offences.
I welcome the restructuring of the probation service. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey invited me, as the only Welsh Member present, to comment on the fact that the Bill will create only one National Probation Service for England and Wales, rather than two separate services. I have no strong views on the matter. Given that Home Office functions have not been devolved to the National Assembly for Wales, there is coherence in the Government's approach.
I pay tribute to the hard, demanding and valuable work that those in the probation service do. It has always struck me as odd that the probation service was linked with the family service. It is eminently reasonable to divide them and create a separate Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. That enables the two services to concentrate on their areas of expertise. It was an historical accident that their functions were originally combined.

273
My experience as a lawyer tells me that, unfortunately, the breaching of community sentences is widespread. The Government are right to take robust steps on enforcement to deter people from breaching community sentences. That is long overdue.
Mr. Hawkins: From his experience at the Bar, does the hon. Gentleman think that changing the name of the orders will do any good? Is that not simply costly tinkering to no good purpose?
Mr. Thomas: That leads to the need to consolidate the plethora of powers and orders available to the court. I should like to hear the Minister's comments on that. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Government's reforms are right.
I am a member of the all-party penal affairs group. Some Members present may recall that the eminent penologist and criminologist Dr. David Thomas QC addressed us not so long ago. As an expert, he had to acknowledge that the courts were having severe difficulty understanding the relationship between the various disposals available to them. I note that one of the House of Commons research papers describes the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Bill—which this Bill refers to as an Act, assuming that it will get Royal Assent—as a consolidating Bill. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to cast further light on the direction of Government policy on the codification or consolidation of the law, which is complex and unwieldy. In the view of many people it is high time that it was reformed and made more rational.
I welcome the Bill, which provides useful weapons to the Government in their fight against crime.
7.9 pm
Jackie Ballard: Very little has been said so far in the debate about resources, but the Bill will have resource implications for the Home Office if, as it predicts, more people end up in prison and the treatment provided for those who test positive is not to result in those outside the criminal justice system having to wait even longer than they currently do for treatment, which in many parts of the country is far too long. The rehabilitation of offenders and community sentences are not cheap options. The probation service was originally set up for the welfare of offenders—to advise, assist and befriend. Punishment and the protection of society are important, but in the Bill those original aims seem to have disappeared from the aims of the new National Probation Service.
Concern for the welfare of offenders is not about being a soft, woolly liberal. It is the best way to prevent the creation of more victims. I have never considered properly resourced and supervised non-custodial sentences to be a soft option, and I do not think that many offenders do. In many cases, it is the best option, especially if it enables offenders to keep their homes, jobs and family contacts.
It does not need an Einstein to work out that if people retain a level of contact with their families, their jobs and their homes, they have more security and are less likely to reoffend than people who are discharged from prison with no home to go to—certainly no job and possibly with fractured family relationships.
274
I am concerned that the restructuring of the probation service and the reduction from 54 committees to 42 local areas, coterminous with police authority boundaries, may damage existing effective local structures. I concede that there are difficulties in shire counties such as mine, in finding an appropriate basis for coterminosity; if an area is coterminous with the police authority, it will not be coterminous with the social services authority or with different housing authorities. I recognise that there is not the same problem in metropolitan areas.
One worrying aspect is the Home Secretary's power to appoint board members. The Government have been accused, rightly, of stuffing NHS trust boards with political appointees—although it is rather rich for the Conservatives to comment on that, as they started the quangoisation of Britain and the habit of stuffing boards with their friends and cronies. This Government are continuing the trend started by their predecessors.
Miss Widdecombe: Nonsense.
Jackie Ballard: It palpably is not nonsense. The new Government have replaced Tory appointees with Labour appointees—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Life has been quiet in the Chamber since I took the Chair. Let us not disturb the peace.
Jackie Ballard: I am pleased to note that we may have woken up the audience, who have been so quiet for the last couple of hours.
Miss Widdecombe: At the risk of adding to the noise in the Chamber, what the hon. Lady has said is at complete variance with what the independent review says.
Jackie Ballard: I was particularly addressing recent times, but I do not think that the right hon. Lady can deny that her Government started the process of putting political appointees in place on many of these boards.
I wonder what the point is of having local boards if there is no system of local selection to them. There are close working relationships between the probation service and, for example, housing authorities, which I hope will not be weakened by these structural changes. I hope that the Home Secretary will have in mind the need to appoint people from such bodies.
Mr. Boateng indicated assent.
Jackie Ballard: The Minister is nodding, which I hope means that people from housing authorities, for example, will be on those boards so that the close work can continue.
The establishment of CAFCASS is to be welcomed. In a previous life, I worked as a social worker and attended courts with children and their families. Most people have recognised that the mixture of services available to children and their families, and the confusion that that has caused, has been a problem for many years. It seems a logical step for CAFCASS to assume the responsibility for the family court welfare system.
I chair the cross-party group campaigning for the registration of workers involved with young people and children, and I have taken a particular interest in methods

275
of increasing the protection of children. The aim to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in court proceedings—including representing them, protecting their legal rights and providing support for them and their families—is laudable.
A comprehensive system properly to protect children is long overdue. I welcome many of the Government's initiatives in extending the protection of children. I welcome the statutory ban for those who come to notice as posing a threat to children. Clearly, there is a need to ensure that the appropriate authorities and employers are informed about individuals with criminal convictions for abusing children so that they are not able to get employment with access to children in future. I welcome the fact that employment is to be extended to include unpaid and voluntary work, as well as paid work. However, I am concerned that the Home Secretary is to have the power to extend the categories of those included on the list.
I served on the Committee scrutinising the Protection of Children Act 1999. We had a genuine debate—it was not a party political issue—about the level of proof needed to disqualify someone from working with children if that was his chosen career. However horrendous the idea of someone abusing children might be to us, that does not mean that we should take away all civil rights from people who have not been found guilty of an offence.
The appeals process needs to be addressed carefully, and politicians should not have a role in deciding the ability of someone to work in a certain field; that should be a matter for the judicial process. It is important that individuals who are banned are identified by a fair process and have the chance to appeal to clear their names if they have been wrongly accused. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said earlier that the burden of proof test should protect children from real danger, but should not remove the basic human rights of an accused individual.
Community sentences are very important for rehabilitating offenders. I have long believed that far too little has been done in terms of rehabilitation, and that successive Governments have relied on tough talk, punishment and prison as some sort of panacea for crime—believing that if it keeps the Daily Mail happy, it must be good, regardless of how many people end up being imprisoned. The numbers going into prison increase every year, but the crime rates do not go down over a period—
Miss Widdecombe: Yes they do.
Jackie Ballard: Rates go up and down. The trend is generally up. If an offender continues to offend after release from prison, all we get are more victims.
Miss Widdecombe: Will the hon. Lady not admit that the steepest decline in crime since the war was exactly coincidental with the steepest rise in the prison population?
Jackie Ballard: I intend to refer later to links between drug use and crime.
Miss Widdecombe: What does that have to do with what I have just asked?
Jackie Ballard: If the right hon. Lady waits, I will answer her. One of the basic things I learned as an
276
undergraduate, when statistics was part of my course, was that correlation does not imply causation. The fact that there may have been a glut of strawberries in a given year and the crime rate went down does not imply that one was the cause of the other, any more than an increase in the prison population and crime going down implies that one is the cause of the other.
Miss Widdecombe: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Jackie Ballard: No, I will not give way again. The right hon. Lady had plenty of time to speak earlier.
A recent Home Office press release said that victims' safety should be put first. I agree with that. That should apply also to potential victims of an unreformed offender, not just to past victims of a convicted person. We have a moral and practical duty not to treat prisoners so harshly in universities of crime that they come out as more hardened criminals—
Mr. Day: What about the victims?
Jackie Ballard: I am talking specifically about victims. Without offenders, there are no victims. If offenders are not treated in such a way that they are rehabilitated, there will be more victims. We must ensure that proper rehabilitation, including basic skills training, is provided so that we can break the cycle of harm. Community sentences and post-sentence supervision are keys to this process.
Electronic monitoring has a part to play in fighting crime and can make community sentences more effective. I understand that there are concerns over the technical feasibility of using electronic tagging as a means of exclusion—[Interruption.]
The Minister of State says not. If that is the case, I am pleased to hear it, but some people outside the House will need to be convinced that the technical problems have been resolved. However, if it is technically possible, I would especially welcome the use of electronic tagging to stop perpetrators approaching victims of domestic violence in their homes. That would be welcomed very widely, as restricting and monitoring the movements of offenders, especially in those circumstances, should provide greater protection for the public.
I come now to the subject of drug testing, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey spoke in some detail. We fully support attempts to make the criminal justice system more effective at tackling the causes of offending behaviour and at challenging the behaviour of offenders. It has been established that much criminality is related to drug misuse, and an effective response needs to be developed. As I said earlier, however, in statistical terms correlation does not prove—or even imply—causation. Many repeat offenders lead chaotic lives, as do many drug users. The chaotic life style may cause the crime, rather than the drug use per se.
It is essential that treatment plays a central role in our approach to testing. I would extend that to cover alcohol abuse, which is also linked to many crimes. Crudely speaking, illegal drug use is linked to acquisitive crimes, while alcohol is linked to driving offences and violent crimes. Crimes of violence constitute that element of the crime figures that has been rising most, and it continues

277
to rise. People fear being burgled and having their homes invaded. I know that they are very unpleasant experiences, but most people fear crimes of violence much more than acquisitive crimes. We should not be so obsessed with illegal drugs that we overlook the impact of alcohol on society.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, our primary concern with the Bill is that clause 48 is so broad that it could be construed as criminalising, for the first time, the use of drugs. I know that the Home Secretary disagrees with that interpretation, but his view is not shared by many other experts. The clause, as drafted, would create a new offence. I hope that it is not the Government's intention to do so, as existing provisions seem perfectly adequate to ensure that the possession, manufacture and trafficking of illicit substances are criminalised.
In principle, the proposal to create abstinence orders could be supported, but the orders will be counterproductive unless they are linked to drug treatment programmes. If they are not so linked, they will simply be a method of forcing drug users back into custody. If a person charged with an offence is found in possession of drugs, or if there is reasonable suspicion that that person was under the influence of drugs at the time of the offence, it would be acceptable to test for the use of drugs. Generally speaking, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey noted, the critical point at which testing should take place is after conviction for an offence and before sentencing, not on arrest. Once guilt has been established, drug testing can help to identify the most appropriate sentence, not only in terms of punishment and deterrence, but in addressing the causes of criminal behaviour and reducing reoffending.
We oppose the Bill's provisions allowing the Home Secretary to extend, by order, drug testing to anyone who is arrested. I hope that the Minister will explain, when he responds to the debate, why the Prime Minister originally suggested—apparently off the cuff—that the Government's intention was to drug-test anyone taken into police custody. That has changed in the Bill, but it retains an order-making power allowing the Home Secretary to extend testing if he feels so inclined.
The law should distinguish between those who use drugs, and those who abuse them. Use of drugs in itself should not be criminalised, as that is not harmful to others.
Miss Widdecombe: Dear me.
Jackie Ballard: The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, from a sedentary position, says, "Dear me", but she did not criminalise the use of drugs when she was in government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady should not be saying "Dear me" from a sedentary position.
Jackie Ballard: Perhaps my ears are too good, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have a blind side—if the right hon. Lady were sitting on my left, I would not be able to see her—but not a deaf side.
There is already plenty of legislation trying to prevent the use of illegal drugs. However, the resources devoted to the treatment of drug users are insufficient and not enough is being done to deal with the crimes that result
278
from the use and abuse of alcohol. None of the provisions in the Bill will be effective without a real and substantial increase in resources for the treatment of people with a drug habit.
I believe that it would be irresponsible to identify drug users without providing treatment for them. The Bill is likely to waste resources on testing, which will prove nothing except that a person has used an illegal substance. Questions arise about the efficacy of the tests available, and whether they will always be 100 per cent. effective. The House will recall that a Conservative Member had occasion to realise that his use of a perfectly legal medicine could cause him to test positive, as happened when he attended a conference.
In itself, drug testing will not prove a link between a crime and drug use, and neither will it produce treatment for persistent drug users. Moreover, a human rights issue arises here. Before trial, everyone is presumed innocent, but, under the Bill, an innocent person refusing a drug test will have committed an imprisonable offence. The Minister will know that Liberty questions whether that is an infringement of rights granted under article 8 of the European convention on human rights.
Finally, I come to the proposals for the jailing of the parents of truants. Clause 55 provides for more serious sanctions than are in place already, including a level 4 fine of £2,500 and the possibility of a custodial sentence to ensure that a parent attends court. We share the Government's view that something must be done about the levels of truancy in our schools, but we cannot see how impoverishing a child's household, or jailing a child's parents, will improve matters.
What is needed is early intervention and more help for parents who feel unable to control their children, not new and ever more draconian punishments for people who already cannot cope. If the Government were deliberately setting out to create an underclass, I cannot think of a much better way for them to go about it. We shall seek to amend and overturn those provisions in Committee.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the Bill has cost implications that have not been touched on. Many of its provisions will lead to an uncosted rise in the prison population, and the Bill itself suggests that, assuming 50 per cent. compliance, an extra 3,000 prisoners will be created. The worst-case scenario therefore is that there will be an extra 6,000 prisoners. I doubt that the Home Secretary would consider it an effective indicator of his performance if the prison population continued to rise during his tenure.
We shall table a number of constructive amendments in Committee, and we shall reserve our view on Third Reading so that we can determine how open the Government are to improving the Bill during its passage through the House. I take comfort from the words of the Home Secretary, who said that this was not a perfect Bill.
7.27 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: I want to begin by injecting a little realism into the debate. There have been many serious speeches, full of good intentions, but we all know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That is particularly true of this Government. Interestingly, however, the Government today slipped out a written answer to a question tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on one of the issues central to the Bill.

279
My right hon. Friend had asked the Government to say how many offenders released under the home detention curfew scheme were convicted of each category of drug offence. We have heard a lot of soft stuff today about drugs matters, especially from Liberal Democrat Members, as so often. In his written answer, the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng)—who sits spluttering on the Government Front Bench—reported figures relating to those prisoners released under the home detention curfew scheme up to 14 March this year. That is only two weeks ago today, and the figures show that no fewer than 2,931 released prisoners were convicted of drugs-related offences.
The Minister's reply sets out the numbers of prisoners convicted of each type of drugs offence. The answer shows that 103 were convicted of offences of production—in other words, that they were manufacturers of illegal drugs. A further 190 had been convicted of unlawful import or export—in other words, they were traffickers. Supply and intent to supply are among the most serious offences, and the written answer shows that 969 released prisoners had been convicted of supplying illegal drugs, and that no fewer than 1,238 had been convicted of possession with intent to supply. That means that more than 2,000 of those released were drug dealers.
After all the nonsense that we have heard from Labour Members about the home detention curfew scheme—I am particularly sorry that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) is not in his place—it is clear from the written answer given today to my right hon. Friend that she was right to criticise the way in which the Government are using the scheme and the way in which they have, once again, systematically and deliberately broken their promises and undertakings that the scheme was never intended to be used for this kind of serious offender.
Let us get back to reality, so that when the Minister has to justify the real facts that he had to admit in his written answer. If it had not been for my right hon. Friend, we would never have known those details. We would never have known what the Government were up to, and the electorate would never have known that, once again, the Government have been soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime. As we have so often said, the most serious cause of crime is drugs.
The Home Secretary suggested that the Bill was part of the Government's attempts to become more effective and targeted. He also had to reveal that when it came to the powers that he was proposing to take, appointments to the probation service were once again a matter of central control. Many hon. Members, even Liberal Democrat Members, said that we were right to challenge the culture of cronyism.
Jackie Ballard: I would like to refresh the hon. Gentleman's memory. During the 18 years of Conservative Government, the main opposition to his party's habit of stuffing boards with their cronies came from those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, so it should come as no surprise that we are opposing this Government for doing the same thing.
Mr. Hawkins: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald pointed out in her earlier
280
intervention on the hon. Lady, that was not the case. As was made clear at Prime Minister's Question Time last week, the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments has said that she is concerned about political interference and cronyism since 1 May 1997. That is when the problem started.
I was interested in the Home Secretary's choice of phrase when he talked about these provisions. He said, very carefully, that the current proposal is for central control. I wondered whether this was yet another occasion on which the Home Secretary did not have his heart in his proposal. He said that Bills could be improved in Committee. I entirely agree with him, and hope that we will improve this Bill dramatically in Committee. However, I wondered whether the proposal was yet another imposed on him by No. 10 Downing street and not his own.
Then we came to electronic tagging. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald has elicited the true facts on how that is being used. We will examine very carefully in Committee whether those proposals can be changed pretty substantially, because we do not think that the Government are going about this the right way. My right hon. Friend dealt with those matters in detail in her response to the Home Secretary. In particular, she made it clear that she is concerned on behalf of victims about the crimes committed by those who are released early.
Some Labour Members later suggested that my right hon. Friend had been wrong to talk about specific cases. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) who, I am glad to say, is in his place, suggested that my right hon. Friend was mistaken to draw these cases to the attention of the House; but if not here, where? Is not the whole purpose of our debates in this place to test Government proposals? Given that we have already seen that what the Government have introduced has led to those who had been convicted of very serious crimes committing further crimes, having been released earlier than they should have been, it is absolutely right for the House to debate the matter and for the Conservative party to draw attention to the concerns of victims.
I disagree fundamentally with the hon. Gentleman that the victims would not want us to refer to their cases. I think that the victims want us to debate these serious matters in Parliament. I worked for many years with organisations such as Victim Support, and I practised for many years at the criminal Bar. I have heard it said repeatedly that victims want their concerns ventilated, particularly when those who have been released from prison sentences earlier than the judge intended are involved. We should be debating that issue.
Mr. Dawson: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. It is extremely important to look hard at the impact on victims of any of our policies. However, the references made earlier did not represent a serious debate on this matter. They represented the lowest form of party political point scoring, utilising people who had the most distressing experiences. I thought it extremely distasteful.
Mr. Hawkins: I could not disagree more with the hon. Gentleman. His constituents would be horrified at his suggestion that Parliament is in some way debarred from discussing these matters. My right hon. Friend was,

281
quite rightly, referring to a case in which the headline said, "Three Jailed for Arson Death of Girl, 7, in Criminals Feud". The details are horrendous, and my right hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the consequences of people being released earlier in such tragic cases.
Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hawkins: No, I will not give way again. The hon. Gentleman has said that he does not agree with me. In these very serious cases, the public have a right to know if people are being released earlier than the judge intended.
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Erdington has returned. When he was talking about police numbers, he said something that sounded dangerously complacent. I greatly respect him as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, a role which I know he takes seriously. However, he sounded dangerously complacent when he said that we probably have enough police officers if they are used properly. He might wish to reflect further on that, because I doubt whether his constituents would agree with him.
The hon. Gentleman made some passionate points. As he knows, I practised at the Bar for a number of years, dealing with both criminal and family law cases in the Birmingham and west midlands area. He will recognise that I understand the importance of criminal cases and family cases involving his constituents. I take his views very seriously. However, his fears that, as part and parcel of this measure, probation officers might be driving by and waving—which reminded me of the poetic phrase "not waving but drowning"—and his concerns about many of the prisons, the fact that the Government have not improved them, and his praise for Blantyre amounted to quite savage criticisms addressed to those on his Front Bench. He was right to draw the Minister of State's attention to these serious points. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald made it clear that she agreed with what he said about Blantyre, and so do I. Another prison in which these matters are taken seriously is Coldingley, in my constituency.
Mr. Corbett: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not being here for the start of his speech. There is no demonstrable connection between the numbers of police officers and clear-up rates. That is far too simplistic.
Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman will have to justify his views to his constituents, but I do not think that many would agree with him. Another of his hon. Friends made a point later about perceptions. We must look not only at how crime is cleared up but at the significant factor of public perceptions. I am sure that he at least agrees with me about that. Our constituents all want to see more police on the beat.
The hon. Member for Erdington may perhaps want to consider whether, in relation to drugs, prison regimes ought to make far greater use of organisations such as Drug Abuse Resistance Education, or DARE. If he wants to intervene to praise its work at prisons such as Coldingley, I will give way, but he is nodding, so I take it that he agrees. There are issues on which there is no partisan divide, and the importance of drug treatment in prisons is one of them. I hope that we shall continue to deal with some of those issues without political partisanship.
282
As always, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) made an extremely thoughtful speech. He brought his great experience—from the Bar, from Government as Solicitor-General and Attorney-General and, more recently, as shadow Attorney-General—to bear on the problems that we are discussing. He showed how much he will be missed. It will be known to hon. Members on both sides of the House that last weekend my right hon. and learned Friend said that he intended to retire at the next election. I take this opportunity to pay the first of what I am sure will be many tributes to the enormous contribution that he has made to debates over his many years in the House. Inevitably, what my right hon. and learned Friend says will be listened to with care by Members on the Treasury Bench. We may have an opportunity to put some of his points in Committee. I hope that the Government will take them seriously.
I am dealing with the speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre a little out of turn because he made a point that related to the speech made by the hon. Member for Erdington. At the outset, I thought that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre was setting out to make a constructive contribution. He referred to his experience as a social work manager. I disagreed with him when he suggested that the significant points that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire and I made about nomenclature in the Bill were mere quibbles. He ought to recognise that when we talk about names of organisations and orders in the courts, nomenclature is important. These are not trivial matters or matters of soundbites, but matters that we will debate seriously in Committee. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to realise that we are not quibbling about them, but that we are making serious points.
We do not want the law to be mocked, and there is undoubtedly a danger of mockery with some of the titles that the Government have chosen. I am sure that the Government will listen seriously to the constructive proposals that we shall make in Committee about that.
The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre went on to attack his Government for passing the new service, currently rather inappropriately named the Child and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, to the Lord Chancellor's Department. He said that it was dangerous to put social workers with lawyers. The debate has been all about social workers or former social workers and lawyers, and the Committee may be full of both. If that is a danger for the Government, they may have to look carefully at how they construct their representation on the Committee.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about a children's rights service and a children's commissioner. There is a great danger of over-bureaucratising these matters. We shall certainly not want any more taxpayers' money spent on bureaucracy. I agree with him that it is essential that children are protected. If there was ever any doubt about that, the recent child abuse inquiry has made the situation clear. I know from my years of practice as a family law barrister that no issue is more important than the protection of children. He and I agree about that.
The slogans about social exclusion that the hon. Gentleman used, and which we are used to hearing from him and his hon. Friends, must not be used as a substitute for thought. He must be careful not to belittle the issues. I am sure that he did not intend to do so.

283
We then had an interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). He pointed out that crime was always with us. That sort of truism is something that we frequently hear from Liberal Democrats. He also talked about the crime figures. At least he finally admitted that crime came down under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). For once, at least, the Liberal Democrats were more realistic about the figures than the Home Secretary was. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary is chuntering from a sedentary position. The problem is that he always wants to have it both ways. When he talks about police numbers, he talks about only the past two or three years, not the whole period of government. When he talks about crime, he wants to talk only about the whole period, not about the past two or three years. The Home Secretary and his Ministers really must learn to be consistent. They cannot have one without the other.
Mr. Straw: In the spirit of openness and frankness, would the hon. Gentleman now like to put it on the record that under the previous Administration, whom he supported, crime doubled between 1979 and 1997?
Mr. Hawkins: The Home Secretary is well aware that the steepest decline since the war took place in the last three years of the Conservative Government. The right hon. Gentleman wants to use his statistics selectively. He wants to use one period for one thing and another for another.
Mr. Straw: It is a simple question to answer. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that crime doubled between 1979 and 1997?
Mr. Hawkins: Will the Home Secretary agree that the police numbers have to be looked at over the whole period? That is the point that I am putting to him. He will not have one without the other—that reminds me of a song title.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey today attacked Labour for its policies in the Bill. I appreciate that his attacks on the Government may have cost him the leadership of his party, but I wonder whether tomorrow we shall find that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) support the Government on another Bill. We never know from day to day whether the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady will be consistent. We always get mixed messages. Certainly, the hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention to the remarks of the outgoing chairman of the Prison Governors Association. I wonder whether the Minister of State will be prepared to talk in his reply about not only the remarks of the outgoing chairman but the recent press coverage of the misuse of drugs within Strangeways prison.
The hon. Member for Erdington and I have talked about some of the better prisons. The Minister seems to think that drugs in prisons are funny—I certainly do not. If he is listening, I ask him to deal seriously with the issue of drugs within Strangeways. The press coverage reinforces some of the concerns of the outgoing chairman of the PGA.
284
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey rightly pointed out that, too often, we have from this Government legislation by spin and hype, with one-off press releases rather than thought. It is odd to have a Liberal Democrat spokesman talking about spin, hype and one-off press releases. That may be the pot calling the kettle black, but on this occasion at least the hon. Gentleman is right to attack the Government—if the cap fits, wear it.
The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about the lifting of bans on those working with children. He made an important point with which I want to deal specifically. It may have been based on the Liberty brief from which a number of his subsequent points came. He said that when the risk had gone, the ban should perhaps be lifted. When it comes to those who commit offences against children, one can never say that the risk has gone. The immediate danger that that person may once have posed to children may have gone, but I am not sure that parents of either the original or future victims would be prepared to accept that the risk had ever gone. We shall have to debate that issue seriously in Committee.
The hon. Gentleman certainly spoke from the Liberty brief when he discussed the reverse burden of proof. He also raised questions about technology for electronic tagging, and we shall wish in Committee to press the Government hard on whether it is up and running. Too often during their time in power, technology has not been ready—the chaos caused by the new computer system in the Passport Agency was but one example.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) made a powerful contribution, based on his experience of criminal justice. He pointed out that the Government must be willing to deal with those who fail drug tests, and that they have not been terribly good at what they might call joined-up punishment.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) made an interesting speech. Leaving aside his totally specious figures on crime and the police since the Government came to power, I thought that he seemed extremely hesitant when challenged on the value of tinkering with the names of orders. Is there any point in changing the name of a probation order when Harry Fletcher of the National Association of Probation Officers entirely rejects it? It is tinkering for no good purpose.
Mr. Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has accused me of using specious statistics, but will he confirm that crime doubled between 1979 and 1997?
Mr. Hawkins: If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends accept that overall police numbers rose by 16,000 over the whole period, we can agree. They cannot have one without the other.
Mr. Straw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hawkins: I have given way twice already to the Home Secretary on this point, but will again.
Mr. Straw: I am happy to put on the record figures already in the public domain. Police numbers rose by 2,000 a year—by 10,000 in all—between 1974 and 1979 under Labour Governments. They rose by about 1,000 a year between 1979 and 1992, giving an increase of 16,000

285
under Conservative Governments. They fell considerably after that until 1997, and they have continued to fall since then, although I hope that they will turn round now. Having put all that information on the record, I ask the hon. Gentleman to answer our question. Does he accept that crime doubled between 1979 and 1997?
Mr. Hawkins: Yes, and the Home Secretary has finally accepted that we must consider police numbers over the whole period. The Home Secretary chose to talk about previous Labour Governments, but did not reveal that at the end of those Governments' period in office, police morale was so damaged that the police were threatening to strike. If police numbers are not turned round, he will again face real problems with morale.
Mr. Simon Hughes: May I ask a much simpler question? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we clearly need a completely independent Office for National Statistics?
Mr. Hawkins: Members of Parliament have the advantage of being able to have our figures checked by the House of Commons Library, but it is extraordinary that the Government often will not accept independent Library figures.
I shall finish on a point on which we shall press the Government hard. I have talked about problems with resources and technology. However, there is further concern about provisions that the Government have already introduced. I recently received a letter from the chairman of a youth panel—a bench of magistrates—about the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, from which the Bill follows, as the Home Secretary has said. The chairman pointed out that the youth panel had not had the training it needed to implement what the Government have already put into law. I shall send the letter to the Home Secretary because it outlines serious concerns.
I hope that the Minister of State will undertake not to leave magistrates to find their own way. Whatever the Government do—probably after many amendments in Committee—they must ensure that those who operate the new arrangements are properly trained. Those on the Treasury Bench surely take as seriously as I do the fact that magistrates say that they have not had the training that they need to implement laws dating back to 1998.
7.54 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): The Bill is about improving crime prevention and reduction and making it more effective. It is about reducing offending and improving public protection. It puts rehabilitation at the heart of the criminal justice system, and it protects children better. The Bill—improved, no doubt, in Committee—will ensure that the prison and probation services are able to work to reduce reoffending.
Our serious debate has been characterised by important speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) and for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who demonstrated from differing perspectives the importance of what we seek to do. There were also important speeches by the right hon. Member for Fareham
286
(Sir P. Lloyd), who brought his Home Office experience to bear, and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell).
The right hon. Member for Fareham made an important speech, not least when contrasted with that of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe).
Miss Widdecombe: You surprise me.
Mr. Boateng: I should be failing in my duty if I did not seek to surprise the right hon. Lady. She failed to grasp the seriousness of the occasion. She fell into a trap later identified by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who castigated the Liberal Democrats for succumbing to the dangers of one-off press releases as a substitute for thought. The right hon. Lady's whole speech was a one-off press release. It focused on home detention curfews and the supposed failure of the scheme, despite a success rate in excess of 90 per cent. Better public protection is at the heart of the scheme, and the right hon. Lady's Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, signed up to it at every stage. He failed to introduce any note of dissent when he had the opportunity to do so.
The right hon. Member for Fareham recognised the importance of tagging and electronic monitoring for the improved protection of the public. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady says from her sedentary position, "If used in the right way". We are using it in the right way, and the Bill contains the legal context that will enable us further to extend its use so that we can protect the public better and ensure a smoother transition from custody to the community for those sentenced by the courts. The Bill is all about ensuring better protection of the public.
Miss Widdecombe rose—
Mr. Boateng: I want to get on a bit before I allow the right hon. Lady to make her points. She raised some issues worthy of consideration.
Let me set the Bill in the wider context of all that the Government have done to reduce crime and protect the public better. In doing so, I can respond directly to the challenge made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire. I always enjoy his speeches, and he always stood up well for his county when I spoke on police matters. I happen to have the figures for current spending on policing in Bedfordshire. For 1999–2000, the amount was £61.4 million; for 2000–01, it was £64.1 million. His county has benefited by a total of £492,000 in crime reduction funding. That money is more than was expended when the Conservatives had stewardship of those matters. It would not have been spent had not a large number of people in his county and an even larger number of people throughout the country voted to return a Labour Government in order better to protect the public, and to address the doubling of crime that occurred while the Conservatives were in power—the latter point is an admission that my right hon. Friend finally managed to drag from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Minister has given the latest figures; we were grateful for that modest turnaround in

287
police moneys. However, does he realise that the amount is inadequate compared to that received during the first two years of the Labour Government? Will he confirm my figures on the percentage fall in the number of police officers and on the shortfall in that number since May 1997?
Mr. Boateng: I have no doubt that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's figures will be correct. Nor does he doubt for one moment the figures that I am sharing with the House; he is gracious enough to acknowledge them. It is a matter for his chief constable, in whom we both have the utmost confidence, to determine how that money is spent on police numbers on the ground.
The Bill must be seen in a context that includes the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 and all the other measures introduced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Furthermore, important measures have been implemented by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor—as my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington pointed out—and other right hon. Friends to tackle social exclusion and the causes of crime.
Miss Widdecombe rose—
Mr. Boateng: I shall not give way at the moment. The right hon. Lady will have her chance.
On electronic tagging, it is important to give the lie to the suggestion that the home detention curfew has been anything other than a success in its first year of operation. Of 16,000 offenders released to HDC, 95 per cent. successfully completed their curfew. Only 5 per cent. were recalled to prison; the most common reason for recall—for 68 per cent. of offenders—was the failure to comply with the curfew conditions. The rates of release for different types of prisoner show that the risk of reoffending is a key factor in the release decision. There were 45,000 prisoners who were assessed for risk and suitability; the release rate was 31 per cent. Great care is taken by the Prison Service before decisions are made on release.
It would be uncharacteristically dishonest of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald to deny that, when the Prison Service or any Government are administering a system for licences or for home detention curfews, there will regrettably be occasions when people who are released commit offences. To build a whole edifice of opposition around that fact is unprincipled; it is unworthy of the right hon. Lady.
Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way at last. It is the right hon. Gentleman who underestimates the seriousness of the debate. If he had come to the Dispatch Box and said that he was concerned about the failures—especially about some of the more serious ones; that there were lessons to be learned; that he was asking the Prison Service and others how such lessons could be learned; and that he wanted to improve the system, rather than dismissing the 5 per cent. of failures and saying that there was a resounding success; and if he had at least attempted to express some sympathy with the victims of those whom
288
he released before they had reached the minimum point of their sentence, things would have been different. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] My intervention may have been long, but I waited a long time to make it.
Mr. Boateng: I am only too happy to respond to the right hon. Lady. Of course there are lessons to be learned. Of course risk assessment must be kept under constant review. Of course it is right, in cases of grave failure, to ask why. I shall write to her about one such case. As it is sub judice, she will understand why I do not mention it at the Dispatch Box.
I assure the right hon. Lady that we are asking those questions. I genuinely look forward to the Committee, because there are issues that we need to address. The value of the Bill is that it creates the legal framework that will enable us to pilot and develop the new technology so that the public will be better protected. We shall feed into that process the lessons we have learned from the operation of the HDC.
The right hon. Lady has made her point; it is a nakedly party political one. It falls into the trap of the one-off press release—such as the one I have in front of me—as a substitute for thought. Nevertheless, we must move on from that. We shall address those matters in Committee.
Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
Mr. Boateng: I shall give way in a moment. I want to respond to some of the other issues that were raised during the debate.
We must strengthen enforcement. It is vital that the probation service deliver to courts and to sentencers a sentence that is so administered as to command public support and confidence. In order to have credible community sentences, the present inconsistencies and failures in dealing with breaches must be addressed.
In relation to the points made by Liberal Democrat Members, those matters must be dealt with in the context of a clear understanding that some offenders have chaotic and disordered lives. However, those offenders must realise that that chaos cannot be allowed to continue—leading as it invariably does to increased and repeated offending in a vicious cycle. We need a clear and focused legal framework to restore order to that chaos. Order can be restored only when there is an understanding that breaches will lead to imprisonment. There are no two ways about it and there is no soft or easy answer. It must be understood that community sentences are not meant to be a soft option. When someone fails to take advantage of the opportunity that a community sentence offers, he will go to prison.
Mr. Hughes: The Minister talks tough again, but surely he understands that there is a world of difference between the sort of breach that results from someone just failing to turn up for an appointment and someone, when out on a conditional sentence, assaulting another person. We cannot have just one remedy—lock them up—no matter what a person has done wrong.
Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman refers to someone just failing to turn up for an appointment. He must get real. It is just failing to turn up for an appointment that brings community sentences into disrepute, wastes the

289
probation service's time and money, makes it less likely that an offender will be able to hold down a job and puts the public at risk. As long as the hon. Gentleman takes that type of uncharacteristically weak-minded approach, Liberal Democrats will simply demonstrate that they have not grasped the plot.
I want to say a few words about the importance of multi-agency work. The issue was touched on by my hon. Friends the Members for Erdington, for Clwyd, West and for Lancaster and Wyre in particular. However, significantly, the issue was also mentioned by the right hon. Member for Fareham, based on his experience as a Minister. It is clear that prisons, the probation service and the voluntary sector need to work ever more closely together. We are looking to develop closer synchronisation of the work of the Prison Service and the probation service. Announcements will be made in the fulness of time about how a strategy to that effect might be best developed.
At present, we are ensuring that jointly accredited programmes between prisons and the probation service can be delivered in both a custodial and a community setting. They will have a capacity for follow-through and that is never more important than in relation to employment, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington and other Members in connection with drugs.
We need to ensure that agencies are not only provided with the necessary resources to work effectively together, but are provided with the structures that promote such work. The Bill does that. Yes, there are issues of resources and we have not ducked them. We have provided £217 million. That includes £57 million to support more sustained and better drug education and prevention work in schools and the community; £21 million for schools to support the training of teachers and the delivery of effective drug education programmes; £18 million for anti-drug publicity programmes; £18 million to set up the Home Office's drug prevention and advisory service; £60 million for the implementation of the drug treatment and testing order; and about £60 million for treatment in prison. A further £70.5 million has been allocated to drugs services in the community.
That is serious money and it has to be applied in ways that are evidence based. The evidence shows that there is a link between acquisitive crime and drug taking. Evidence shows that link for class A drugs, but we have not closed our minds about class B drugs. There is no question of our going soft on class B drugs, but the evidence is not there at the moment to justify the implementation of the provisions for such drugs. It is right that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should have available to him the capacity to extend the use of the powers, and no one can doubt that he will not hesitate to use those powers when the evidence suggests that it would be right to do so.
I want to say a word about the role of the new boards. It is important that the probation service be rooted in the community and that we build strong local coalitions of interests around the probation service and the reduction and prevention of crime. The new boards should have a status comparable with that of national health service trusts. It is important to ensure that talented and committed people from diverse walks of life are attracted to take up the challenge and the opportunity of joining the boards.
290
We make no apology for the fact that we believe that the best way of ensuring that aim is through appointment by the Home Secretary. Of course, such appointments will be transparent and accountable, as is expected by application of the Nolan principles. Would that Conservative Members had demonstrated the same commitment to transparency and accountability when they packed NHS trusts with all those Tory supporters who were invariably described as business consultants. When I became a Minister in the Department of Health, I did not know that business consultants had such an insight into the management of the health service. Business consultants and accountants were everywhere. Conservative Members complain when we take steps to ensure that local boards are genuinely representative. [Interruption.] To those who bay their protests from the Opposition Front Bench, I say that we shall take care to make sure that the new boards are genuinely representative of the whole community.
Mr. Hawkins: Let us wait and see.
Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman can wait and see. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating; we will be judged by our success in achieving our aims. The serious point is that the voluntary and the business sectors have an enormously important role to play. It is vital that both sectors be represented on the boards. I assure the House that they will be.
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) about housing. The role of local authorities and local housing associations is vital in smoothing the transition from a life of crime to one of law-abiding and industrious activity.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Boateng: I do not think that necessary. [Interruption.] It is neither necessary nor desirable. But against my better judgment, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Hughes: The Minister has been unusually generous. Even if the Home Secretary will technically keep the power of appointment, will Ministers reflect on whether appointments can be made only if they have the agreement of the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats?
Mr. Boateng: I think that that suggestion is highly unlikely to commend itself to the Committee considering the Bill. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to make his point in Committee—and at length, if he keeps to his usual practice. We will then consider how best to take the message forward.
The message that the Bill sends out is clear: crime will not be tolerated. The criminal justice system will respond in a tough and unequivocal manner at every stage to fight crime and improve public protection. The Bill takes that agenda forward and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND COURT SERVICESBILL [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the Act;

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
RATING AND VALUATION
That the draft Water Undertakers (Rateable Values) (England) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.
That the draft Railways (Rateable Values) (England) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.
That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.
That the draft Gas Industry (Rateable Values) (England) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.
That the draft Energy from Waste Plants (Rateable Values) (England) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.
That the draft Docks and Harbours (Rateable Values) (England) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.
That the draft Electricity Supply Industry (Rateable Values) (England) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 2nd March, be approved.—[Mr. Allen.]
Question agreed to.

Television Licence Fees
8.20 pm
Mr. John Greenway: I beg to move,
That the Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 630), dated 6th March 2000, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th March, be annulled.
We have called the debate because we feel that the House should have the opportunity of debating a substantial increase in the BBC licence fee, particularly bearing in mind that the regulations substantially alter the arrangements that Parliament approved as recently as 1996. There was no way of achieving such a debate other than by an Opposition prayer. It is unfortunate that the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport is away on a foreign visit. I am sure that many members of that Committee would have wanted to contribute to the debate. We are grateful to them for their report on the funding of the BBC, which was published only three months ago.
We think that there is a need to reflect on the mismanagement of the issue by the Secretary of State and his Department. There are questions relating to the proposal for free television licences for pensioners aged 75 and older, which need to be put on the record.
We are disappointed that the Government have chosen to link an unjustified increase in the licence fee and the proposed free licences for pensioners over 75 in one set of regulations. Effectively, this has denied the House the opportunity of expressing a separate view on two fundamentally different elements. As the regulations cannot be amended, the package must be accepted or rejected as a whole. In effect, that guarantees that the Government will get their way on the licence fee increase, whatever the merits of the case.
I wish to make it clear that we support the BBC and its unique position within the United Kingdom and throughout the world. The BBC is a key part of our national life and has established a benchmark of quality of programmes to which many other broadcasters merely aspire. The output of the BBC World Service reaches billions of people throughout the globe, often circumventing state-imposed censorship of national news broadcasts. We should celebrate that.
Without question, the licence fee has played a crucial role in ensuring the continuation of the BBC's distinctive role and the high quality of its output. That should be retained, which means that we must be careful not to ask the viewing public to pay more than is reasonable. There is a limit, and that limit is bound to be influenced by people's viewing habits in a multi-channel age. With digital, satellite and cable delivery systems now sufficiently established for the Secretary of State to have announced a welcome target date for analogue switch-off, we think that the time has come for the BBC's role in that multi-channel environment to be reassessed and redefined.
In essence, we think that the Government are putting the cart before the horse in obliging the licence fee payer to stump up more money for the BBC in the absence of a clear and modern definition of the BBC's role. The areas to which this extra revenue is to be directed amount to little more than a wish list. They are not a coherent long-term strategy. Nor could they be, because a new director general has only just been appointed, with expectations of far-reaching reform. In what seems to us

293
an extraordinary omission, the question of the BBC's remit was not part of the Gavyn Davies inquiry, which led to the licence fee increase, albeit in a way not originally envisaged.
We would argue that the BBC's primary purpose should be to produce a quality and diversity of programmes that is not possible or sustainable by commercial television. The licence fee allows the BBC to take risks and to cater for minority interests, as well as providing a range of programmes of popular appeal that attract sufficient audiences to ensure that all licence fee payers find something that they want to watch at various times. In addition, BBC radio is one of the nation's most endearing institutions, and provides an unrivalled service, especially in news, current affairs and sport. Where would we be without the BBC telling us the football results at various times?
The new director general, Greg Dyke, has reaffirmed that the BBC's overriding priority must be to ensure that the maximum resource is put into programme making. We warmly welcome this approach and agree with the analysis that there remains too much bureaucracy and administration. It is a long overdue approach in the BBC.
Mr. Desmond Browne: I am glad that there is a consistency of approach between that taken by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) on 1 February and that taken by the hon. Gentleman this evening. Indeed, one speech could have done for both hon. Members in the presentation of the argument. The key to the argument appears to be the absence of a modern definition of the BBC's role. That is a phrase that both hon. Members have used. Is there any intention to give us the Opposition's definition of the BBC's modern role?
Mr. Greenway: It is—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. A narrow matter is before us. We are discussing the increase in the licence fee, and we must restrict ourselves to that and not debate the role of the BBC. Perhaps that issue can be discussed on another occasion.
Mr. Greenway: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It is our view that there should have been a new approach and a redefinition of the BBC's role in a multi-channel environment before the licence fee increase was announced. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his confirmation that my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) and I are being consistent in our argument. I shall shortly draw on the recommendations of the Select Committee.
I was saying that the new director general has made it clear that he believes that there are significant cost savings to be made within the BBC. In its recent report, the Select Committee drew attention to earlier efficiency initiatives that delivered savings way beyond what was predicted. I know from over 10 years' experience of working with Yorkshire-Tyne Tees Television and the ITV network that ITV has undergone rigorous streamlining on more than one occasion.
The new director general's determination to expose the BBC organisation to the rigour of a similar approach, however, confirms our suspicion that the restructuring
294
should have been allowed to run its course before any decision was made about the BBC's funding needs and any licence fee increase. That, in effect, was the Select Committee's general conclusion.
Such a fundamental shake-up as we are being lead to expect from Mr. Greg Dyke was not anticipated when the Davies inquiry was established. On the contrary, in evidence to the Select Committee, the former director general, Sir John Birt, said that there was no real scope for further efficiency savings. Yet, only weeks later, the new director general is putting out a different story, which I must say I welcome.
The Davies inquiry was predicated on the premise that the BBC needed more money, thus generating an expectation that an increase in the licence fee would be recommended and granted, notwithstanding the fact that throughout the entire inquiry no effective case for extra money was made. Indeed, when Gavyn Davies took representations, nobody knew how much the BBC itself thought it needed.
That view appears to have been shared by the Select Committee, which was robust in arguing that there should be no new money for the BBC until 2002, when the existing December 1996 agreement will lapse. By 2002, of course, the charter renewal due in 2003 will also be on the agenda, all of which adds weight to the argument that we should have examined what the BBC is for and how it should be supervised before entering into a new six-year inflation-busting licence fee agreement. It is remarkable that the Secretary of State himself appeared to agree that breaking that agreement was not justified when he set out the terms of reference for the Gavyn Davies inquiry, a matter that the Select Committee drew to our attention.
The worst feature of the Davies recommendations, which has thankfully been rejected, was the proposal for a digital licence supplement, and we agree with the Secretary of State that such a supplement would have been inappropriate. It would have undermined progress towards increased digital take-up, which will lead in time to the switch-off of analogue signals. Nevertheless, the proposal generated damaging uncertainty, for which the Secretary of State must shoulder some of the blame.
It is almost 18 months since the Davies inquiry started work. The inquiry took almost a year, and there was then further consultation on its findings. After weeks of rumour and counter-rumour, the Secretary of State appointed management consultants Pannell Kerr Forster to re-examine the issues. During that time, however, no effort was made to examine the BBC's future role, and the Secretary of State's stewardship throughout this period has been unimpressive.
We understand that a protocol to the Amsterdam treaty required such a review of the BBC's role. Why have not the Government undertaken that? The whole situation is absurd. Here was a golden opportunity to make an attempt to consider the BBC's future before announcing an increase in public subsidy, yet the Government sought to ignore it.
I have already highlighted a further concern that the existing agreement reached just three years ago has been breached. That agreement was seen as a breakthrough at the time, and was said to be sufficient to fund the BBC's digital requirements. It is clear that for the next two years we would have had a licence fee increase below the rate of inflation. Now we have the prospect of a real-terms

295
increase for the next six years. What guarantee can the Minister give to the House that the agreement will not be breached again within that time, notwithstanding the benefits that might accrue from Greg Dyke's initiatives on cost and efficiency?
Another area for potential cost savings lies in reappraising the value of the peripheral parts of the BBC's empire and the expansion of BBC services, in particular News 24. The Secretary of State told the House on 21 February that a review of News 24 would be a priority, although we were not told when the review would take place or with what objective. I understand that on Friday the Secretary of State suggested that it would now be improper to review BBC News 24 in the run-up to a general election. That will not please the Select Committee, which criticised the high costs of News 24, which I gather has already cost the taxpayer over £130 million. Those high costs were never explained to the Select Committee.
Perhaps the Secretary of State has some inside knowledge about the election date. One wonders whether he is postponing the review in the belief that the general election will take place soon. More seriously, has he concluded that over the next couple of years, the BBC might seek to incorporate News 24 in its mainstream BBC 1 and BBC 2 television news programmes, thus rendering the review unnecessary? That might well be sensible, but why the secrecy?
The suggestion that a review now would be improper in the run-up to a general election has been greeted with incredulity. The only thing on which we can be clear is that the licence fee payers will foot the bill for however long it takes for a decision about the matter to be concluded.
The whole issue epitomises the absurdity of the Government's position in awarding the money ahead of determining the need. There can be no incentive for the BBC to reduce costs and take a more rigorous approach to efficiency if it thinks that a licence fee increase is there for the asking. Our view remains that the BBC should look to reduce its costs and, over time, its licence fee for everyone, not just pensioners over 75.
In his statement to the House on 21 February, the Secretary of State confirmed the intention to introduce the over-75s free TV licence, which had been announced by the Chancellor last year, with effect from 1 November. However, closer examination of his statement and of matters that have arisen subsequently highlights a number of anomalies and practical difficulties that the House needs to consider, now that the order has been laid.
The free television licence for the over-75s does not solve the accommodation for residential care concessionary scheme anomaly: a relatively small number of pensioners qualify, but the majority do not. All hon. Members present are aware of the resentment to which the scheme gives rise. However, the same sense of unfairness associated with that scheme might become—
Mr. David Winnick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He refers to the accommodation anomaly, and I agree. One day it will have to be rectified. Is the hon. Gentleman aware, however, that on 12 July 1988, we tabled a prayer against
296
the restrictions that led to such an anomaly, whereby one person who was in the accommodation before May 1988 would get the concession of £5, but another person would not? That all arises from what the Conservative Government did on 12 July 1988.
Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Although I was in the House at the time, I cannot claim to remember that particular occasion, but I am aware that hon. Members on both sides, including many of us when we were in government, argued with Ministers that the matter needed to be resolved. My point is that the free licence for the over-75s solves nothing.
The same sense of unfairness will become even more keenly felt when the age-related free licence is introduced. The Minister has made it clear that in a pensioner couple household that benefited from a free TV licence because of the age of the older spouse, a widowed younger spouse below the age of 75 would have to purchase a licence all over again at the next renewal date.
One accepts, of course, that the anomaly will arise wherever the age qualification is drawn. The problem is that the surviving pensioner widow is often left with a much lower income, and may therefore be thought more worthy of help than the married couple pensioners, one of whom is over 75, who still benefit from the husband's full pension. I have no doubt that colleagues will raise other examples.
On the cost of implementing the scheme, we were told by the Chancellor last year that it would cost £300 million. The BBC now says that the cost may be anything from £320 million to £330 million. In the first year, there will be start-up costs of £22 million, and annual running costs of a further £10 million, all of which will be met by the Treasury. It will be helpful to us all to have these figures confirmed and on the record.
We understand that qualification will be determined and administered by the use of the pensioner's national insurance number. That raises other issues. Will primary legislation to amend the data protection legislation be required? If so, when will that be implemented and in what form?
The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he tell the House whether he and his few colleagues on the Conservative Benches for this important debate support the Government's intention to grant free television licences to the over-75s?
Mr. Greenway: That is a bit like asking whether a donkey likes strawberries. The Government have made the announcement and we do not intend to oppose it, although I dare say we might have thought of a different way of spending the £300 million to help elderly pensioners.
I sat here last night and heard the Chief Secretary to the Treasury give a totally implausible explanation of why it was right to pay every pensioner household £100 this year in winter fuel allowance, and £150 following the Budget, rather than increasing the old age pension. Apparently, poorer pensioners would not be helped because of the thresholds relating to the withdrawal taper for benefits; but those thresholds could have been raised.

297
The announcement has been made, and we do not seek to oppose it. I am asking justifiable questions about how the scheme will work—and, if the Minister wishes to introduce a controversial element, let me add that all we have heard suggests that no aspect of it had been thought through before the Chancellor's statement.
If the BBC is to be given access to such sensitive information as national insurance records, we are surely justified in asking certain questions. Does the Minister accept that there will be widespread concern about the need for security in regard to such information? We hope that any tabloid headlines suggesting that Auntie had become Big Brother would be unfounded, but this is a genuine worry. Will the use of national insurance records catch everyone over the age of 75, or might there be a number of elderly people, perhaps immigrants, who have never had a national insurance reference?
Our principal concern, however, is that the main result of this initiative will be the state's paying directly to the BBC more than 13 per cent. of its income. I think we are right to ask the Minister to give a categorical assurance of the BBC's continuing independence of any governmental interference.
Does the Minister realise that if the scheme were extended to all pensioners over 65, at least a third of the BBC's income would come directly from the state? However popular such a decision might be with pensioners, if the Government took such a significant stake in the BBC, public concern would be raised about its continuing autonomy and impartiality. That has never happened before.
We urge the Government to keep firmly in mind the continuing acceptability of a publicly funded BBC in a multi-channel environment. Paradoxically—this is, in large measure, why we felt we should have this debate—the principle of the licence fee, which we want to continue, may be undermined by the scale of the increase for which the order provides. The sum is not insignificant: it is estimated that an extra £1.25 billion will be raised for the BBC over the next six years, and household growth may increase that figure. Many of the new homes will be for young people, and there is already demographic evidence to suggest that younger people who have access to, and have invested in, multi-channel television do not want to pay the licence fee at all, let alone the increased amount. That is why we believe that it was essential to make a case for the increase, and no such case has been made. There is a limit to what people will pay, and the tolerance of that limit may well be bridged as the year-on-year increases planned for the next six years unfold.
8.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Janet Anderson): I shall try to respond to the points that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made. There must be no mistake about the effect of the Opposition's prayer against the order: it would annul it. Yet the hon. Gentleman said that the Opposition simply wanted an opportunity to debate it. There was an opportunity to do that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his statement. If the Opposition truly wanted a debate, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman could not persuade more of his colleagues to be present for what he regards as an important discussion.
298
Nobody enjoys paying the television licence fee. Any increase in that fee, especially above the rate of inflation, is therefore an emotive issue. I concede that that is the subject of our discussion. Unlike the hon. Member for Ryedale, I shall try to concentrate on the issues.
The BBC plays a central role in the cultural life of the United Kingdom. Consequently, it attracts a great deal of attention and scrutiny. Many people have strong views on the way in which the BBC should be funded, the services that it should provide, the standards that it should maintain and the value for money that it offers.
The Government are committed to the BBC's continued role as the United Kingdom's principal public service broadcaster, which provides a wide range of quality programmes on all its services, and offers something to all viewers and listeners. Free access to its public service channels is central to the BBC's role so that a high standard of news, education and current affairs programmes is available to all audiences—not only to those who can afford subscription or pay-per-view services. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ryedale would not wish services to be available only to the latter group.
The Government also believe that the BBC must embrace the technological developments that will revolutionise broadcasting in the next few years. Indeed, we believe that the corporation should drive the take-up of new digital and online services.
The television licence fee currently has distinct advantages over the other options for funding the corporation. At the outset of the BBC funding review, the Government made it clear that we considered the licence fee sustainable as the BBC's main source of funding, at least until the renewal of its royal charter at the end of 2006.
Against that background, an independent review panel chaired by Gavyn Davies was appointed at the beginning of 1999 to consider future funding of the corporation. The panel was asked to examine ways in which funding to promote public service output could be extended from other sources; to consider how to secure an appropriate balance between the BBC's public and commercial services; and to review the mechanisms for fair trading in relation to commercial services.
The panel's report was published last July. When reaching conclusions on the recommendations, the Government took account of more than 2,000 responses to the public consultation on that report and the report of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Support on funding the BBC.
As the hon. Member for Ryedale mentioned, the Government also commissioned a review of the BBC's financial projections by independent consultants Pannell Kerr Forster to assist our decisions on finance, and an analysis by the chief economist of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. We wanted to be in no doubt about the BBC's requirements for competing effectively in the digital age.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced on 21 February, although we have not adopted all the detailed solutions that the review panel proposed, we have accepted its general analysis of the current position. In particular, we accept that the Government's vision for the BBC cannot be realised in the existing funding framework. Much has changed in the world of broadcasting since the previous

299
Government announced their five-year licence fee settlement in December 1996. The hon. Member for Ryedale knows that well. He knows how fast changes occur in the sector that we are considering.
The Government accept the panel's recommendation that additional funding should come initially through self-help. We are therefore challenging the BBC to help itself by efficiency savings, partnerships, joint ventures, reductions in bureaucracy and other means, and very much welcome the steps that the new director general is taking in that direction. We have set the target of £490 million by 2006–07, over and above the £600 million that the BBC itself estimated. That target, which is more demanding than that set by the Davies panel, flows from the conclusions of the independent analysis of BBC finances commissioned by my Department. Thus, over the period of that settlement, the BBC will be required to generate more than £1 billion from self-help. It will be up to the BBC to decide how to meet that target, but we have made it clear that we expect it to be met.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can the Minister help the debate by saying where the £490 million might come from?
Janet Anderson: I hope to deal with that, if the hon. Gentleman will be patient.
The second source of additional funding proposed by the review panel is the licence fee. The two alternatives identified in the Davies report were, first, a digital licence fee supplement set at £24 and payable only by digital services viewers, which would decline over a number of years to converge with the standard licence fee; and, secondly, an increase in the general licence fee payable by all. As the House knows, we have chosen the latter. Although unlikely to depress the take-up of digital television significantly, the introduction of a digital licence fee would have given the signal that digital television is something out of the ordinary. The Government's view is that it will soon be the norm. The benefits of the increased funding will be available to all licence fee payers through improvements in the BBC core services.
The Government have therefore decided to provide the additional licence fee funding required by the BBC via annual increases of 1.5 per cent. over the retail prices index from April this year through to 2006. That means that on 1 April the colour television licence fee will rise by £3 to £104 and the black and white licence fee will rise by £1 to £34.50. The regulations will bring those increases into effect.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced, the Government have also accepted the general thrust of the review panel's recommendations in terms of transparency, fair trading and accountability. We shall institute new procedures for the introduction of new services, which will include an opportunity for public consultation before decisions on proposed new services are reached. There will also be a programme of reviews of all current BBC digital services—News 24, Choice, Knowledge and Parliament—to ensure that they are achieving their stated purpose. The Government have
300
made it clear that they do not expect the licence fee to fund services such as dedicated film and sport channels when there is no distinct and separate public service remit.
Mr. Greenway: If I heard correctly, the Minister said that there will be a review of News 24. Can she confirm when that will take place?
Janet Anderson: I cannot give a precise date, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it plain that we shall review the digital services because we want to ensure that the public get value for money. I hope that that helps to answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley).
The Government will commission independent scrutinies of the BBC's fair trading policies and financial reporting and publish the resulting reports. The BBC will also be required to have its fair trading and financial audits carried out by different auditors. The fair trading auditor's full report on compliance and risk will in future be published by the BBC. Periodic examinations of the systems and controls in place to ensure fair trading and of the nature and extent of the financial systems will also be carried out by independent consultants. Those will of course be available to be considered and questioned by the Select Committee. Finally, I reassure the hon. Member for Ryedale that we shall also review the public service role and governance of the BBC in the forthcoming broadcasting and communications White Paper.
On concessions, we have already gone beyond the Davies panel's recommendation on assistance for pensioners with the announcement of free licences for the over-75s. The concession will start on 1 November, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary legislation. The regulations provide that, from 1 April, those who will be 75 or over on 1 November, or who turn 75 after that date but before their licence would expire, will be able to buy a short-term licence lasting until 1 November. From 1 November, refunds will be available in respect of licences already paid for.
The hon. Member for Ryedale is, I am sure, aware that, in tabling a motion to annul the regulations, he is opposing the proposal to allow pensioners aged over 75 to purchase short-term licences. [Interruption.] That is the effect of the motion.
Mr. Greenway: How many times have Ministers in successive Governments said in Committee that a negative resolution with regard to statutory instruments provides the mechanism whereby Parliament can debate some important matters, of which this is one?
Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman should be clear about the effect of the motion. He wanted the regulations to be annulled. If he had been successful—of course he does not have the majority—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. That is enough interruption from a sedentary position by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Janet Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We have accepted the Davies panel's recommendation that registered blind people should be entitled to a 50 per cent. reduction in the television licence fee. That will come into force from 1 April via a separate determination by the Secretary of State.

301
We have also accepted the recommendation that subtitling of programmes for the deaf and hard of hearing be further developed, so that 50 per cent. of BBC digital programmes are subtitled within five years, and 100 per cent. within 10. The regulations provide that, as recommended by the review panel, the collection arrangements under the cash easy-entry easy-payment scheme are made more equitable.
The accommodation for residential care concessionary scheme is, as we all know, far from perfect. The majority of the current beneficiaries are over 75 and will receive free licences. About 130,000 younger pensioners and mentally and physically disabled people will be left in the scheme. Notwithstanding the drop in the number of people benefiting from the scheme, we propose to keep the arrangement for concessionary licences, but the regulations introduce a minor change to bring within the scope of the provision all retired persons aged 60 years or more, removing the current element of discrimination inherent in the reference to pensionable age. That provision will have the additional benefit of safeguarding the entitlement to the concession of residents in sheltered housing schemes with male residents aged between 60 and 64. I hope that that, too, will be supported by Conservative Members.
The hon. Member for Worthing, West asked where the efficiency savings of £490 million would come from. They will come from increased efficiency, reductions in bureaucracy and increased commercial revenue.
I was also asked what that would be spent on. Labour Members believe that the BBC has an important role in the digital age as a benchmark for quality. We do not believe that its role is simply to provide those services that will not be provided by commercial operators. We hope that the BBC's substantial efficiency savings—they are of a scale that was never demanded by the Conservative party when in government—in conjunction with the increase in the licence fee will enable the BBC to take its rightful place in the digital age.
8.59 pm
Mr. Steve Webb: I will not detain the House for long, but it is important to put on the record the Liberal Democrats response to the statutory instrument. I welcome the fact that the regulations set out the practicalities of how constituents aged 75 or over will obtain their partial licences up to the point when the scheme comes in.
Some months ago, the issue was raised with me by constituents who heard the announcement and wondered what would happen from April. It is good that the regulations now clarify the position. It would have been even better if the original announcement had been accompanied by some explanation, as it has caused some anxiety. Occasionally, however, announcements are made rather hurriedly, as they need to be rushed through without the detail being thought through. Nevertheless, it is welcome that we now have the detail. I also welcome extension of the residential accommodation concession to men aged 60 to 64. There was an anomalous situation in which a woman over 60 might be covered by the concession, whereas a man over 60 might not be. Some levelling between those groups seems quite appropriate.
I have two reservations about the regulations. The first is that the concession for the over-75s reveals confusion in the Government's approach to supporting pensioners.
302
Just a few months ago, the Government rejected an amendment that I moved to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill that would have provided for an across-the-board pensions rise for the over-75s. Ministers argued that such a provision would be poorly targeted. However—except in relation to one or two-pensioner households that do not have a television—a free concessionary television licence has exactly the same properties as the proposed provision.
Liberal Democrat Members have been arguing for months, if not years, that older pensioners are poorer pensioners, and that targeting by age is very effective. I am puzzled why it is right to target older pensioners in the regulations on television licences, but not right to do so for pension enhancements.
I cannot develop that point much further without straying from the regulations, but the point demonstrates both the Government's confusion and their convenience. When an action such as providing free television licences is politically attractive, arguments against targeting go out of the window, whereas our pension proposals could not be allowed—
Mr. Syd Rapson: It must not have been a political decision, then.
Mr. Webb: It was a political decision.
On the "Today" programme, when discussing free television licences, a Minister was asked, "Why not just give them the £101?" There is really no answer to that question. If pensioners wanted to spend the money on the licence, they would; if not, they would not. They would have the choice. Nevertheless, we live in a political world, and we have to accept that a free television licence is the way in which the Government have chosen to help older pensioners. Given that we have long argued that older pensioners should be the priority, we welcome that decision.
Liberal Democrat Members are concerned about the increase in the licence fee from £101 to £104. Although £3 may not be a significant sum for hon. Members, for pensioners receiving 75p from the Government in April, it is a month's pension rise. Four weeks-worth of the pension rise will have to go on paying the television licence increase. Although older pensioners will receive the licence free, for those who are aged 65 to 74, a month's pension rise will be eaten up by the regulations. Although hon. Members talk about the percentage increase involved and about hundreds of millions of pounds, we should remember the context of this increase. For many pensioners, £3 is not a trivial sum, and we should not lightly pass the regulations.
I was interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on the position of couples of different ages, when perhaps the older partner dies, leaving—typically—a widow to foot the bill. Do Ministers have any plans to deal with that problem? When a person becomes a widow, the last thing that they want is a television detector van coming round. Strictly speaking, that is what would happen, as the widow would

303
cease to be entitled to a free licence. The regulations do not make it clear that the free licence would continue to its expiry date.
Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct in his assumption—the free licence would continue until its expiry date.
Mr. Webb: That is a welcome clarification. Obviously, the continuance could be anything from one day to 365 days. Therefore, it is possible to imagine circumstances in which, on the law of averages, a person dies towards the end of a licence, and within weeks or even days, a widow could find herself without, in strict legality, a valid television licence. That is the last thing that she is going to think about.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I think that on probability, among all widows, there would be six months left on the licence. However, rather more seriously, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in fact and in logic, the same problem applies to an elderly orphan who is left behind by a parent with whom they had been living? If, for example, someone is 65 and had been caring for a parent aged 90, the parent would have had the free television licence and the same situation would apply to him or her. Moreover, the income decrease is usually even greater for that person than for someone who becomes a widow or a widower.
Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. A significant number of carers are pensioners, in many cases caring for an elderly relative. The same issues arise for them. The median run-on will be six months, but there will be some whose licence runs out the next day or on the day of the funeral. It would be helpful for the Government to put it on the record that the authorities will show humanity in such circumstances.
Mr. Browne: Is the hon. Gentleman's argument predicated on the assumption that no licence renewal notice will be issued to those with free television licences?
Mr. Webb: No. I am saying that the last thing that someone is going to do immediately after their loved one has died is rummage through the paperwork for the television licence. It would be nice if the Minister said that some humanity will be shown, but the law is the law and it is not clear whether such a defence will be available if the authorities choose to pursue someone who does not have a valid licence. I hope that the Minister will at least acknowledge the issues and tell us that they may be addressed. I am glad to see her nodding.
My only other point is about the accountability of the BBC. The sum involved equates to a month's pension rise, so we have to be sure that our constituents' money is being wisely spent. Accountability has been addressed in other measures that the Government have introduced, but my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), who speaks on these matters for my party, has raised the issue of accountability through the National Audit Office. There is a balance to be struck between unwanted parliamentary interference in the BBC in editorial and journalistic matters and the fact that taxpayers' money is being spent. The National Audit Office has an important
304
tradition of supervising the spending of taxpayers' money. I hope that the Minister will at least keep open the option of involving not just an independent firm of accountants or auditors, who are not directly accountable to Parliament, but a body that exists to scrutinise the spending of public money. That would make us feel more confident that our constituents' hard-earned cash was being well spent.
With those reservations, we welcome the new concessions and recognise the BBC's need for additional funding, so we shall not oppose the regulations.
9.7 pm
Miss Anne Begg: I am pleased to contribute to the debate. I am secretary of the all-party BBC group. I am pleased that the issue of BBC funding has at last been settled after some months. The uncertainty has caused a great deal of unease and disquiet in the BBC and among our constituents, who did not know what increase in the licence fee they were going to be expected to pay.
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Minister on the importance of the BBC driving forward the new digital age and being at the forefront of the new technologies. If the BBC is to survive in the 21st century with its integrity as a broadcaster of repute intact, it must be able to harness and advance new technology. We have seen that in the new digital services such as BBC Choice, as well as in BBC Online, which is perhaps the most popular of the corporation's new developments. BBC Online is as near as this country will get to having a national public service newspaper, because it presents the news for everyone to see without the bias or slant that we get in the print media. Its unbiased presentation of news is one of the great values of the BBC.
I am also glad to hear that the Opposition are in favour of the retention of the licence fee. It should continue to be the way in which we fund the BBC. When funding arrangements are announced, the cry usually goes up that the measures are too little, too late. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) seems to think that it is too much, too soon. The extra £3 a year is too much, according to him. In Aberdeen—which is not always noted for its generosity—the rumour went around that the television licence would be going up by £15, and the people were dismayed and angry. Then the rumour was that the licence would be going up by £12, and they were still dismayed. So when it came out that it was to go up by £3, they were delighted. My constituents believe that an extra £3 is not too much for the excellent service provided by the BBC.
Nor is it too soon. The basis of the argument of the hon. Member for Ryedale was that the new Director General of the BBC, Greg Dyke, will be reviewing the position and the future of the BBC, and therefore he should not know how much money he will have in the future. That seems daft to me. The Government have been right to specify what the funding will be over the next six years for the BBC, so Greg Dyke can ensure that what he wants will fit in with the amount of money that he has. Of course, he must try to find efficiency savings, and he should make sure that the BBC is slimmer and meaner and that it improves its quality. However, at least he will know how much money will go to him over the next six years.
When it was mooted that pensioners should get free television licences, I was not keen. I thought that the only way in which it could be done would be for the BBC to

305
lose the money—some £300 million. The other option was that everybody else would have to pay more for their licence, by up to £40 a year. I did not think that my constituents, particularly those on low incomes, would wear that.
I did not believe that the Treasury would be as generous as it has been. To use a good Scots word, I always thought that the Treasury was a bit grippit—in other words, it held on to its money and would not give any of it away. I thought that our prudent Chancellor would not be prepared to be as generous as he has been. I am delighted that the money is coming from the Treasury. I know that my mum and dad, who are both over 75, are delighted that they are getting a free television licence.
The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) should remember that the television licence will be tax free, and that to give pensioners over 75 the money on their pension would result in better-off pensioners paying tax. However, the £104 will be tax free and therefore worth more to better-off pensioners. The start-up costs referred to by the hon. Member for Ryedale will be borne not by the BBC, but by the Treasury. If the Chancellor is being that generous, it would be churlish of us to refuse.
I am glad that the BBC's funding will be on a solid footing over the next six years. The increase of £3 is enough—it is above inflation and it will allow the BBC to continue to play its part in the digital age. I am delighted that Britain's pensioners aged over 75 will have a free television licence.
9.14 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: It has been a pleasure to listen to the debate. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) was right to point out that the gift of a television licence worth £104 was worth more to pensioners over 75 paying income tax, and even more to those paying higher rates of tax. I declare that, were I a widower over 75, I would have to pay the higher rate of tax, as I would have my own pension and part of my wife's. I do not see why better-off pensioners should get a great deal more.
People have argued that giving pensioners the money would not help those on income support. That argument used to be trotted out against increasing child benefit. In practice, ensuring that an increase in child benefit is of help to the poorest merely means that the levels of income support also have to be raised. There is therefore no particular problem in that regard.
What happened is that the Government found themselves in a hole, with bad headlines on some other issue coming up, and someone had a bright idea for a lollipop. When she winds up the debate, will the Minister say whether she consulted the BBC before making the announcement? I do not think that she did. Did she consult anyone? Was a White Paper produced? Was Parliament consulted? Was Age Concern consulted, or pensioner groups, or Jack Jones, a well-known voice for pensioners and a former general secretary of my trade union? I do not think so.
If we are to accept that it would be very nice if people over 75 did not have to buy a television licence, or if they could be given an equivalent sum, we must consider whether the Government's approach is the most effective way to proceed. I suspect that it is not, although I know that what has happened is typical of the way in which
306
Governments act, and that future Governments may be no different. However, the proposal is slightly illogical and seems to have been thought up in a rush. On the whole, I think that the Treasury could do better.
Miss Begg: I am sure that, like me, the hon. Gentleman has spoken to many pensioner groups and many individual pensioners. I was constantly asked why pensioners could not receive free TV licences, as happens in other countries. The genuine desire articulated by pensioners was for free licences.
Mr. Bottomley: I do not want to come across as the only hon. Member who wants to spoil the party, but those who will decide what to do with television licences in future may read this debate, and they ought to be made aware of some of the points that the Minister would no doubt have made if Liberal Democrat or Conservative Members had come up with the idea of free television licences for people over 75.
The points that I want to make would have cropped up in consultation. The process of consultation, involving working parties and taskforces, is used in almost every aspect of Government these days. That did not happen in this case, and the result is a scheme that is not as good as it could have been.
Janet Anderson: Does the hon. Gentleman support the Government's proposal to give free television licences to the over-75s, or not?
Mr. Bottomley: It ought to be clear that I do not oppose the proposal, but that I am trying to talk through the logic behind it. I am not setting myself up as an Enoch Powell, for whom only logic worked. However, I think that it would have been better to present a scheme that provided benefit worth £104, so that people paying tax might find that they had to contribute a little more, while those who do not pay tax would not. Such a scheme would also ensure that people paying at the higher rate of tax would not get a greater benefit.
My reason for arguing against child tax allowances is that they give no help to those below the tax threshold; that they give the greatest help to those paying the highest rates of tax, and that they do not make much difference to those on ordinary levels of income. The same argument applies to pensioner households over 75 years of age.
It is not sensible to give free television licences to all pensioners because many people in work who have children face far more difficult budgeting problems than they do when they retire. Forty years ago, it used to be the case that people were most hard up when they retired, but nowadays it is when they have their first child, when they often go from having two incomes and two mouths to feed to having one income and three mouths to feed at a time when housing costs are at their greatest.
My starting point is that we should not give unalloyed praise to the scheme. Consultation would have helped and would have caused the Government to propose a modified scheme that would have had roughly the same effect, without some of the unfairnesses that I have illustrated.
I accept that many people over 75 years of age now are vulnerable, but I suspect that many people who turn 75 in 20 or 30 years' time will not feel anything like the same squeeze on their financial resources. If 75 per cent. of

307
35-year-olds are paying for their own homes and will have paid off their housing costs by the time they retire, they will be in a very different financial situation from today's over-75s, who do not necessarily have second pensions, extra savings, and their housing costs paid. The arguments for free television licences for those over 75 in the year 2000 will not be the same as they will be in 2020.
Mr. Webb: One might assume that, but the projections of the Department of Social Security and other research evidence show that, if anything, older pensioners will be getting further and further behind the rest of the pensioner population. One reason is that they tend to be women, who always tend to be further behind, but there are many other reasons as well. It is not obvious that targeting by age is a policy that is right for now but not necessarily right in the future.
Mr. Bottomley: I was making a rather more narrow point. People who will be 75 in 40 years' time are now 35. A lot of 35-year-olds are buying their own homes, and I suspect that that will continue. If the average rate of owner-occupation in this country is getting on for 70 per cent., and if a relatively low proportion of people between the ages of 60 and 85 own their own homes, it must be that successive cohorts will be moving through.
Mr. Webb: That is wealth, not income.
Mr. Bottomley: It is wealth, and savings and second pensions will increase that. Again, that argument can be made for income, taxation and benefit policies. I am trying to establish that what appears to be right now is not necessarily the fairest, most equitable way of providing quality television and reasonable equality in paying for it, which is what we are after.
We have three public service television channels—BBC 1, BBC 2 and Channel 4. Channel 4 is not funded by the licence, but it is public sector broadcasting. In another debate, it would be interesting to hear whether the Government plan to privatise Channel 4 and take the money. I hope that they do not. There are good arguments for Channel 4 to remain in its slightly anomalous situation. Incidentally, anomalies on the licence and in the regulations have been mentioned. Willie Whitelaw, when Home Secretary, was asked whether he understood that there were anomalies, and whether he could search for alternatives. He stood up and, with a straight face, said that he would be perfectly happy to search for alternative anomalies. Almost any way of solving anomalies creates others, at least at the borderline.
I declare that the BBC has given me some hospitality over the years, often at BBC events. I have tried to turn up at the events that do not offer more than a cup of coffee when the BBC is talking about its great work on the World Service and other areas that are not funded by the licence fee. The licence fee basically pays for BBC 1 and BBC 2.
I repeat my question to the Minister, in the hope that she can give a broader answer when she winds up the debate. If not, perhaps she could write to me and put a copy of her reply in the Library. Roughly what are the sources of the extra £490 million that she, her Department
308
or the Treasury believe can be produced from within the BBC, over and above the BBC's estimate of £600 million? Is it just a difference between what John Birt thought he could produce and what Greg Dyke thinks he can produce, or is it something different? If it is a ministerial estimate, let us be told. If the figure comes from the BBC, it would be helpful to know.
Janet Anderson: Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that the £490 million is not a figure that we have simply plucked out of the air. It was based on the scrutiny of the BBC's finances by the Pannell Kerr Forster report. I repeat that the money will come from increased efficiency savings, reductions in bureaucracy and increased commercial revenues.
Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful for that reply, but I thought that that was where the first £600 million was coming from. If we can raise that figure by an extra 40 per cent., perhaps those accountants would be rather useful in other Departments as well. I shall not pursue that, however. Presumably, Ministers will make available more detailed information if they have it and, if they do not have it, they will say so and it will be just one of those things.
In the regulations, we want to ensure that, reasonably fairly, we protect and enhance public service broadcasting. I want to quote from the McKinsey report from January 1999 on public service broadcasters around the world. It concluded:
Public service broadcasters have a significant responsibility within their markets. As the pacesetters, it is the public service broadcasters who set a tone for broadcasting. Healthy public service broadcasters can potentially greatly enrich their broadcasting cultures and by extension the cultures of their nations. It is in the interests of all audiences to see that they continue to do so, and keep broadcasting the broad-ranging, stimulating, unifying social force it has been for much of the last century.
I hope that the settlement for the BBC—a fairly minor increase, although I accept that it makes up about 8 per cent. of the increase in the basic state pension—will manage to achieve that, not only in national broadcasting but in broadcasting within the nations of this country.
I fear that if we keep the BBC too strapped for cash, we will not be able to allow the development of broadcasting in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and, for that matter, England. England is not quite so critical because English culture spreads out and becomes almost British culture in significant part.
I hope that, in time, Ministers will find it possible to use one of the three public service broadcasters as national broadcasters for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Sometimes, we have broadcasting too tightly controlled at the centre. I know that the BBC has done quite a lot to devolve editorial control of programme making to Scotland and, no doubt, to Wales. There has also been discussion about the fourth channel in Wales, but that may be a debate for another day. The question is whether the settlement will be sufficient for the BBC as it is at present.
I should have preferred the increases to be larger. I represent a constituency with the highest proportion of people above retirement age-55 per cent. are below retirement age and 45 per cent. are above it. I suspect that many of my constituents would agree with the 89-year-old widow who wrote to me in connection with an audiology test saying that the only enjoyment that

309
she had left in her life was listening to the radio and television. The trouble was that, as she did not have a hearing aid, her neighbours heard more of it than she did.
Many elderly people find the BBC and the other broadcasters a lifeline. They keep people in touch with what is going on, they provide entertainment and education and they are informative. They are good value. If one takes the cost of the licence fee as providing BBC services alone, it is well justified, given the broad reach of the BBC. I am becoming more and more confident that it will be justified when the charter comes up for renewal the next time. I know that there were doubts in the last decade about whether the licence fee system could last. I want to make a suggestion about how we could do it next time.
Virtually everyone pays their licence fee out of taxed income. Those who do not, because they are below the tax threshold, deserve special consideration in any case. So I would move to a system in which the taxpayer—the Government, the Chancellor—started to build on to the licence fee the imputed tax that people had paid on the money that they used to pay their licence fee. That would be a way of providing extra funds without losing the independence that the BBC system provides.
I hope that the House will approve the packages that the Government propose, which are basically the transitional ones, and that when the Government come forward with the precise way in which they will legislate to pay for licences for the over-75s—not just the transitional element, which the orders deal with, but the next legislation—they will answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) asked about data protection. What will be the system for checking? Does it require a change to the registration system using national insurance numbers or taxation numbers? Can we be assured that we will not get Big Brother going along with Auntie BBC?
9.29 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I can agree with at least some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) about the importance of the BBC. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) started on the right note—he recognised the importance of the BBC and was in favour of it—but I am afraid that for the rest of his speech he took a carping, criticising tone.
Mr. Greenway: I was referring to the report.
Mr. Winnick: Be that as it may, the hon. Gentleman was criticising every aspect of the BBC and clearly did not agree with the increase. It is interesting that, knowing what the order would be about, the Opposition put down the prayer, but then the hon. Gentleman was frank in saying that they did not intend to vote against the order. It may seem okay to oppose the increase, but the Tories do not want the country to see them oppose the free television licence for the over-75s.
Mr. Greenway: Had we not tabled a prayer against the order, the hon. Gentleman would not have had an opportunity to make his remarks.
Mr. Winnick: Somehow, I do not believe that the prayer was tabled in order to let me make a speech. I may be wrong. Perhaps my wishes are considered by the shadow Cabinet, but I doubt it.
310
Like the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Worthing, West, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) and the Minister, I believe that the BBC is in Britain's interests. We need a public service broadcasting organisation. If we appreciate it and recognise its role, we must realise that increases are necessary. The increase amounts to 6p a week. I do not deny that some will find it difficult, but it is extremely modest and I see no reason why we should not agree to it.
Sometimes, Conservative Back Benchers—although not the hon. Member for Worthing, West—give the impression that they would like the BBC to be privatised or semi-privatised. They sometimes seem to want advertisements. I do not believe that the Opposition's enthusiasm for the BBC comes close to ours.
I am glad that the Minister has explained the position relating to the administrative arrangements being made for those approaching 75. I have had queries in writing and at my surgeries about licence renewal from those who are or soon will be 75. I shall be better able to explain those matters to my constituents in future.
My principal reason for speaking is my view that the free television licence is absolutely justified. With others, I have campaigned for that for a long time. I must say that the hon. Member for Worthing, West has been consistent. I have re-read the voting list on my private Member's Bill on 16 January 1987, and his name was among those who opposed the Bill. It is difficult to get colleagues into the House on a Friday, but I managed to have quite a number here that day, only to lose by 21 votes.
Some argue that the free licence is not necessary because some pensioners aged 75 or more are well off, but we do not have means tests for the bus pass, which goes to all. No one, including any Conservative Member, has argued that free bus passes should go or be means-tested. The same applies to prescription charges. Men and women over 60 do not pay for prescriptions—for men that is a result of European Union rulings. No one says that that is wrong, or that richer people over 60 should pay.
The same should apply to the television licence. As people grow older, they watch more television. For the elderly and those who find it difficult to get out in the winter, television is a means of communication with the outside world—that is certainly true of those with few close relatives. Television is important to them.
Some argue that the free licence should be extended to all pensioners. That was the purpose of my private Member's Bill in 1987. However, I believe that the Government can justify their position. They are being criticised already over the money involved—£300 million or more, according to the hon. Member for Ryedale. As a first step, there is every justification for starting with people aged over 75, even if there will be complaints from those under that age.
Like my hon. Friend the Minister, I am not quite sure what the attitude of Conservative Members is towards free television licences for the over-75s. During the Budget debates, the measure was described by Opposition Front-Bench Members as a hollow gimmick. Is it a hollow gimmick? If it is, why will they not vote against the regulations?
When my Bill was debated in 1987, David Mellor, then the Minister of State, Home Office, argued strongly against it on behalf of the Conservative Government.

311
He said that if pensioners had free television licences, those who had black and white sets would want colour sets. He argued that pensioners who had evaded the licence fee—although, in the main, it is not pensioners who do not pay the fee—would receive a free licence. He said that, if my measure became law—horror of horrors—those who had no television set would want one after all.
As for the cost, Mr. Mellor argued, in his sarcastic, mocking tones, against all that Labour MPs were trying to do. He said:
Opposition Members say that all we have to do is to dig into the money mine beneath this Chamber and Parliament will provide the £400 million.—[Official Report, 16 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 528.]
That was his estimate of the cost.
Time and again, during all the years when we were trying to obtain that elementary justice for pensioners, Members of the previous Conservative Government—with the full support of their Back Benchers—voted against us. They made it quite clear that such a measure would not be introduced.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: When the hon. Gentleman made that proposal in 1987, he was about the same age as I am now—in his mid-50s. Why should the general taxpayer pay for my free television licence if I was a Member of Parliament aged more than 60 or 65? On pay of £49,000 a year, we do not need one.
Mr. Winnick: If the hon. Gentleman is having a little dig at me, I point out that I had not reached the age of 54 when I introduced my Bill, so I could not have been acting out of self-interest. No Conservative Member has yet accused me of acting out of self-interest. I am pleased to say that it will be some years before I qualify for a free television licence. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
I conclude by quoting myself—if I may do so on just one occasion—during the debate on my Bill. I said:
What I am advocating is fair and justified. If I am defeated in a Tory-dominated House of Commons on a whipped vote of Cabinet Ministers, I shall carry on the campaign with my right hon. and hon. Friends. We shall not give up, because we believe that we are right. If we do not get this concession for pensioners from a Tory Government, we shall ensure that it comes from a Labour Government.—[Official Report, 16 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 511.]
It is done. There was no election promise—nothing in the manifesto—but many of us were determined that if we could persuade our ministerial colleagues, especially the Chancellor, to introduce the measure, we would do so. I am extremely grateful that the Chancellor has taken that action. I am also grateful to the Minister, who has campaigned ardently in ministerial circles for this concession to pensioners. Once again, that demonstrates the difference between a Tory and a Labour Government.
9.34 pm
Mr. Desmond Browne: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. My brief contribution will be restricted to the increase in the licence fee.
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), the hon. Member for Worthing, West
312
(Mr. Bottomley) and others who, like myself, are all friends of the BBC. Those who normally take part in these debates and contribute in a slightly different tone have absented themselves from the Chamber tonight. It is pleasant to be in the company of those who appreciate the value of the great institution that is the BBC.
I will resist the temptation to quote myself, even though my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North did just that. That might become a habit in the House, and it is not one to be encouraged. As I said in the broadcasting debate, I am against a digital licence fee. I argued for a licence fee that is set against an independent assessment of the financial needs of the BBC. As I understand it, that is the approach of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I welcome that and I welcome the increase in the licence fee for a number of reasons. I shall come to them shortly.
I wish to deal with a fairly narrow point. I want to explore and test the core argument put forward by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) in opposing the increase. In response to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement on the licence fee on 21 February, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) recognised the achievements of the BBC
in setting a benchmark of quality in national and international broadcasting.—[Official Report, 21 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1243.]
To that extent, the official Opposition recognise what many Labour Members recognise: the BBC is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly described as
the UK's most important cultural institution.—[Official Report, 21 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1239.]
In fact almost the whole House, with one or two notable exceptions, recognises the importance and role of the BBC.
The hon. Members for East Surrey and for Ryedale have not argued that the BBC should not be funded by a licence fee. On the contrary, they have sought to argue that that is how it should be funded, but within the five-year settlement agreed by the previous Government and the BBC in 1996. They have argued that despite the fact that the broadcasting world is changing rapidly, with what the hon. Member for East Surrey has described as an explosion that has arisen from the rapid increase in access to multi-channel digital television—an explosion that
raises fundamental questions about the current and future role of the BBC.
Although the circumstances surrounding the BBC have changed rapidly and exploded around it in the past five years, the Opposition have argued that the deal that was struck in 1996 should be adhered to.
The Opposition have opposed the proposal to increase the licence fee by a modest 1 p or less per day, which I accept for some people is a significant increase. However, they are prepared to join us in celebrating the achievements of the BBC and to argue in favour of retaining its funding mechanism. I exclude the hon. Member for Worthing, West from those comments because, for the first time, I heard him expound an alternative method for funding the BBC. I am far from satisfied that funding the BBC out of any form of taxation would not directly threaten its independence, but I shall read his words in Hansard tomorrow and consider his proposal carefully.

313
What is the difference between the Government and the Opposition on the increase in the licence fee? The hon. Member for Ryedale has expressed a view similar to that of the hon. Member for East Surrey, who said:
It is simply not good enough that he—
that is the Secretary of State—
should oblige the licence fee payer to stump up more money for the BBC in the absence of a clear and modern definition of the BBC's role.—[Official Report, 21 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1243.]
The hon. Member for Ryedale used similar words tonight.
If such a modern definition is provided, the Opposition should rethink their approach to the issue. The hon. Member for Ryedale implied in answer to my intervention that such a definition might be forthcoming, but said so obliquely by referring to the report of the Select Committee. However, as a redefinition was not forthcoming, I shall endeavour to provide one to see whether the Opposition can be persuaded to come on board, there being a modern definition of the role of the BBC at the turn of the century.
Mr. Greenway: I know that we are running out of time, but before the hon. Gentleman provides a modern definition, and given that he seems to be suggesting that there is an argument purely between the Conservative party and the Government, may I remind him that the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, chaired by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), expressly stated that there was no justification for breaking the five-year formula? Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the recommendation that the BBC should
cut its coat according to the cloth?
That report is only three months old.
Mr. Browne: However old an illogical argument is, it is an illogical argument. My response to the hon. Gentleman's intervention was in my introductory remarks. The BBC is living in a more rapidly changing environment than it has recognised. Yet there are certain forces that still argue for whatever reason—including Opposition spokesmen and the Select Committee—that we should stick to the funding formula that was agreed six years ago, despite the fact that the world is changing around them.
I return to my core theme: what is a modern role for the BBC at the turn of the century? A vigorous media are essential to hold government, institutions and individuals to account. Broadcasting is unique in doing that, unlike the print medium, because it gives access to what politicians say and do, and to what is said and done by professionals and other individuals.
Secondly, broadcasting has a role in promoting personal responsibility. That role is well known in combating crime and increasing awareness of health issues.
314
Thirdly, broadcasting—uniquely—can facilitate the acquisition of basic skills in literacy and numeracy all the way through to further education at the Open university.
Fourthly, broadcasting has the unique ability to allow many people to share information and to tackle social exclusion. Given the way the BBC is funded through the licence fee, and because of its charter, it can do that without the pressures that any other form of funding would bring.
The licence fee settlement will enable the BBC to meet challenges in the digital broadcasting arena and will provide a clear role for the BBC at the turn of the century. I ask the Opposition to review their stance following that simple explanation.
9.48 pm
Mr. John Grogan: In the two or three minutes that are left for the debate, I shall deal with a couple of arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). He seemed to suggest that unless there is a precise definition of what public sector broadcasting will be, it is not possible to commit any more resources to the BBC. That is a misunderstanding of the changing broadcasting world. No one can say precisely what public sector broadcasting will be like in 10 years' time. No one can say whether there will be television channels in the conventional sense by then.
If, in the 1950s, a committee of Members or others had been formed to draw up the future for radio, it would not have identified Radio 1. In the 1980s, it would not have been possible to define Radio 5 Live by means of a committee. Public sector broadcasting is a creative and dynamic force, and as a nation we must commit ourselves to the principles that have served us well in the past.
In the 1990s, the private sector was increasing its revenues in broadcasting by 5 per cent. in real terms per annum. That was not envisaged at the time of the earlier review, and neither was the digital expansion.
It is suggested, particularly among those who now have cable or satellite television, that there is a disinclination to pay the licence fee. There is no evidence of a revolt against the licence fee. Collection rates are increasing. When the BBC took over collection of the licence fee in the early part of the last decade, the evasion rate was 10 ten cent; it is now down to about 5 per cent. Pannell Kerr Forster, the consultants to whom my hon. Friend the Minister referred, suggest that the overall cost of collection and evasion will be down to 9 per cent. by 2006–07, compared with 13.2 per cent. in 1995. The licence fee is a small sum compared with the £300 that the average digital or satellite subscriber pays for what are essentially sports and movies.
I want quickly to say—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16(1).
Question negatived.

Senior Practice Nurses
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
9.50 pm
Mr. John Healey: I am grateful for this chance to raise the issue of discretionary pay points for practice nurses. The matter was raised with me by four local practice nurses, who skipped lunch to see me at my constituency office a month ago.
These are senior nurses at the top of their profession. They manage their own case load, run clinics and lead service delivery teams on family planning, women's health, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which is a legacy of the coal mines that is only too common in south Yorkshire. They are responsible for health promotion, Medical Research Council-sponsored research and the training and professional development of other primary care staff.
Practice nurses are developing new quality standards, audit work and clinical governance systems. They are, to all intents and purposes, making prescription decisions, although of course because they are not health visitors or district nurses, despite the fact that they have the same qualifications, those prescriptions are still countersigned by GPs. In other words, practice nurses see and manage patients who would previously have been seen and managed by GPs.
That part of the nursing profession is the backbone of the GP service at present and the base on which we will build a better, more multidisciplinary primary care service in the future. Ministers have therefore rightly given strong support to the expansion of practice nurse numbers and roles.
The nurses who came to see me are highly experienced and have been at the top of their pay scale for many years. Their annual salary is between £18,000 and £19,000 for a full 34-hour week, although, as many surveys confirm, practice nurses, like other nurses, often work extra hours unpaid. They are also very committed to their work. Care of their patients is their first, second and third priority. They are the last people to make complaints on their own behalf, but they have been driven to do so, first, by the mishandling of their position by Rotherham health authority and, secondly, by the muddle over their position generally as nurses employed by GPs, who are independent small business people.
In 1998, the Nurses and Midwives Pay Review Body recognised a serious problem of career progression for such senior nurses. Three quarters of nursing staff in G, H, and I grades were at their grade maximum, and the pay review body stated that there was
little, if any, scope to reward the taking on of extra responsibilities or the acquisition of new skills. We were also aware of the deleterious effect that limitations on career progression could have on recruitment and retention.
Nurses, including practice nurses, at the top of their grade were getting extra responsibility without extra reward or recognition.
The 1998 pay review body report, therefore, introduced the concept of a discretionary points system to allow the most senior nurses with the greatest responsibilities to apply for up to three additional increments, each worth between £375 and £400. As the pay review body made clear, those were introduced as an interim solution, and not a long-term answer to the problems.
316
National agreement was reached between the parties in September 1998 on implementing the discretionary points. The NHS executive issued an advance notice on 11 September 1998, and the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council was charged with agreeing criteria for the operation of the system, which it published in November of that year.
The review body expressed the firm expectation that, to quote the NMNC guidance,
initial awards of discretionary points locally will have been achieved by the end of December 1998, backdated to 11 September 1998.
In Rotherham, our General Hospitals NHS trust set up and operated such a scheme, as required, from September 1998. To date, 126 midwives and nurses—none of them practice nurses, of course—have applied and been assessed for discretionary points, and 111 such points have been awarded.
Our Priority Health Services NHS trust employs two practice nurses, although other nurses and health visitors have used the scheme set up by that trust in November 1998. Under that scheme, 64 discretionary points have been awarded.
By the early summer of 1999, Rotherham health authority had set up arrangements to deal with applications from practice nurses employed by GPs. During the summer, a number of nurses went through lengthy efforts to prepare applications, which were assessed by the health authority's panel.
Eleven nurses were awarded discretionary points. In August or September, they received confirmation of their awards in writing from the health authority's professional nurse adviser, who, quite reasonably, had been co-ordinating the assessment system. In the letter, the nurses were informed that a report would
now go to the Executive Team who will need to approve the awards. Any money approved will be backdated to September 1998.
In November, out of the blue, the nurses received a letter from the health authority chief executive, Mr. John Hinchcliffe, which stated that since the time that the practice nurses received the letter about discretionary points from the health authority,
we have been considering how to proceed and seeking advice from the Department of Health. We have come to the view that the process that was used to award the points did not follow nationally-agreed guidelines and we have therefore decided that we need to rectify this situation. To do this, we will, in fact, need to run through the process again. I do apologise for this but it is important that this system operates properly and that it is seen to be fair and equitable for all involved.
The letter continued:
We will put in place the appropriate procedure as soon as we can and any awards made under the new procedure will be backdated to the date of your original application.
Understandably, the practice nurses were extremely disappointed, demoralised and demotivated, but they are determined professionals, and they pressed Mr. Hinchcliffe for the reasons why he thought that the process introduced by the health authority had been flawed. Mr. Hinchcliffe explained that
GPs need to be involved in the process not least because they will be required to part-fund any awards.

317
According to Mr. Hinchcliffe, the authority's arrangements had not followed national guidelines in four areas. He stated that
GPs have not ratified applications; staff representatives have not been involved in developing the local procedure; the executive team
of the health authority—
was not clear what decision-making process had been used; there is no clear indication of how any appeal should be handled.
I met Mr. Hinchcliffe 10 days ago to discuss the problem, and I made it clear to him that I did not accept his arguments that the process was unsound, or that it needed to be redesigned and rerun from scratch.
I shall deal with Mr. Hinchcliffe's points one by one. First, practice nurses had to raise the question of their application with their GP employer before it was submitted. Certainly in the cases that I have examined, the GP either endorsed the application, or at least confirmed the accuracy of the description of the practice nurse's role contained in—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
Mr. Healey: I was not quite prepared for that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am grateful for the opportunity to continue.
Secondly, Mr. Glen Turk of the Royal College of Nursing, representing staff, was involved in the arrangements, and was a member of the assessment panel. Thirdly, I have not asked to examine the paperwork records of the panel process, but the criteria for the process were clearly set out in the NHS Executive's advance letter of 11 September, then exemplified in the guidance of the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council. I therefore simply cannot accept that the executive team could have failed to grasp what was involved in the decision-making process if it had taken the trouble to check, either during or after the process.
In any event, the Office of Manpower Economics survey conducted in autumn 1999 on behalf of the pay review body to monitor the progress of the scheme made it clear that trusts were interpreting the guidance flexibly. Fifteen of the 74 trusts that had agreed a scheme had departed from national guidelines, and half the 26 that were still negotiating their schemes were thinking of doing the same. There is clearly considerable scope for local variation and discretion within the guidance, and within the discretionary points system.
Fourthly, the official guidance gives, in fact, little guidance on appeals, beyond a reference to local grievance procedures. If that was not made clear to applicants at the start, there may be an argument for refining the scheme in the future, but it is hardly a sufficient argument to justify re-establishing and rerunning the whole process.
I fear that our practice nurses have fallen victim to some senior management wrangle. Such treatment of nurses by the health authority does it no credit; they deserve better. I have some sympathy for the authority, however, and suspect that others around the country are in a similar position. Paymaster but not employer of our practice nurses, the health authority stepped in last year to try to fill a void. Individual general practices can hardly
318
be expected to set up their own process for determining discretionary points; primary care groups were still finding their feet, and, in any case, they are not employers of practice nurses. Moreover, no guidance has been issued on how practice nurses should be handled, given their special employment status in relation to GPs as independent contractors to the NHS.
I shall say more about that shortly, but, before dealing with national issues raised by the constituency case, let me ask my hon. Friend the Minister some questions. Will he consider investigating the situation in Rotherham? In particular, can he offer Rotherham health authority a second opinion—perhaps from the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council, or the NHS Executive—on whether the scheme seriously breaks the national guidelines, and is therefore fundamentally flawed?
If we can avoid the waste of time, effort and cost for all involved, I believe that we should do so. That would deal with the frustration and demoralisation of 11 practice nurses who, understandably, are fed up with the way in which they have been treated.
The position of practice nurses in Rotherham highlights two wider national problems. First, I gather from our experience in Rotherham, and from further research that I have undertaken, that practice nurses are vulnerable to GPs' veto on their participation in the process. One local practice nurse reports that her GP said "no way" to discretionary pay points unless the health authority footed the entire bill.
In practice, GPs can first discourage practice nurses from participating, and also discourage applications. Secondly, they can resist confirming the responsibilities that practice nurses have to set out in their applications. Thirdly, they can refuse to pay any increment that a practice nurse may be awarded.
The Royal College of Nursing believes that GPs who pay for the discretionary points are the exception, not the rule. That means that hundreds of practice nurses are likely to be losing out on the opportunity for career progression and recognition. That is unacceptable.
Let us consider the second wider national problem. Although practice nurses are professionally qualified and indisputably covered by the pay review body, GPs—their employers—are not. As independent contractors to the NHS, they are not bound in the same way as trusts or health authorities to pay review body settlements. That means that practice nurses are left in limbo on discretionary points.
That is not surprising because practice nurses are not mentioned in the pay review body reports on discretionary points, the NHS Executive's advance letter, the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council's guidance or the Office of Manpower Economics survey, which covered 106 trusts and no GPs.
The hard question for Ministers is whether the Government want practice nurses in or out of the discretionary points system. If the Government believe, as I do, that the pay review body is right to say that the problems are of practice rather than principle, and that the system should continue, they should consider issuing guidance, albeit non-binding. It should include advice on arrangements that mention GPs and make clear the position of practice nurses. Will the Minister consider clarifying the position in that way?

319
The imperative to do that will increase in four days' time when the first of the 23 primary care trusts comes into operation. The new trusts will include community nurses, health visitors, district nurses, midwives and practice nurses working alongside each other. They will be encouraged to work together in teams. If Ministers do not move to ensure that the problem is solved, the fact that practice nurses currently lose out will become increasingly clear.
10.8 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) on securing the debate on access to discretionary pay increments for nurses in general practice. By pursuing a constituency case, he has aired some important wider issues.
I recognise from my hon. Friend's comments that some of the nurses involved—probably all of them—have had their expectations raised and then dashed in a most unfortunate way. I cannot promise to provide a ready-made solution this evening. The issues involved are complex and, as with so much personnel and employment practice in the national health service, there have been some arcane custom and practice, rules and regulations and professional demarcation. We must change some of those matters in future. However, there are not always easy solutions to the immediate problems.
There should be no doubt that nurses have a vital role to play in the modernised and revitalised national health service: in hospitals, in community health services and in general practice. That role will become more important as the NHS breaks down some of the artificial professional barriers and begins to build a service that uses all the talents of its staff.
That is why the Government attach such a high priority to ensuring that we make nursing an attractive and fulfilling career. We have put doctors and nurses, as well as other health professionals, in the driving seat on primary care groups, for example, and nurses in leading roles in NHS Direct—the nurse-led helpline—and in our new walk-in centres. In all those roles, new and traditional, fair pay and conditions of service are important. Our strategy for nursing is paying off: a 25 per cent. increase in the number of people registering for nurse training this year is only one example of that.
Modernised primary care is at the heart of a modernised NHS. That depends on the people working in primary care—not only the doctors, but, crucially, a properly rewarded, fairly paid, motivated and well-trained nursing work force who have access to high-quality continuing professional development and family-friendly terms and conditions of employment that allow them to give of their best.
On pay in the wider sense, we have set out a strategy to modernise the NHS pay system so that it is fit for the 21st century. We have to undertake a root-and-branch modernisation of complex pay systems that have grown up over 50 years. The negotiations are going well, but they will take time, which is why a system of discretionary points was introduced for some senior nurses in 1998 as an interim measure. My hon. Friend referred to that. The agreement on discretionary points
320
was made in the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council and applies to all staff working in the NHS on national Whitley contracts. Essentially, it provides for three discretionary points at each grade, valued at about £400 at scale F and £435 at scale I. They are, in turn, subject to recommendations made by the nurses pay review body.
As with all such agreements, the recommendations do not apply automatically to staff employed under locally negotiated terms and conditions, including nurses employed by GPs. Although my hon. Friend suggested that practice nurses, by definition, are covered by the pay review body and that agreement, that is not the case because GPs are self-employed contractors to the NHS. There are about 29,000 GPs in England who comprise some 9,000 separate, independent practices ranging from single-handed to large multi-partner practices. Each is responsible for employing its own suitably qualified staff, including practice nurses.
Although many GPs base their employment contracts on national agreements and the recommendations of the nurses pay review body, they are not obliged to do so. With 9,000 practices operating in different circumstances and with different case loads and case mixes, variations in terms and conditions of employment are inevitable. That is reflected in pay levels. If GPs do not pay an appropriate salary, there are likely to be implications for the retention and recruitment of practice nurses at local level. I would hope that individual practices carry out their employer functions responsibly and with regard to the position of all in the primary health care team.
Most GPs, as independent contractors, operate under cost-plus arrangements for general medical services. Under those arrangements, the NHS guarantees to return to the profession all expenses incurred in delivering patient services. About two thirds of total expenses are directly reimbursed to the practice that incurs them. The remaining third are reimbursed at the average for the profession as a whole through capitation and other fees and allowances.
That mixed economy of direct reimbursement of all or some of a particular expense and the indirect reimbursement of the remainder on an averaged basis has been developed over many years in consultation with the profession. It recognises that GPs are independent contractors with responsibilities for ordering their own businesses, settling their own bills and hiring the staff they need to support them and also helps to ensure good value for the taxpayer by giving the individual practice some incentive to exercise due economy in the use of NHS resources. In fact, most of the cost of staff salaries is paid directly to the practice that incurs the expense—typically, about 70 per cent. The individual employer will then have to meet any balance from the amounts built into NHS fees and allowances.
There is an element of discretion for health authorities, primary care groups—and, in future, primary care trusts—in how much they use the funds centrally available to them to support the primary care improvement plan; how much to support premises improvements; and how much to develop and to expand primary care teams. The Government have agreed that the amount of the unified budget spent on practice infrastructure in 1998 must be increased year on year in line with inflation.
Wages and salaries are a substantial cost to practices. Health authorities receive a unified budget annually, which includes an element for GP practice staff. The health authority can reimburse a GP up to 100 per cent.

321
of any proportion of the various elements that go towards the costs of employing staff: salaries, national insurance and pension contributions, staff training, including course fees, and so forth.
As I understand the position in Rotherham, the health authority convened a process to assess the suitability of practice nurses for discretionary points—even though, as I have explained, the arrangements do not automatically translate to them. Unfortunately, the nurses were informed that they had been successful—or unsuccessful—in advance of discussion with their GP employers, who would have been liable for part of the cost of any such awards.
My understanding is that, although there may have been proper discussions on the merits of individual claims for discretionary awards, the health authority had not discussed whether, and how, the GPs as employers would fund any increases in pay. It is perhaps surprising that the authority did not address funding as part of any discussions. It was at the point at which nurses were informed whether they had been successful that the health authority suspended the process, to avoid putting practice nurses into a situation where they were in conflict with their employers.
The current position is that one of the health authority directors is working with one of the PCG chief executives to design a clear and robust process to address the issue. The health authority has asked the three local PCG boards to persuade local GPs to support their nurses' applications for discretionary points. Some GPs have already indicated that they are willing to contribute to the pay uplift. In those cases, the application will be fast tracked.
My hon. Friend asked me to investigate the situation in Rotherham and to express an opinion as to whether the health authority scheme falls in line with national guidance on discretionary points. I am willing to look again at my hon. Friend's excellent speech and to find out whether there are any issues in it that I have not been able to address this evening. I will happily pursue those with the health authority. However, it follows from what I have said—and from the nature of GPs as independent contractors—that the notion of a scheme that is purely a health authority scheme and does not engage with the GPs as employers is perhaps not sensible and may not stand up.
I believe that Rotherham, working with primary care groups, is seeking to resolve the matter. I hope that the nurses whom my hon. Friend has represented so well will soon be able to put their disappointment behind them. I will take a close interest, as my hon. Friend asked me to, in the way in which the situation in Rotherham develops.
It would be appropriate to say a few words about some of the new developments in primary care. Although they cannot be enforced on individual practices, they may provide alternative ways in which to address the employment of practice nurses and to resolve some of the issues that we have discussed.
New ways of delivering primary care allow primary care practitioners to respond flexibly to patient needs and to service delivery. Known as personal medical services pilots, those arrangements are individually negotiated, rather than developed at the centre. They allow practitioners, doctors and nurses to develop new models of employment that are as flexible as the service delivery arrangements.
In personal medical services pilots, one of the most popular options—popular with doctors and with other members of the primary care team—is the practice-based
322
contract. In the traditional general medical service model, the contract is between the NHS and the individual GP. Additionally, as I said, the members of the team are employees of the GP. However, practice-based contracts can involve all the players, with nurses and doctors being equal signatories to the contract. There is also a small number of nurse-led pilots, in which we have seen perhaps a total transformation of the relationship between doctors, nurses and the NHS.
Such arrangements have the scope to change radically the roles of the individuals involved and to develop true partnerships of equals—each bringing their own skills to bear in serving the needs of their patients. In doing so, they move beyond the so-called red book governing how practices are usually remunerated. Instead, it is possible for pilots and health authorities to negotiate directly on a total package of health care services for patients and on what is a fair price to all concerned to deliver that total integrated package.
My hon. Friend quite rightly asked about the future. In partnership with the professions, we are examining the role that primary care trusts should have in the development of practice staff. Clearly, PCTs will continue the functions of primary care groups in developing primary care investment plans, but they are new bodies with new powers and new opportunities. I hope that one of the opportunities that PCTs will seize is that of helping their constituent practices to develop more integrated human resource policies.
One of the spheres in which PCTs may develop is to employ staff with particular skills. It might be possible, for example, for PCTs to employ a bank of nurses for an area, establishing a skills pool so that nurses with different specialist knowledge and experience could be available to all patients in the PCT area, rather than just in their employer's own practice. Staff employed by a PCT will be directly employed by an NHS body, because that is what a PCT is. They will therefore be integrated into the wider NHS human resources framework, while all the time being essentially practice nurses at the front line of patient care in GP surgeries.
Those developments may well occur in the future. Although they are not being imposed on practices, some PCTs are certainly keen to develop them.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, I cannot produce a ready-made answer. I hope that I have been able to assure my hon. Friend that practice nurses have a very important role to play in the modernisation of the national health service. Some flexibilities are already available in the system that could help to address the issues that he raised. Moreover, in the way in which the NHS is moving forward, there are certainly opportunities for the development of different models of employment of nurses.
As I said, I shall take a close interest in what happens to my hon. Friend's constituents, and I shall look carefully at the report of the debate to ensure that all the issues that he has raised are properly addressed.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Colombia
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
10 am
Mr. Desmond Browne: I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate an important debate and am pleased to see so many hon. Members in the Chamber. I appreciate their support, as I understand that a substantial voting duty kept them from their beds last night. I am sure that the Government and people of Colombia will take note of their interest in this subject.
I wish to declare an interest in this subject and draw hon. Members' attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. Last February, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) and I were privileged to be part of a group of European parliamentarians who spent eight days in Colombia, where we met representatives of nongovernmental organisations, church leaders, politicians and Colombian Ministers. I was present as the guest of the Scottish International Aid Fund, otherwise known as SCIAF.
Human rights were the focus of our visit. I commend to the Chamber the invaluable work done on such matters, which is supported by United Kingdom NGOs. The United Kingdom enjoys high regard, affection and respect from the people of Colombia partly as a result of NGOs' significant contribution to such work. British organisations provide a high degree of protection for ordinary citizens, local people, NGOs and other organisations by accompanying them in their human rights work. They support some of the most vulnerable people in the world and do so in our name.
I described my visit as a privilege because, like all visitors, I was stunned by the great beauty and diversity of Colombia, and because I was privileged to meet many people of great courage, patriotism and dignity. Our delegation was particularly impressed by those who had been, or still are, victims of violence.
Singling anyone out would be invidious and possibly even dangerous for such people. However, I draw the Chamber's attention to a group of displaced people whom we met in the city of Quibdo in the region of Choco. We met 40 families who had been displaced from their poor rural villages by paramilitary violence and who had taken residence on the wooden terraces of a crumbling concrete basketball stadium. As I recollect, some families occupied only 8 or 9 sq ft of that stadium. They had been abandoned there for two years with no access to work, no hope of integration in the local community and dependent on a European Union charity for the most basic needs of life. Some children in that stadium knew no other life.
We promised that we would not forget those people and that we would bring their plight to the attention of the international community. My hon. Friend the
2WH
Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East has already introduced an Adjournment debate on the subject and I am sure that none of us present that day will ever forget those people and I dedicate to them my contribution to our debate.
Our debate is timely for at least four reasons. First, by fortuitous coincidence, London is honoured by the presence of Mr. Victor Ricardo, the Colombian Government's high commissioner for peace and their chief negotiator in negotiations currently taking place between them and the Colombian revolutionary armed forces or FARC. We are especially fortunate that Mr. Ricardo has chosen this time to come to the United Kingdom to deliver a progress report on the peace process.
On 28 January, the Colombian Government and FARC representatives reached agreement on the common agenda for change for the new Colombia. It was also agreed that the issues on the agenda should be divided into three main categories: social and economic structures; human rights, international law and international relations; and democratic processes and political structures of the state. It is important, appropriate and timely that, at this stage of the peace process, awareness of what is happening in Colombia is raised within the international community—and it is especially welcome in the United Kingdom.
Secondly, and perhaps not coincidentally with the visit of Mr. Victor Ricardo, EU member states were asked by the Colombian Government to contribute substantial aid to the funding of Plan Colombia. Plan Colombia—described as a global plan for peace, prosperity and a strengthening of the state—was developed by the Administration of President Pastrana to provide $7.5 billion of support for development and the peace process. The Colombian Government hope to secure $3.5 billion from EU member states and other international donors. Spain will bring together the European donor nations, Japan and Canada to a donor meeting in July, which will be held in Madrid.
Thirdly, it is timely to debate these issues as we approach the 56th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights at which, once again, Colombia's human rights record will be examined and reported. At the previous session, a strongly worded and critical statement on Colombia's record was issued. The British Government have strongly supported previous commission statements and, over the past two years, the high commissioner's office in Colombia. The time has come for the Government to reiterate their support for both. I am sure that hon. Members will want to debate those and related matters.
Fourthly, the debate is timely because my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) are to visit Colombia shortly. The hon. Member for Richmond Park—the Liberal Democrat's spokesperson on development issues, who discharges her responsibilities admirably—has not previously visited Colombia and she looks on the debate as a welcome briefing. That cannot be said for my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central who, when a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, established an enviable reputation, here and in Colombia, for his knowledge and understanding of the country. My hon.

3WH
Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East and I were indebted to him for a comprehensive briefing prior to our visit in 1999.
Colombia enjoys the unenviable reputation of being one of the most violent countries in the world. Quite why it has acquired such a reputation is less well known or understood. It is a popular misconception—sometimes reinforced for political reasons by others—that the violence in Colombia is all connected with drugs. It is true that in the 1990s, prior to the election of President Pastrana in 1998, Colombia was subjected to a great political crisis as a result of the use of drugs money in political campaigns, but drugs were not the cause of the political crisis in the country, which has persisted in civil unrest and violence almost continuously since around 1948.
Behind the political crisis of the 1990s lurked a more persistent crisis—a structural crisis of the Colombian political regime and society. Behind the drugs war, another war was being waged against peasant and labour leaders, teachers, journalists, priests, nuns, lawyers, women's rights leaders, human rights workers and ordinary citizens. That war is estimated to have claimed between 3,000 and 4,000 victims every year during the 1990s. Over half the trade union leaders murdered in the world in 1997 were murdered in Colombia—a country in which less than 10 per cent. of the work force is in trade unions. The number of internal refugees or displaced people is reckoned by some to amount to 1.5 million—vastly greater than the number of pre-NATO bombing refugees in Kosovo.
It serves the political purposes of others to portray the Colombian Government as a helpless hostage to drug barons and leftist guerrillas. Although drug barons and guerrillas are responsible for 20 per cent. of the country's violence and regularly violate the human rights of others, Amnesty International and other NGOs estimate that 75 per cent. of the politically motivated murders in Colombia are perpetrated by right-wing paramilitary forces who have proven links with the Colombian regular army. In February 2000, Human Rights Watch published a report entitled "The Ties that Bind: Colombian Military and Paramilitary Links". That report, which was based on investigations by Colombian authorities, presents a persuasive case that army support for paramilitary groups continues.
To compound that complex and depressing picture, the violation of human rights largely goes unpunished because Colombia has an impunity rate of about 97 per cent. Only 3 per cent. of those who commit violence are answerable for their actions in Colombian courts. Most human rights violations in Colombia are carried out with total impunity. Despite the efforts of the public prosecutors office, security forces routinely evade and pervert the course of justice. Military courts that have jurisdiction over investigations into human rights violations by armed forces personnel systematically fail to bring those responsible to justice.
Despite repeated recommendations for improvement, no significant progress has been made in dismantling paramilitary groups or ending their activities, in ridding the armed forces and police of those shown to be actively or passively supporting paramilitary groups, in the
4WH
reformation of the military penal code to make military personnel amenable to civilian courts or in the basic protection of human rights defenders.
Mr. Richard Allan: Although I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's point about the links between certain elements of the armed forces and paramilitary groups, the anti-narcotics police, under General Serrano, whom I met the year before last, have a good reputation for cleaning up their act. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important, where we see the roots of recovery, to support those Colombian state organisations that have a good human rights record and to encourage that model to be put in place rather than the old model of unpleasant links between some state organisations and those who are involved in violence?
Mr. Browne: That is an important point. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that the support provided by the United Kingdom has largely been used to train the forces that the hon. Gentleman mentions, which is to the credit of the United Kingdom. From my limited experience of the country, I know that people in Colombia recognise that our support for the military and the police has tended to be used to train what have become the more respectable forces, which contrasts with the aid that other countries tend to give. I have not met General Serrano, so the hon. Gentleman adds to our collective experience of Colombia, and I am grateful to him for that intervention.
The armed conflict in Colombia, which has dominated the 20th century, has its roots in the social, economic and political exclusion of large sections of its population. That is my essential theme. Those outside the two traditional parties—the liberals and the conservatives—are effectively excluded from Colombia's political structures. In the late 1980s, the Patriotic Union—a legal political party formed by disarmed guerrillas, members of M19 and the Communist party—enjoyed significant electoral success, so much so that it became a threat to Colombia's political elite. In 1989, there was a real possibility that its candidate would be elected in the 1990 presidential election, but he, and all the other presidential candidates, except one, was killed. There followed a political genocide of the UP party. The US State Department estimated that 3,500 members of that party were killed.
Clearly, that is a lesson of history for those guerrillas who have entered the current peace negotiations. Clearly, FARC will not make the same mistake as M19. Even if a negotiated settlement between FARC and the Government were reached, is FARC ever likely to disarm in the absence of pluralistic politics? There can be no peace in Colombia until the political structures generate real political opportunities for everyone.
Disputes about the ownership and control of land have been largely responsible for much of the violent conflict. Even in the 1960s when agricultural reform was in fashion, there was no agricultural redistribution in Colombia. There can be no peace in Colombia without land reform. FARC and the ELN, which began in the 1960s as organisations of about 30 or 40 farmers, are now properly trained armies with estimated forces of about 20,000. Their growth has been deeply related to problems of exclusion. Those who were forbidden to

5WH
participate politically or were denied access to the ownership of land turned to arms as an answer to their political exclusion.
However, narcotics and drug trafficking have had a role to play. Showing a Colombian passport in any airport in the world will almost guarantee a strip search. To some degree it suits developed societies to demonise Colombia as the cause of all their drug problems, but as anyone who visits Colombia will be told repeatedly, the drugs will not be produced unless there is a market for them. The pressing problem of drug abuse in the developed world cannot be resolved simply by seeking to control illegal cultivation in Colombia, particularly illegal cultivation by very poor people who cannot grow anything else. Everything else that they have ever grown, we no longer want to buy and if we did, there is no infrastructure to get it to the market.
Dealing with demand is our responsibility. While the drugs industry continues in Colombia the problems that it brings to that country will continue. As long as big drug barons can earn $500 million a year from the manufacture and traffic of drugs, they will continue to do so. However, the war in Colombia is about more than drugs and Colombia's problems do not lend themselves to simplistic solutions. The complex circumstances that have brought it to its present position were not created by the government of President Pastrana. On the contrary, his leadership has been crucial in the development of the peace process.
We must support President Pastrana in the promotion of the dialogue among the different parties to the conflict. We must acknowledge and respect the commitment and bravery of those state officials who have taken risks in the pursuit of peace and justice for their country. They are brave people who are sometimes the victims of violence, kidnap and murder. Although we support them and recognise the factors that limit their ability to achieve their goals, we cannot do so uncritically. Peace is not simply a matter of negotiations, nor, as we have learned closer to home, is it simply about ceasefires and negotiations. Peace is about human rights and justice for all. It is about the creation of an inclusive political process.
There has long been a demand in Colombia for greater participation in the peace process by the wider Colombian society. Now that initial progress in the peace process has been achieved, it is time for the involvement of civil society in the debate over substantive social, political, economic and civil changes, as set out in the agreed agenda. There is a significant feeling among civil society in Colombia that they have been excluded from the peace process to date. The irony is that they believe that Pastrana's response was motivated largely by civil society's energy for peace. Ordinary citizens' demand for peace led him to respond when he was president elect and to engage with the guerrillas.
The public hearings proposed for April to discuss economic and social reform are to be welcomed, but as all politicians know only too well, participation and consultation can take many forms. If the peace process is to become embedded in Colombian society, the Colombian people must have ownership of it. If it is to succeed, it must ensure respect for human rights. Those guilty of gross human rights abuses must be brought to
6WH
justice, and peace must be built on reforms that are designed to construct a much stronger local and regional democracy.
Although I urge our Government to support the concept of Plan Colombia as a vision for the development of the whole of Colombian society, it should not be seen as a proposal that has been born out of democratic discussion or debate. It is the product solely of the Pastrana Administration and it has its weaknesses. Only 0.7 per cent. of its funding is dedicated to the peace process while about 64 per cent. is earmarked for national defence. As part of the funding of that plan, a $1.7 billion package of largely military assistance is currently being discussed in the United States. Colombia receives more US arms and equipment than any other country in the world except Israel and Egypt.
The policy behind those statistics has been described by Amnesty International as similar to the policy that backed death squads in El Salvador in the 1980s. Plan Colombia must not be allowed to fuel the violence and internationalise the war by bringing in the United States on a far greater scale than hitherto. In the context of the forthcoming discussions in Madrid, the United Kingdom, as a donor nation, has the opportunity to fashion a positive aid package, which should involve judicial reform, and could include funds to help the 1.5 million displaced people. It could help crop substitution programmes, which are the real key to defeating the drug barons.
The peace process and the complementary development plan require international assistance. This must come in a form that strengthens the justice process, the peace building, the democratisation of the country and respect for human rights, including the rights of children and women. The last thing that Colombia needs is further militarisation.
I urge our Government to maintain a consistently strong position on human rights in Colombia. There is evidence of a continuing deterioration in the spheres of forced displacement and human rights. In those circumstances, and in the face of new evidence of links between the armed forces and paramilitary groups, it is imperative that the Colombian office of the human rights high commissioner continues to enjoy political and financial support. It is also imperative that there should be consistent international monitoring of Colombia's human rights practices. We are rightly proud of our commitment to an ethical foreign policy: such a monitoring process in Colombia is the least that we can expect from our Government.
10.21 am
Dr. Jenny Tonge: As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) said, the debate takes the form of a briefing for me, as I hope to visit Colombia—I am reasonably sure that I will—in the near future. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate.
I have an advantage in that the researcher who is working in my office spent four months in Colombia last year and is constantly bending my ear on the subject. It is appropriate to emphasise one of the comments made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun. My researcher said that we must remember that the majority

7WH
of Colombians are decent people. She remarked that, as we worried and sweated while she was out there in that frightfully dangerous, evil and corrupt place, she was constantly meeting lovely people who cared desperately about their country, wanted to see a future for it, and, in fact, lived relatively normal lives. Those of us who are so far away from Colombia need to remind ourselves of that as we discuss that country's problems.
There has been a catalogue of human suffering in Colombia. The war has raged for 40 years; 35,000 people have been killed in the past 10 years alone. Three hundred thousand people have fled their country, and 1.5 million people are displaced, and, as we have heard, are living in the most appalling conditions. I was interested to hear that during one of Colombia's worst recessions ever, it is currently spending less on health and education than Bolivia, which is south America's poorest country. That is a terrible fact to absorb as we consider the prospects for Colombia's future.
A few weeks ago I read an article in The Guardian entitled "Colombians braced for fight on all fronts", which summed up the position for me because, as a newcomer to the subject, I found the stories about Colombia's armed factions as bad as, if not worse than what I had read about, for example, southern Sudan—it is certainly more complicated—although there is a similar pattern. FARC rules 40 per cent. of Colombia, mainly in the south of the country; it makes huge amounts of money from drug trafficking and kidnapping, blows up pipelines, kills human rights activists and terrorises the population. It can afford very sophisticated weaponry, such as fighters, because of its drug trafficking.
The ELN, the Colombian liberation army, controls parts of the north, and also hijacks, terrorises and kidnaps. The paramilitary, commonly known as the headcutters, has strong links with the armed forces in Colombia, which is horrifying—that is what reminded me of southern Sudan. The headcutters are very right wing and have the most appalling record of abusing human rights. They even have links, through the military, with transnational companies working in Colombia. It is true that our companies have difficulties, and that development is essential to Colombia, but we should question the value of such development when those companies have to secure their operations by spurious links with Colombia's armed forces and thus with the paramilitaries.
The army in Colombia has a huge amount of aid from the United States, more than any country except those in the middle east, but nevertheless, it consists mainly of untrained and unmotivated young men, and has a persistent record of human rights abuses.
Having considered the matter in the past few days, I believe that the drugs trade is the single biggest contributor to the misery and chaos in Colombia. FARC and the ELN alone earn $500 million—I am not sure of the exact figure—from cocaine and they tax and protect the coca farmers. The paramilitaries finance themselves growing the stuff and protecting the drugs cartels. The economy is destabilised by money laundering and by discouraging legitimate investment. We must consider ways of dismantling the drugs trade.
8WH
There is a huge multilateral package of $7.6 billion to reduce drug production in the next six years. The United States is contributing $1.6 billion to fight the war on drugs; there are three anti-drugs battalions and 63 helicopters are working in the jungle burning and spraying the coca fields, but we do not know whether that will do any good. The war on drugs in south America had a limited success in Peru and Bolivia, where production was reduced, but it shifted to Colombia. I am worried that success in reducing the production of cocaine in Colombia will simply shift it elsewhere, perhaps to the Caribbean. Only recently we had a debate in Westminster Hall on the banana trade in the Caribbean. If the farmers there cannot grow bananas, they will grow drugs. That will mean that drugs production and trade will be even closer to the shores of the United States. Has that been considered?
The confrontation between the US army and the guerrillas in Colombia is building up, which could result in all-out war. is that what we want? The Foreign Office has given £2.2 million to the United Nations worldwide drugs control programme, which includes the aerial fumigation of coca crops. However, that has resulted in a 20 per cent. increase in output in recent years. Is that programme worth while? Who is monitoring drug cultivation in Colombia? What damage does fumigation do to other crops and to the people of Colombia? Can we justify spending 73 per cent. of the budget of the United Nations international drug control programme on this environmental damage, when only 2 per cent. of it is spent on reducing demand?
Another factor is Colombia's appalling infrastructure. That encourages farmers to grow coca crops, which are easy to transport where roads and a proper infrastructure are lacking. Money should perhaps also be spent on the infrastructure, so that the farmers can earn a living by growing other crops.
It is simple economics, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said, that demand produces the supply of drugs. Western Governments must take a long look at their policies to curb demand. When will we admit that zero tolerance is not working in the west? I am not suggesting solutions, but we should seriously examine all aspects of drug supply and demand, in this country and internationally. Whether we do that through a royal commission or in another way, we must make it a prime subject of concern. While there is demand for drugs from the west, countries such as Colombia will supply them.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: What does the hon. Lady think of the harm reductionist lobby in this country and talk of reducing the penalties for possession and use of cannabis? What message does that send to the drug producers in Colombia?
Dr. Tonge: The hon. Lady has highlighted precisely the problem. As soon as we begin to talk openly and honestly about different ways of reducing the demand for drugs, somebody asks about the messages that we might send. I agree with her: we may send the wrong messages, but the matter must be discussed and explored. We must find out the results. We cannot go on as we are.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudon (Mr. Browne) said, we must not reduce a debate about Colombia to simply a discussion on drugs.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) raises a much larger question about the international drug trade. She may know that the Government's work under Keith Hellawell is focusing on drugs supply and demand and on getting to grips with analysing the economics of the drug market internationally. That is a massive problem, which takes in drug laundering and everything else. I reassure the hon. Lady that that wider analysis of the drugs trade is firmly on the agenda.
Dr. Tonge: That is excellent news. I thank the Minister for saying that. It is the first time that I have heard a Minister say that all those aspects are being addressed, not simply zero tolerance, with the use of the word "tsar", which inflames my passions, especially as it comes from what should be a socialist Government. I hate all these tsars that have been set up. I thought that you had abolished them long ago.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr Nicholas Winterton): Order. I have not abolished anything, much as I would wish to do so.
Dr. Tonge: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will not prolong the debate on what you might wish to abolish, as I would be here all day.
To move away from drugs, the Government rightly wish to build respect for human rights in Colombia, and that goes to the nub of the problem. Aid is being directed towards good governance, human rights monitoring and, in particular, training the Army to respect human rights. The judiciary in Colombia must be strengthened: impunity for human rights violation is nearly 100 per cent. and a military justice system prevails. That is clearly no good if there is to be any sort of peace brokering. Indeed, peace brokering is useless while there is disrespect for human rights. Any peace would break down in the face of continuing drug trafficking, human rights violations and the lack of a proper civilian judiciary.
Given the problems that Colombia faces, it is interesting that our Government claim to have a foreign policy with an ethical dimension. Britain has recently issued 24 export licences for heavy machine guns and rifles. We know that those licences are for weapons that will go to the Army, which has links with the paramilitaries. I question whether that is a good or ethical policy, and I hope that the Minister can address that.
The Colombian Government have had difficulties complying with the UN commissioner's demands for attention to human rights, although they—and President Pastrana—are to be congratulated, to some extent, on their efforts in trying to address Colombia's problems. At the heart of those problems lies a lack of respect for human rights. The west should support calls for a UN resolution to enforce reforms, and back that with a determined effort to reform the ways in which we tackle the demand for drugs.
10.36 am
Mr. Paul Goggins: I apologise for my voice this morning, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am afraid that it is beyond my powers to project myself more forcefully.
I pay generous tribute to the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) introduced the debate. His reputation for making copious notes wherever he goes, which included our visit to Colombia, has borne fruit in his analysis of the problems faced by that country.
As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) is treating the debate as her first briefing on Colombia, I should like to tell her about my first such briefing. It was given by someone who has many years' experience in dealings with Colombia, who told me that anyone who claims to understand the country and to know the answers to its problems must be lying. The complexity of the problems is such that nobody can fully understand either their causes or their solutions.
Where does one start? It could be with the beauty of the landscape, which is there for all to see; the economy, which is experiencing the worst recession for 70 years; the marked gap betwen rich and poor; the drugs; the guerrillas, paramilitaries and armed services or the weakness of the state and the levels of impunity.
I start, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, in a dilapidated basketball stadium in the town of Quibdo, where, on a clammy, hot, sunny Sunday morning, we met a group of about 300 men, women and children who had lived there for more than two years because they had been forced by violence to flee their homes. The Consultancy on Human Rights and Displacement estimates that, in the first nine months of last year, 225,000 people in Colombia were forcibly displaced from their homes—a total of 1.7 million people since the mid-1980s. That has a massive impact on family life, community life and people's livelihoods and sense of security.
The number of killings and kidnappings is chilling. An informative publication from the Colombian Vice-President's office reports that 24,081 people were murdered in Colombia in 1999. It also states that the number of victims of massacres—where three or more people are killed in a single episode—has increased from 1,366 to 1,863, and that kidnappings are increasing.
We must never forget that those statistics represent the real lives, or deaths, of ordinary people in Colombia. Last summer, with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I met two visitors from Colombia who had been forced to flee the country. One was the elected mayor of a small Colombian town and the other was a partner of the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development. We had an interesting meeting, to which my hon. Friend the Minister might refer in his remarks. The comments that they made as they left the meeting stand out in my mind. They thanked me, and asked me to thank the Government for allowing them to come to this country in an emergency. Within a week of their arrival here, two of their colleagues—another mayor from a neighbouring town, and another of CAFOD's partners—had been murdered. Such life and death situations face the many people struggling for human rights and peace in Colombia.

11WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said that this debate is timely. I agree with the reasons that he gave, although I might give them in a slightly different order. The 56th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights began last week. The report being presented to the commission is very grave. It states that there are
grave and prolonged occurrences of serious and massive violations of human rights and International Humanitarian Law.
The report details the numbers of internally displaced people, the levels of impunity and the attacks that take place on human rights workers.
We must acknowledge the steps that have been taken—especially during the past couple of years—to strive to improve the justice system in Colombia. I have twice had the privilege of meeting Senor Gomez Mendez, the state prosecutor. When he is in Colombia, he has to be accompanied wherever he goes by about 25 armed guards. His life is constantly under threat because he represents the justice system. His staff face violence on a daily basis, and many have had to flee the country. However, those who work to defend human rights face the gravest threat, and the report of the Colombian NGOs to the United Nations Commission shows that, during the past four years, 36 human rights defenders have been murdered, 100 have had their lives threatened, and 30 more have had to leave. Those are ordinary people defending ordinary human rights who have been murdered or forced to flee their country.
Human rights are not just the end product of the peace process, but an integral part of it. There can be no peace unless we obtain human rights protection for the ordinary citizens of Colombia. Human rights will not just happen automatically at the end of the process; they have to be bound in to the pursuit of peace.
Mrs. Gillan: I have been in receipt of letters from his excellency the Colombian ambassador, which have been helpful in updating me on the action taken by his Government in cases of human rights violation. Has the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to see those letters? If so, does he agree that they are extremely helpful and represents signs of great optimism for the future in Colombia?
Mr. Goggins: I freely acknowledge and pay tribute to those in the state agencies in Colombia who do so much, at great personal risk, to try to reduce the levels of impunity. Senor Gomez Mendez has made great progress in that area. I willingly reiterate my earlier remarks on the advances that have been made. None the less, human rights abuses still take place in Colombia. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure full and active support for the office of the High Commission in Bogota. It is essential that we use it as a window through which we can monitor the progress being made in relation to human rights.
A second reason to agree that this is a timely debate is the publication of the Human Rights Watch report in February, which gave graphic accounts of the continuing relationship between paramilitary organisations and the state armed services. It gave specific details of the 3rd, 4th and 14th brigades that
12WH
operate in the main Colombian cities and throughout the country. There have been signs of progress. Some leading military figures have been stood down from their official positions, showing that the state is prepared to tackle the relationship. However, there is also concern that as abuse in the armed services is reducing, activity in the paramilitary organisations is increasing. The tie-up between state services and paramilitaries is worrying. It is not enough for abuse in the armed services to fall; abuse by paramilitaries must also fall.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and I spent a lot of time with Monsignor Hector Fabia Henao, director of Caritas Colombia, who is a priest, during our eight days in Colombia. He said:
In late February in El Salado, in the archdiocese of Cartagena, paramilitaries cut the throats of more than 40 people, including one in a church. Investigators said a 200-man death squad murdered the villagers during a four-day raid in the community in Bolivar province, a region fiercely contested by guerrillas and paramilitaries.
He later said that El Salado is not very far from army bases and that it was a problem for him to understand how the army did not know. He argued that it was impossible for such atrocities to continue for four days so close to the army without the army knowing and intervening. I acknowledge that there has been progress, but there is worrying evidence of links between paramilitaries and the armed forces.
The third reason for this being a timely debate is the development of Plan Colombia. It is a $7.5 billion programme with $4 billion to be raised in Colombia and the remainder to be raised by the international community. Let us refresh our memories about Plan Colombia. Its purpose is advancement of the peace process first and foremost, improvement of the economy, combating narcotics, reforming the judicial system and promoting human rights and supporting democratisation and social development in Colombia. The United States Congress is considering a $1.7 billion package, most of it in the form of military aid. The proposal is to train and equip two special counter-narcotic battalions, including 60 or more helicopters.
It is difficult to be sure of the reasons for the United States strong interest in Colombia. It may have a strategic interest following its recent withdrawal from Panama. Again, Colombia has the only remaining Marxist guerrilla force in the world and that may be of interest to the USA. There is also the problem of drugs, the cost of which to the United States is dramatic in terms of human lives—52,000 Amercian citizens die each year because of drug misuse at a cost of £110 billion to the health service and the economy. It cannot be denied that Colombia is the largest producer of cocaine in the world and a major producer of heroin. We understand the concerns, but to view Colombia simply as a drugs problem is to miss the point.
I want to press my hon. Friend the Minister on two points. First, can he tell us about the position of the US Congress on the $1.7 billion package? Everyone assumed that it would go through Congress, but it seems to have become stuck in a Republican debate on tax and spend in an election year and whether it can be afforded. Can my hon. Friend shed some light on that? Secondly. the Americans want a 50:50 split on Plan Colombia under which they will provide half the cash in the form

13WH
of military aid and other countries, particularly European Union countries, will provide the other half in social and economic development. Plan Colombia should be shared equitably throughout the world. The package is an international responsibility and it is not right for it to be split in that way. Moreover, I am not convinced that that approach represents the correct balance. Earlier, I described the five major headings of Plan Colombia. It is not right to spend half the money on only one of the five objectives, namely, narcotics. I hope that we shall participate in this summer's Madrid summit, which is being organised by Jan Egeland, and that the Government will argue that it is important to get the right balance between the narcotics programme and other aspects of Plan Colombia.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun discussed the importance of consulting civil society in Colombia about the development of Plan Colombia. Unless that plan involves bottom-up development, it will not succeed—it should provide economic livelihoods for its citizens and help local economies to develop.
I conclude my rather hoarse remarks on a positive note—I want to pay tribute to various people who are Colombia's hope for the future. I pay tribute to President Pastrana, who has done much in a short time in difficult conditions, in particular for engaging with FARC. Many counselled against such engagement, but it is extremely important to maintain dialogue, and he has done so. I reiterate my support for the state officials who tried to bring justice to that country with reduced levels of impunity, and in particular for Mr. Gomez Mendez, the state prosecutor. I pay tribute to the human rights workers and community leaders in Colombia who, day in, day out, risk their lives in pursuit of peace.
I also pay tribute to the Churches and bishops, and in particular to Monsignor Hector Fabio Henao, whom I mentioned earlier, who is the director of Caritas Colombia. The churches have borne witness to the need for peace in that country. Before President Pastrana came to office, there was a huge political vacuum in Colombia that was filled largely by the churches, which sought to promote peace in that country. I pay tribute to AB Colombia, which is supported by CAFOD, Christian Aid, Oxfam and other organisations, for its sterling work—it monitors developments daily in Colombia and it brings this country's attention to Colombia's problems. I also pay tribute to the peace brigades, many of which contain volunteers who take great risks in an attempt to realise a more peaceful society in Colombia, for which we all yearn.
There are many signs of hope, not least the fact that a couple of years ago 10 million people turned out to vote for peace in a referendum. However, the greatest sign of hope is the dignity and strength of the displaced people of Quibdo, whose faces I still see. They will be the inspiration—one day—for peace to come to Colombia.
10.53 am
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Those who have never been to a country should be succinct in their public utterances about it. I was invited to speak by my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) and for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins); they are friends in a real sense. As chairman
14WH
of the all-party group on Latin America, which is my locus of interest in this context, I am delighted that they have taken such a serious and deep interest in this matter, and I pay tribute to them for doing so.
I first became interested in Colombia when two stars of English football, Wilfred Manning and Ned Franklin, decided to go to Bogota. That memory dates me somewhat—[Interruption]—nonetheless, my hon. Friend the Minister had better be discreet.
I became seriously interested in this subject when I attended a lecture at the museum of anthropology and ethnology given by Dr. Martin Hildebrandt, then presidential adviser on conservation policy. I remember his description of the keeper of the jaguar, without whose permission people cannot slaughter jaguars or damage their habitat. In the world of ecology, Colombia has a deservedly high reputation for conservation and for its system of managing an extremely valuable ecosystem. As chairman of the all-party group on Latin America, I pay tribute to the Colombian ambassador, Humberto de la Calle—not just because he happens to be present, but because he has been an excellent colleague in London.
I have two questions, of which I have given notice. Yesterday, at a meeting of the British and Colombian chamber of commerce, a case was presented by Sir Keith Morris, Alexander Kennedy, the chairman, and Robert Bedloe, the chief executive. My question for the Minister is how much money is Britian giving to the Plan Colombia?
In September, I led a parliamentary debate to Lima in Peru. We visited the upper Amazon, where the mayor of Iquitos said, "Look, you see our grey ships with their guns on the river. We are not going to fight our neighbours—this is all about drugs. At every airport, you see dogs sniffing every bit of luggage. We are doing everything possible against drugs." That message was reinforced strongly by the expert drugs administration in Lima, and emphasised by President Fujimore. However, they also said that Colombia could not do anything effective unless we did something about anonymous numbered bank accounts in Great Cayman, the Virgin Islands, Belize, Bermuda, the Bahamas, Zurich, and even perhaps London.
I have raised that issue with my hon. Friend the Minister who is present today, with the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who is taking a departmental lead, and with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I have even spoken to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in the most friendly way, about the matter. What progress is being made on the issue of anonymous numbered bank accounts, which affects Colombia as much as Peru?
10.58 am
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: The Opposition share the concerns that have been expressed about Colombia and its peace process. Unlike the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) and for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins), I have not had the advantage of visiting Colombia; and, unlike the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), I have no current plans to visit the country. I will therefore be brief, which will please the hon.

15WH
Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I, too, commend the good offices of the Colombian ambassador, who has helpfully kept me informed as an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.
I shall approach the subject of the peace process from a slightly different perspective. I want to probe the Minister on the relationship between the United Kingdom and Colombia. I asked the Library to produce some figures for me. Our imports from Colombia amount to £200 million, compared with exports to Colombia of £107 million, resulting in a UK crude trade deficit of £93 million. To put it in context, imports from Colombia represent 0.1 per cent. of total UK imports, whereas UK exports to Colombia account for 0.06 per cent. of all UK exports. Colombia is outside the list of the UK's top 50 export markets, or sources of imports. Will the Minister tell us what prospects there are for increased trade with Colombia, and whether an export promoter at the DTI is examining those prospects?
Will the Minister tell us about Colombia's position as regards Export Credits Guarantee Department cover? The ECGD moved the country off cover following a review last October, when its credit rating was downgraded owing to a significant deterioration in its economic conditions. That cover is due to be reviewed next October, but is there any chance of a review taking place earlier than that? If not, what can be done to help Colombia's return to ECGD cover?
As I am sure we are all aware, the economic situation in Colombia has been difficult. The country's statistical department says that industrial production fell last year by 16.5 per cent. The only branch of industry to register increased output was oil refining, which went up by 11.5 per cent. on the 1998 figures. The worst performer was the auto industry. However, the country is making great efforts on the industrial front, for example, by establishing four new tax-free export-processing zones. Has the Minister had any discussions with the Colombians about those zones? Does he see any opportunities for British businesses?
There is no doubt that a large number of people are involved in the peace process in Colombia, and I am delighted that business leaders there have expressed support for that process. Nicarnor Restrepo, who is head of the Suramericana Group—a top company—said that business leaders were determined to break the cycle of violence that was blocking economic growth. He described the talks with guerrilla leaders as positive, and hoped that those talks would contribute to national reconciliation. It is a good sign that business leaders are engaged in the peace process; they are to be welcomed as warmly as any other participants in the process.
However, it is sad to read of continuing violence, particularly when it is directed towards the country's infrastructure, for that in turn damages economic health and well-being. Large areas of central and north-east Colombia, including Bogota, had to try to get back to normal after severe disruption from power failures caused by bombing that took out about 300 pylons. That meant that electricity had to be rationed in parts of the country. If the peace process is to succeed, that sort of economic guerrilla warfare must stop, as must the killings.
16WH
Two of the speakers highlighted the problem of drugs. I hope that the hon. Members for Wythenshawe and Sale, East and for Richmond Park did not intend to understate the drugs problem emanating from Colombia. British interests and UK citizens are affected by that problem, as are future prospects for business. Not to examine the problems fully is to put our head in the sand. I agree with the Minister that zero tolerance should not be regarded as the only option, but we must reflect on the message sent to drug producers when we subscribe to harm reduction measures and propose either the legalisation of the use of certain drugs, or the lessening of the status of the criminal offence of possessing or trafficking in them.
On previous occasions, I have urged the Minister to consider crop substitution. I asked him a question about it a while ago, but he did not reply. I hope that he has done some research in the intervening period and can now tell me about the prospects for replacing the poppy crop with pyrethrum chrysanthemum; it is much in demand as a natural pesticide and there has been a world shortage of the crop. I hope that the Minister has done some work on the potential for crop substitution and can answer my question.
Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Lady give me more details about the company in her constituency?
Mrs. Gillan: Yes. I have already provided information about it to Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry and, indeed, to the Minister himself. The company is called Agropharm. My inquiry is genuine and I hope that the Minister can give us chapter and verse in his response. Thus far, his responses have not been full.
Mr. Battle: Give me a chance.
Mrs. Gillan: Well, the Minister knows that I raised the issue on a previous occasion.
Let me return to my theme of the involvement of business men. There is no doubt that armed conflict in Colombia will not end while drug trafficking persists.
Those are the words of Nicarnor Restrepo during chamber of commerce discussions, and I believe that he is right. What plans does the Minister have to boost operations providing counter-drugs assistance and supporting the UN international drugs programme? The UK has contributed £2.2 million, which is only a small sum. I do not know whether the Minister has scrutinised the budgets and examined the possibility of increasing our contribution. Under what review process is he examining expenditure and resources with a view to increasing the UK contribution?
The hon. Member for Linlithgow mentioned drug money laundering. I share his great concern about unnumbered anonymous bank accounts, but, when I was in the Cayman islands last year, I discovered that using a blunt instrument is not the answer. The OECD report into tax havens has created problems for Caribbean islands. We are quick to criticise Caribbean tax havens, but not to praise them. In an international context, the Caymans were asked to discuss with other financial centres their successful schemes to trace the proceeds of drug money laundering and combating

17WH
financial crime. The Cayman islands are in the forefront of that fight, so I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that and not allow such financial centres to be attacked in a gratuitous and willy-nilly fashion. That is not the answer to stopping the drugs trade.
We all know about the difficulty of peace processes—after all, we are engaged in our own peace process. We should never underestimate the challenges faced by the Colombian Government. The message from today's debate is that we offer as much help, counsel and support as we can provide, but that we will not interfere. We must remember that the peace process belongs to the Colombians. We hope that the peace process will work. We all subscribe to the idea of a new Colombia, in which peace, democracy, freedom and social justice prevail.
11.9 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) for introducing this debate. By raising this subject in Westminster Hall he attracts British attention to such matters. It is time that the international community had a greater focus on Colombia, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate and to hon. Members who have participated in it.
My hon. Friend spoke from the experience of his visit and gave a detailed account of his impressions. Indeed, he conveyed a deep and passionate commitment to the courage of the Colombian people whom he met on his visit. His impression of that courage remains with him and he has brought it before us in our deliberations. My hon. Friend mentioned Colombia's beauty and diversity, but made special reference to its people, and we are grateful for that perspective. He gave a detailed analysis of the causes of conflict and provided a good introduction to Colombia for those who may know nothing about it. He told us about the history and present status of the plan for peace and spoke about a future vision.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) therefore has a good template for her visit, although I acknowledge that she displayed more knowledge of Colombia than most people. The Foreign Office is happy to give information, back-up or support to the hon Lady or any hon. Member who is visiting overseas. Hon. Members have only to ask for such back-up and are entitled to a private meeting in the Foreign Office and a detailed briefing. They can get as much information as they need to undertake such visits. Visiting different places and keeping discussion alive is a good use of Members' time: indeed, we have witnessed that this morning.
As the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) suggested, Colombia's economic potential bears comparison with Brazil and Argentina. The tragedy is that that potential has not been fulfilled. The current problems of violence, drugs, social disruption and great personal tragedies undermine Colombia's potential to become a diverse, prosperous state for all its people and a beacon in Latin America.
We have followed events with great concern, and we hope to consult widely on how best to help. I join my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr.
18WH
Goggins) in the highly complimentary remarks that they paid to the British non-governmental organisations which have engaged in the country and worked there patiently for some years. Those NGOs establish a British presence in Colombia and their contributions and analyses are important to the Government.
Colombia is no stranger to violence. In response to the hon. Member for Richmond Park, a lack of security is a crippling deterrent to future investment and job generation. To put it crudely, few business men will be keen to visit if they do not feel safe. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, civil war known as La Violencia took place between the conservative and liberal parties dominating the country and cost 250,000 lives. The first guerrilla groups emerged in the 1960s and have been fighting the Government ever since in what is probably Latin America's longest and most brutal internal conflict.
Paramilitaries joined the conflict in the 1980s and it expanded rapidly in the 1990s. In addition to internal conflict, there are high levels of everyday criminal violence. Colombia still has one of the highest murder rates in the world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East mentioned the wider economic context. Colombia has recently suffered its worst recession for 70 years and has endured knock-on effects from the Asian financial crisis and last year's devaluation of the Brazilian real. It has also suffered from the problem of low commodity prices and damage caused by El Nino. In other words, the Colombian economy is under great pressure. Efforts so far to introduce legal crops and support transport networks and marketing facilities have produced disappointing results because investment is expensive. New crops are often not sustainable. It must be taken in the full economic context, which is why it is not an easy strategy in the current economic context.
Mrs. Gillan: Will the Minister undertake to write to me again when he has evaluated the sustainability of introducing pyrethrum and the support that farmers would need for that crop?
Mr. Battle: I have done some work on pyrethrum. It is an insecticide, not a weed killer. We are not involved in any direct crop eradication or spraying programmes in Colombia. In January, I announced that £350,000 was going to an international drug control programme to look at monitoring coca and replacing it with useful crops. It is not clear whether pyrethrum would be used for crop eradication in Colombia, but I will take the matter further in the light of the hon. Lady's interest in the company in her constituency.
Mrs. Gillan: The Minister is mistaken. I am talking about using pyrethrum not for crop eradication, but as part of a crop substitution programme. Pyrethrum is indeed an insecticide. It is used, for example, to protect pilgrims to Mecca against attack from various nasty things. This is not about crop eradication, but purely about crop substitution. It is used as an insecticide in other parts of the world and is greatly in demand.
Mr. Battle: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's clarification. I will certainly take that matter further for her. I will ask the Government's chief scientist to make

19WH
inquiries into the properties of pyrethrum to see whether it can be used positively. I do not say that dismissively. We should look at modern science and the potential of bio-remedial methods to address the problems.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I had to miss the earlier part of the debate and I should like to make a brief point about crop substitution. Although it is very attractive, one of the simple realities is that unless we, the consumers, are prepared to pay the price to the growers, crop substitution is totally irrelevant because it simply will not exist in those very thin soils.
Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At the risk of embarrassing him, may I say that he did a great job as Minister of State in campaigning for and raising the profile of Colombia? I am pleased that he is here for this debate. I shall do my best to follow his efforts.
Last week I met the general secretary of the Latin American Association of Human Rights, Dr. Juan de Dios Parra, and we spoke about the problem of the vulnerable indigenous communities in southern Colombia. Indigenous peoples represent 1.5 per cent. of the population—some 700,000 people. They are particularly at risk because they are neutral in Colombia's internal conflict and so are targeted from all sides. They are forcibly recruited by FARC and, dare I say it, by the military too. They are at risk from the paramilitaries, who are keen to extend the land under their control to expand and extend coca cultivation.
Four indigenous communities disappeared entirely last year and displacement is increasing. I mention that because this is about real people who suffer as a result of the violence. Only last Saturday night, Colombian TV channels showed reports of a massacre by FARC guerrillas in the towns of Vigia del Fuerte and Bellavista, which are situated on opposite sides of the Atrato river. The police station was destroyed and 21 police were murdered, some at point blank range after they had surrendered. Their bodies were then chopped up with machetes. A woman and her two infants were also reportedly murdered.
I mention that because it is important to see the scale of the violence all around. The reaction of the head of the police and the army in those circumstances was unusually strong. The head of the Colombian police, General Rosso Serrano, was obviously angered and distraught during a visit to the town. He called on all human rights NGOs to witness what was going on. It is important to witness those events, but it is important, too, to keep a clear perspective on the complexity and difficulties that people experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun paid tribute to the efforts of police forces to get a grip on an incredibly difficult situation, when their officers are at risk.
The President of Colombia and his Government face a daunting task. Plan Colombia was published at the United Nations general assembly in September 1999. It is an ambitious set of proposals to tackle disruption, destruction and displacement, a plan for peace and prosperity, to strengthen the democratic state. It includes judicial and human rights strategies, assertion
20WH
of the rule of law and the promotion of impartial justice for all. The aims are admirable, and, in principle, as hon. Members have said, it is a good thing.
Colombia is the world's largest producer of coca leaf, from which cocaine is manufactured, and acres of land are devoted to the opium poppy, which is turned into heroin. The vast wealth produced by that trade finances illegal armed groups and their struggle for control, and the income that they produce in the region, undermines the search for peace. Drugs and the drugs business—I use that term deliberately—are part of the problem, but not the whole of it.
I am aware of NGOs' statements, including the excellent report from AB Colombia, that there was insufficient consultation with the civil society in drawing up Plan Colombia. That view must be taken seriously, because it is essential that civil society is involved in the search for peace.
The NGOs must ensure that the Colombian Government understand their ideas, concerns and proposals; they, too, have a role to play in designing a positive vision for the future. The Colombian Government, for their part, should take the NGOs' representations into account as the plans are crystallised. We must emphasise that there is a process—
Mr. Dalyell: Sir Keith Morris, Alexander Kennedy and Robert Bedloe asked last night if there was any figure for British involvement in Plan Colombia.
Mr. Battle: We are actively discussing with our European Union partners about the areas to which we could add value. We are not at the point of discussing our contribution in figures, because who does what, when and where is part of the plan's structure. As I shall say later, we are looking for a wider vision for the plan, which will be part of our discussions.
I was asked whether there is any real possibility of peace. The key is to engage all the parties involved. President Pastrana's high commissioner for peace, Mr. Victor Ricardo, is in London now—I believe that he and the ambassador are present in the Chamber to listen to our debate. They have played a tremendous role in furthering relations, which we welcome. I had discussions yesterday at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with Mr. Ricardo, who has been negotiating with the guerrillas, notably with FARC, on behalf of President Pastrana's Government. He and representatives of FARC, who are working towards a common end, toured European capitals last month. The violence may have continued, but bringing the parties together is a symbolic action that is greatly appreciated in Europe. We hope that there will be more talks and joint visits. We would welcome a mission to the United Kingdom if that was thought to be helpful.
We are encouraging the Colombian authorities urgently to tackle the problem of human rights abuses, which were highlighted in three recent reports, from Human Rights Watch, from the United States State Department and from the United Nations human rights office in Bogota. We positively support the initiative and the Foreign Office now contributes substantially to funding. The message in those reports is clear: there is a long way to go in tackling human rights abuses in Colombia. We take every opportunity to condemn the

21WH
appalling violence perpetrated on the Colombian people by the illegal armed forces. We strongly urge the Colombian authorities to tackle the problem of collusion between the paramilitaries and the armed forces. There is general agreement that the paramilitaries are now a key part of the problem in Colombia. They have expanded at a faster rate than FARC, from several hundred members in 1990 to some 5,000 now. We realise that the police and the forces have to undertake harrowing and dangerous tasks and we do not underestimate the losses that they have suffered. However, there is a need to build mutual confidence in the rule of law for the future of Colombia.
I have written recently to the vice-president of Colombia, Dr. Gustavo Bell, to tell him of our Government's concerns, especially about alleged collusion between the armed forces and the paramilitaries. Once again, we do not underestimate the difficulties of dealing with those problems. Yesterday I spoke again to Mr. Ricardo, particularly in the context of the evidence in the report from Human Rights Watch. I know that the Colombian authorities take these criticisms extremely seriously. They have established a special committee, headed by the vice-president, to address these matters. That is encouraging but, as Mr. Ricardo acknowledged yesterday, more needs to be done.
I stress once more the important contribution that has been made by UNHRO. Once again, we solidly support it. We have given approximately £108,000 towards the cost of running its office. This year's session of UNHRO opened last week in Geneva. There is to be a debate on Colombia, with emphasis on UNHRO's report on Bogota. We are urging our EU colleagues to issue a strongly worded statement of their position on the issue. We must make use of that resolution. We have raised the issue of human rights and the safety of human rights workers especially—that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East. In the past four years, there have been 36 murders of human rights defenders and I raised this with Mr. Ricardo. I pay tribute to the members of the nongovernmental organisations. They have been threatened and abused, and some have been murdered, but they continue to work courageously to defend ordinary people and call abuses to account. People have memories about all those things. They remember names, faces, dates and times. People who murder with impunity will never have immunity in the long run. History and justice will out. We shall use every opportunity to remind our interlocutors of their responsibility to defend and protect those who dedicatedly defend human rights and we pay tribute to their courage.
I will mention briefly the projects for peace that are in hand. This relates to questions asked by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, and is part of the commitment of the Department for International Development to reducing conflict and building peace in
22WH
Colombia. In January, almost one third of a million pounds was given to a four-project programme, the components of which are a peace partnership convocation to promote and strengthen partnerships between local and regional governments, public and private sector institutions, NGOs and local communities. The precise task of these projects is to build from the base the possibility of civil society once more. Up to 10 representatives of institutions identified as leaders in local peace-building initiatives will participate in a UK study tour to look at where they can compare notes in relation to base building. That will be important work.
I acknowledge the work done by members of Fiscalia in investigating cases of abuse, as well as the work done by the vice-president's human rights team and Defensor del Pueblo. Their role is unenviable; they too are subject to attack. We support their efforts and are seeking ways of working with them and assisting them in detail.
Colombia's Nobel prize-winning novelist, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, described Colombia's conflict as a biblical holocaust that threatens to consume the country. I trust that time will prove him to have been over-pessimistic. The challenge of resolving that country's problems is intimidating. We have worked quietly but solidly to provide advice, training and development for both Government and nongovernmental projects, and we are ready to do more in collaboration with our EU partners.
I highlight in particular the work of our embassy in Bogota for the support of civil society in Colombia, especially the support that it has given to human rights NGOs and to the peace movement. It is important to continue to maintain our dialogue with Colombia at the highest level. I shall be seeing Jan Egelund, the UN special representative for Colombia, who is coming to the UK tomorrow. I am pleased to announce that the Prime Minister has invited President Pastrana to visit London on 13 April for talks at No. 10.
I have not been able to respond to all the issues that hon. Members have raised. I shall write to those whose points I have missed, especially those on money laundering, about which I shall talk to the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), then follow them through. It is important that Plan Colombia is not reduced to short-term crisis management strategies. It can be transformed into a vision, as this debate has shown. It can form a positive aid and judicial reform package. We are providing small but necessary sums to improve the administration of justice, but what Colombia really needs is a nationwide, inclusive, good governance programme that addresses the complex causes of violence that have been mentioned this morning. As Human Rights Watch states, with proper development and conditionality, the plan could improve human rights in Colombia, so let us back it and add value to it.

Rutland and Tresham Colleges
11.30 am
Mr. Alan Duncan: The purpose of this debate is to give voice to profound local concern, if not growing anger, about the proposed merger of Rutland and Tresham colleges—[Interruption]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. Will those leaving the Chamber please do so quietly?
Mr. Duncan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Those concerns centre on not only the proposed merger, but on the highly unsatisfactory way in which it has been processed by the Further Education Funding Council. I appreciate that the Minister will be slightly constrained in what he can say this morning, but the value of this debate is that, at least from now on, he and the Department for Education and Employment will be under no illusion about the strength of feeling locally and in nearby Stamford, which is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies).
Rutland college is based in Oakham, the county town of Rutland. It is essentially a sixth form college for 16 to 19-year-olds, but also contains a small element of adult education; it has a capacity of about 600 pupils. As the only post-16 institution in Rutland, it is fed primarily by the three community colleges for 12 to 16-year-olds in the area: Uppingham, Vale of Catmose and Casterton. To its credit, Rutland college has generally produced good A-level results and it received a good report in a recent Ofsted inspection. It is a relatively popular institution, which sits on its own in the centre of a sparsely populated rural area.
Nothing that I say today should be considered as expressing anything other than a wish to see the college flourish in the years ahead. The origin of the college's desire to merge is entirely financial; any supposed educational benefits are secondary and utterly unconvincing. The whole unhappy episode was initiated by a glance in the crystal ball that alerted the college to the near certainty that it would face a financial deficit in future. There is no crisis now, but it is predicted that, next year or the year after, the college will suffer a shortfall of £100,000 or more. No one can blame the college corporation for taking steps to address that deficit. On the contrary, it has a responsibility to do so, and its chairman, Nigel Chubb, who is an experienced local figure in industry, can only be commended for trying to safeguard the future of the college. However, the preferred solution—a merger with Tresham college in Northamptonshire—and the steps taken to achieve it have set the issue alight.
Every interested party outside the college opposes the merger. Every secondary head teacher is opposed. The school governors are opposed. Most parents are opposed. Nearby Stamford college is opposed. Rutland council is opposed. I am opposed, and my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford, who I hope will speak in the debate, is opposed. The whole world is against the merger, except the FEFC and Rutland college itself—and even the college is not unanimous.
There is no established pattern within which Rutland ever looks south to Northamptonshire. Rutland likes to be self-contained, where that is realistic, but if it wants
24WH
to associate with a neighbouring area for any reason, it invariably looks to Stamford to the east, or to Melton to the north. People living in villages in the eastern half of Rutland shop in Stamford rather than Oakham. One of the local newspapers is the Stamford Mercury, which also has a Rutland edition. Indeed, the parliamentary constituency used to be Rutland and Stamford. Rutland looks to Lincolnshire or to Leicestershire, never to Northamptonshire.
Tresham is a college in Northamptonshire, with its campus and a series of sites in Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough. Last year, a grand total of three students from Rutland went to Tresham college. There is no natural link between Rutland college and Tresham college, and no natural link between Rutland and Northants. Tresham just happens to be there and is thought to be a suitable lifeboat in the face of Rutland college's imminent financial problem.
There is no educational rationale for the merger. Any suggestion that there will be educational gains is a specious and disingenuous justification for a merger that is driven by other reasons—indeed, those other reasons are pretty spurious too. Joining two institutions in such a way is a response to a completely perverse incentive: a financial incentive, which is perverse because it is a response to artificial structures such as the funding formula and the distribution of government money.
The funding formula is peculiar, a deficit is looming and Tresham is there. The colleges might be able to save £50,000 by merging. They think that, by joining together, they will be in a stronger position to lobby the Government for money. No doubt there will be no end of property deals and asset allocation—not to say asset stripping—to get the books in shape. At best, the whole project is merely financial; at worst, it is a most unenlightened response to the perverse incentives that emerge from a collectivist education system and its funding.
It is said that there will be no bussing of students between sites. Perhaps there will be teachers who can bring their expertise to both colleges, but they could do that anyway. Even if the Rutland-Tresham merger were the only option, it would not be an inspiring plan. However, it is not the only option, and the way in which the merger has been driven down this particular cul-de-sac is dubious, to put it mildly—indeed, such a comment would be far too mild. The truth is, I have never seen such a blatant case of bureaucratic bulldozing.
The Minister will no doubt have been assured that the FEFC has followed the proper procedures to the letter. That is not true. If the Minister has been told that, he has been misled. The audit trail of letters and meetings might make it look as though it has done so, but it has merely gone through the motions. I was not born yesterday and I did not come down with the last shower of rain. I am profoundly disturbed by the attitude of FEFC officials, who are clearly so bent on forcing the merger through that they have chosen to ignore all contrary points of view. With regret, I name Christine Frost as one who has incurred the universal displeasure of all those who are opposed to the merger. Her apparently unbending agenda amounts to questionable conduct.
One of the most aggrieved parties is Stamford college, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the

25WH
Member for Grantham and Stamford. A few years ago tentative discussions were held between Rutland and Stamford colleges, but they were not pursued in detail, partly because the principals did not get on. That has now changed. Merging with Stamford is an obvious option, but it is a complete and utter distortion to say that it has been properly studied this time around as an alternative to Tresham. It has not. If the Minister has been told that it has, he should read the riot act as soon as this debate is over, because he will have been misled again. Stamford is a serious option and in all respects a far more logical one.
In its letter of 21 January to the principal of Stamford college, the FEFC said:
Before arriving at this decision the committee carefully considered the implications for Stamford including the issues raised by the college under each of the Council's criteria. The committee recognised that there would be some impact on Stamford but did not consider this would be significant.
The council's criteria—my elbow! In relation to the number and intensity of local objections to the merger, the letter merely said:
These concerns will be recorded in the minutes and drawn to the attention of the Council.
Let me translate that into real English. That section should have read, "I intend to go through the motions, ignore any objections, dupe the decision makers in the FEFC and press ahead anyway. PS—get lost."
The Stamford option is a compelling alternative. An established pattern of association exists between the two towns, and 200 full-time students already travel from Rutland to Stamford. Furthermore, the Learning and Skills Council, which will soon come into being, will link Rutland with Lincolnshire, so what is the point of preempting that development by creating a merger that will straddle two different learning and skills council regions? The Stamford principal is a go-getting and much-admired figure whose proposals have not been given a fair hearing. His plans have been dismissed, humoured and surreptitiously sneered at by the FEFC, which has not studied the Stamford option properly, but has only advanced the Tresham proposal.
The other aggrieved party is Rutland county council, which is being denied a proper chance to set and shape the future of post-16 education in the county. It is not pie in the sky Rutland nationalism for the council to have a dutiful wish to implement a responsible post-16 education policy for the only institution of its kind in the county. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment, in a policy letter dated 14 December 1999, encouraged the establishment of
an LEA-maintained sixth form centre
but there is no prospect of that happening if the merger proceeds.
Part of the FEFC's claim to have followed the rules fully is its so-called fact-finding visit to Rutland county council on 3 November 1999. Such a claim is deceitful, as the visit was neither billed nor conducted appropriately. The two main councillors concerned—one responsible for lifelong learning, the other the head of the education committee—were not even included. Those in Rutland were dumbfounded by the attitude of the representatives of the FEFC. Christine Frost has become public enemy No. 1, and there is no prospect of anyone in the area who is opposed to the merger trusting her again on such matters.
26WH
My dealings with the FEFC have been unsettling. I asked to see the chief executive, but I saw only others. I was promised an account of supportive submissions, but it was never sent to me. I secured an emergency meeting before the FEFC's meeting on 8 March, but I received no subsequent account of it. Hon. Members can therefore imagine my annoyance on first learning about the council's obdurate decision to recommend the merger from a journalist who had received a gloating press release from Rutland college. Only now that I am on the warpath has the chief executive invited me to see him.
The FEFC has shown complete contempt for any genuine process of consultation. It has gone through the motions with its mind made up and trampled over any objection with a shameful disdain. To my regret, I now have no confidence in the FEFC and I have formed an entirely negative view of some of those within it. Stamford college has lodged a formal written complaint. I was advised today that Rutland council intends to move a resolution, as soon as possible, to invoke the process of judicial review. I am almost inclined to issue a writ myself. Regardless of any legal outcome, the merger proposal remains deeply flawed.
It would be nothing short of negligence and administrative vandalism to go ahead with the proposal without considering the Stamford option again, and without allowing Rutland county council to consider the overall future provision of post-16 education. The merger is ill-conceived, ill-timed and ill-considered. It has taken on a momentum of its own against the wishes of almost everybody who has an interest in quality education in Rutland. The FEFC should withdraw its recommendation. Failing that, the courts or the Secretary of State should stop it in its tracks and give wiser consideration to the bigger picture.
11.43 am
Mr. Quentin Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) for allowing me to intervene briefly in this debate, which I congratulate him on securing. My hon. Friend used strong language, which is entirely justified by some familiarity with the facts and the peculiar circumstances of the case.
My concern is threefold. First, as hon. Members will appreciate, I am concerned about the interests of my constituents. There are about 20,000 people in the town of Stamford, and those in the surrounding villages and small towns take the total population to between 30,000 and 40,000. The proposed merger threatens the de facto division of labour between Stamford college and Rutland college; that, in turn, threatens the future of certain courses at Stamford college, such as engineering and modern languages. It is important that the college should continue to offer those courses, but they will become unviable if only a few people are removed from them.
I am worried not only about Stamford college as an institution, but about the whole town and the surrounding area—especially given that Stamford's only state secondary school in the maintained sector does not have a sixth form. Stamford college is alone in being able to provide A-level courses in the maintained sector. Any reduction in its range of courses—especially

27WH
the key, slightly harder subjects to which I referred—would therefore be an educational disaster for the people of the area. It is extraordinary that that has not been taken on board by those who have public responsibilities in that context.
Secondly, I thoroughly endorse what my hon. Friend said about the travesty of procedure and consultation that has taken place, and about the extraordinary un-businesslike way in which it is proposed to proceed with the merger without having properly evaluated the alternative of a merger with Stamford. It is elementary business procedure to consider and evaluate the entire range of options before making a decision. Clearly, that has not happened in this case.
Finally, it is astonishing that the authorities should consider proceeding with the merger when public opinion as a whole—not merely that of the locally elected district and county councillors and the two local Members of Parliament—is overwhelmingly against it. If the views of local representatives are not considered to be worth hearing, why bother with the structure of democracy that we have in this country? In any case, the views of local educationalists should be dominant, and local head teachers are apparently unanimously opposed.
I endorse my hon. Friend's comments and ask the Minister to instruct the bureaucracy to proceed with the case in the businesslike, straightforward, dispassionate and balanced fashion that we are entitled to expect of our public authorities.
11.47 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Michael Wills): I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) for raising the issue, and recognise the strength of the concerns that have been expressed by him and the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take those concerns very seriously and recognise the importance of the matter to their constituencies.
It may be helpful if I explain a little of the context in which such decisions are taken. The Government regard greater collaboration as an important part of our plans for the further education sector. We want to encourage collaboration between the various providers in the post-16 world to raise standards and to provide better opportunities for all young people and adult learners. That is one of the key driving forces behind the Learning and Skills Bill that will shortly be introduced in the House. We aim to remove some of the barriers to effective collaboration between providers, which include schools and colleges.
Where appropriate, such collaboration will involve mergers. There is still too much wasteful competition between colleges in many respects, and small class sizes can mean that specialist provision is threatened because it is not cost effective to provide it. Mergers can help to resolve such situations and safeguard some kinds of specialist provision. Of course, we recognise that mergers can be highly sensitive issues locally. We have heard much this morning about the process that has
28WH
been involved in this case, so it may assist the hon. Gentlemen if I explain the details of that process that were overlooked in their remarks.
Mergers between further education institutions must follow a set statutory procedure, which starts with local consultation with other further education providers, local authorities, local businesses, schools and other interested parties. The FEFC has a set procedure for considering mergers and it applies a set of criteria to all merger proposals. The criteria are: first, the educational benefits of the proposals to students, particularly the effect on access and choice; secondly, the implications of the proposal for the future development of post-16 provision in an area, including the potential impact on other further education providers; thirdly, the financial benefits of the proposed reorganisation, particularly in terms of the proposed merged institution's viability; fourthly, the extent of consultation and the consideration that has been given to alternative options—that should deal with some of the concerns that have been raised this morning; and, finally, the likelihood of the proposed reorganisation being successfully implemented.
Mr. Quentin Davies: On the penultimate criterion, will the Minister assure the Chamber that full consideration has been given to the possibility of a merger with Stamford college, and that that possibility has been evaluated as thoroughly as the merger between Rutland and Tresham colleges? Has a strategic plan been developed for the merger of Rutland and Stamford colleges? My information is that no such business plan has been proposed and that no such option has been properly evaluated.
Mr. Wills: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be patient for a few more minutes. I am about to explain that the process is not complete. It is important to complete my outline of the process, after which I should be able to enlighten him about where we stand in that process.
There is a statutory procedure that has to be gone through, after which the proposals and responses to the consultation are considered by the regional committee of the FEFC. That committee considers the local impact of the proposals and hears representations from those who oppose, and those who support, the proposals. In the case of the merger that we are discussing, I understand that the regional committee heard representations directly from Stamford college, Rutland county council and the community colleges of Lincolnshire before considering its advice to the reorganisations committee.
Mr. Duncan: I am sorry to interrupt, but it is not true to say that the representation from Rutland county council was properly heard. The meeting at which the Government suggest consultation took place was a complete and utter sham. It was billed as a basic chat, but it turned out to be the formal consultation, of which Rutland county council had been totally unaware. It was a disgrace.
Mr. Wills: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's account of what occurred, but it stands as a matter of fact that there was a presentation and the relevant bodies had an opportunity to make their views known.

29WH
The regional committee normally considers whether or not the FEFC should publish proposals in accordance with the statutory requirements placed on it by the Secretary of State. They require the FEFC to issue formal notices setting out the proposals, and to allow four weeks for comments. After that formal consultation period, the reorganisations committee decides whether or not to forward the proposals to the Secretary of State for a decision in the light of the responses. That statutory process provides ample opportunity for all concerned to make known their reservations about any proposal. I confirm that the representations made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton have been sent to the Department. We shall, of course, carefully consider everything that he and the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford have said this morning.
When the proposals are sent to the Secretary of State, they are considered carefully, along with all the responses received during the statutory consultation process. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton will be aware that mergers between further education colleges are considered on behalf of the Secretary of State by my noble Friend Baroness Blackstone. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford that she takes into account all the relevant facts, including the wider strategic and local effects that the merger might have on the community and on other education provision. I assure both hon. Gentlemen that what they have said today will be taken into account by my noble Friend. If, after detailed consideration, she approves the merger, statutory instruments will be laid before both Houses to bring the proposals into effect.
The formal proposal from the FEFC for the merger betweeen Rutland college and the Tresham institute has only just arrived at the Department and my noble Friend will consider it in due course. We have not yet reached the decision-making stage. I am sure that the hon. Members for Rutland and Melton and for Grantham and Stamford will understand that I cannot comment on the merits or otherwise of the proposals before the Minister reaches her decision.
However, the Department is aware of the views of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton on the matter, and they have been taken into account. He has made them known most forcefully, on this occasion and others, and we are considering them along with all the representations that we have received from interested parties. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been involved in correspondence and discussions with officials from FEFC, and I conclude by assuring him and the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford that their concerns have been well noted, and will be taken into account when my noble Friend reaches her decision.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We can move on to our next debate a little earlier than expected, as the Minister is in her place and the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), who is to initiate it, is also present.

East-West Rail Link
11.56 am
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Perhaps you could give me guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as to whether I shall be allowed an extra four minutes, or whether we shall have to stop after precisely 30 minutes?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): I am happy to help the hon. Lady. We can continue the debate until 12.30 pm. The hon. Lady has therefore gained a little time, and I am sure that she will wax lyrical for as long as she sees fit.
Dr. Starkey: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I shall demonstrate that the reopened east-west rail link would be a critical and strategic addition to the national rail network; that it would be crucial to relieving congestion on both the road and rail networks; that it would encourage sustainable economic regeneration; that it would be widely supported; and that it could be delivered quickly and would be excellent value for money. However, Government action is required now to ensure that it goes ahead without further delay.
I speak not only on behalf of my constituency, but as the chair of a parliamentary group that contains 30 Conservative and Labour Members of Parliament representing constituencies along the route. I am grateful to those members of the group who are here today. A significant number of other hon. Members—including the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), who has just left—have sent me notes to say that they wished that they could be here to support the debate, but that it clashed with other commitments.
The east-west rail link would run from the east coast ports through either Ipswich or Norwich to Cambridge, Bedford, Bletchley—which is in my constituency—Oxford, Swindon and connections to the west of England. The core of the route, from Cambridge to Oxford, was closed to passenger services in 1968, and to freight in the 1980s. The closures were untimely, as they occurred just before the development of Milton Keynes and the growth of Bicester, both of which would probably have sustained the route and averted its closure. Some of the route remains open; for example, an excellent, though rather slow train service operates between Bedford and Bletchley. The Oxford to Bicester section was also reopened a few years ago. Almost all the track bed remains, although there is a nine-mile gap to the east of Bedford.
My first argument is that the link would provide a critical and strategic addition to the national rail network. The east-west route would provide an orbital route round London connecting all the main rail radials emanating from London and would maximise network capacity by connecting the east coast and west coast main lines. Hon. Members will be aware that there is virtually no spare capacity in the south of England on either of those main lines, so an east-west rail link would provide additional flexibility in the network. It would provide opportunities for both passengers and freight and would allow freight from London to the north to be rerouted, avoiding the east coast and west coast main

31WH
lines, so it could relieve congestion on other parts of the network around London by diverting some existing services to the east-west route.
The route is crucial if congestion on road and rail networks is to be relieved. I have described its effect on relieving congestion on the rail network. It would also provide a realistic alternative to the current road network, linking town centres across England from east to west. The cross-country road alternatives are not particularly good and anyone who has used them knows that. They are not direct, there is little dual carriageway and some stretches have a poor safety record. The A420 from Oxford to Swindon is popularly, or unpopularly, known as the road of death because of its record of road traffic accidents. Furthermore, many town centres are heavily congested, so journey times from town centre to town centre are much higher. A direct east-west link is an attractive alternative. It would help to achieve a transfer of passengers from the road network to the rail network and it has been estimated that it would save up to 100 vehicle kilometres every year.
It would also encourage sustainable economic regeneration. The Milton Keynes, Northampton, Bedford triangle has been designated an area of substainable major growth. Cambridge, with its high-tech industries, is also under heavy development pressure, as are other sites along the route, including Norwich. The east-west route would make those locations transport nodes in a network from which passengers could go north, south, east or west without having to use the most congested parts of the network. It would allow new settlements and housing developments to be built along the east-west route, with employment, shipping and schools linked by rail instead of just by road. It would serve an estimated additional 400,000 new homes along the route. A feasibility study has shown that regeneration linked to the east-west route would create around 10,000 jobs and it can be calculated that taxes paid on earnings and other economic benefits would return £80 million to the economy.
The route would pass through Bletchley in my constituency. It is an old railway town which has suffered decline since the expansion of Milton Keynes. It has a high unemployment rate with poor health and lower incomes compared with other parts of Milton Keynes. There is a substantial amount of empty office and shop space. However, the moment is now right for the regeneration of Bletchley, because central Milton Keynes is becoming fully developed and developers are starting to look elsewhere. Bletchley could become an important secondary centre, but the east-west route is crucial. Bletchley would be the crossover point of the east-west route and the west coast main line. New settlements along the east-west route would look to Bletchley for work and shops. It would allow full exploitation of the tourist potential of Bletchley park, which is next to Bletchley railway station and was the wartime setting for the decoding of the Enigma codes, which made a huge contribution to the victory against fascism in the second world war.
The east-west route is widely supported. Plans for the route have been developed and sustained during the past five years by a consortium of 35 local authorities,
32WH
controlled by a variety of political parties. This is a cross-party issue and I pay tribute to the work of that local authority consortium over the years in ensuring that the feasibility study for the east-west route was carried out, putting their money behind the idea and ensuring that the business case for the route was well and truly demonstrated, even if it is not entirely recognised in some places.
The east-west route is a crucial element in the local authorities' transport plans. It has been endorsed as a priority project in draft regional planning guidance for the south-east and east of England planning organisations. It has also been incorporated in the strategic plans of the new regional development agencies for the south-east and east of England, both of which have now become members of the consortium pushing the route and are keen to be involved in partnership promotion.
As I have said, the scheme is supported by a parliamentary group, which I chair, with 30 members representing constituencies along and close to the route. We all have a different constituency argument for stressing its importance, but all the arguments together make the overall case. The route has many things going for it, the last of which are that it can be delivered quickly and is excellent value for money.
Technically, the Bedford to Oxford section, with the Aylesbury link, can be delivered quickly. The track bed already exists and simply needs upgrading to allow travel up to 75 mph. That would be a huge, immediate advantage to my constituency, as the existing Bedford to Bletchley route is hardly any faster than it was 150 years ago. With increased speed, it would become a much more attractive alternative. No statutory powers would be required to open this section, so there is no need for a process under the Transport and Works Act 1992 or a public inquiry. The western end of the project has pre-qualified for the rail partnership fund, which is administered by the shadow Strategic Rail Authority.
The second phase, from Bedford eastwards, would take longer because of the nine-mile gap in the route. There has been considerable discussion in Bedford about whether the route should go through the centre of Bedford or round the outside. That matter has now been resolved, after an exceedingly heated public debate, and there is general support in Bedford for the inner route, serving the town centre. However, that will require a process under the Transport and Works Act 1992 because of the need to fill in the gap.
Several train operating companies are seriously interested in bidding to run services along different sections of the east-west route, which brings me to the funding mechanisms. There has been some confusion about the appropriate funding mechanism. Orignally, the local authority consortium was advised by the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising that it should pursue funding on its own, without the involvement of a train operating company. It is now being advised by the shadow Strategic Rail Authority that such involvement is fundamental to a successful bid. At the same time, the franchise replacement process has added complexity to the issue.
One of the train operating companies is including the west phase of the east-west route in its franchise replacement bid; another is including the full route in its

33WH
submission. The two companies are running on different time scales, with only one in the first tranche of franchise replacement. As part of the franchise replacement process, the train operating companies will not only bid to run services along the route, but intend to put some of their own money towards the capital costs that would enable the route to be brought into operation.
The Government, and to a lesser extent the rail passenger partnership, have created the mechanisms of franchise replacement to persuade the private sector to invest in the national rail network. The east-west route provides an excellent opportunity, with a number of private train companies seriously interested in putting their money into the system. However, the window of opportunity is very small. Once the franchises have been re-let, there may be no further opportunity for 10 years. The councils and Members of Parliament who support the route cannot afford to let that opportunity to benefit the people and the communities that they represent to slip through their fingers.
The east-west route is in line with Government transport policies and priorities and with their planning priorities. It could be an early demonstration of the benefits of that policy, but the Government must ensure that it goes ahead.
I have four requests, about which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will reassure me. First, I ask the Government to recognise the local, regional and national benefits of the east-west rail link. Secondly, I ask them to support the consortium's initiative in seeking to work in partnership with the private sector to develop major rail infrastructure schemes. Thirdly and most crucially, I ask the Government to instruct the shadow Strategic Rail Authority and the train operating companies to deliver the east-west route in consultation with the consortium, which includes Railtrack, via the franchise replacement programme, or a combination of franchise replacement and the rail passenger partnership, with a commitment from the shadow Strategic Rail Authority and the train operating companies that the west end of the route will be operational in three years and the complete scheme in five years. If my hon. Friend says that she cannot instruct them to do so, I ask the Government to give a clear political steer that that is in line with Government policy and is how those policies should be achieved.
Fourthly, I understand that Rail Property Ltd. is trying to sell some of the sites that are essential to the reopening of the route, especially land near Bedford St. Johns station. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to instruct Rail Property Ltd. to suspend its efforts in marketing those sites until the east-west route has been reopened, when some of them will no longer be able to be marketed. I hope that my hon. Friend can give me those assurances, so that I can pass them on to other hon. Members who support the east-west rail link and the councils that have worked so hard to try to achieve what would be a jewel in the crown of the Government's transport policy.
12.11 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) on securing
34WH
this debate, which provides hon. Members with an opportunity to consider the potential of an east-west rail link. She and other hon. Members in the region have worked strenuously to assist the consortium, and she has put her case with characteristic comprehensiveness and clarity. I hope that I can deal with most, if not all, of the points that she has made.
As my hon. Friend has said, the railway between Oxford and Cambridge was closed to passenger traffic in the 1960s, apart from a short section between Bletchley and Bedford. The section between Oxford and Bisector Town station has been reopened to passenger services. Freight services between Cambridge and Bedford also ceased in the 1960s, and those between Bicester and Bletchley in the 1990s. The possible need for an east-west rail link, which would provide an alternative route for freight and passengers to complement and relieve the A14 trunk road, has been discussed several times and is clearly an acute issue for people in the region.
Proposals of varying complexity have been formulated, the most extensive of which is to link Felixstowe and Bristol. However, as my hon. Friend has said, the pivotal sections of line are those from Cambridge to Bedford and from Bletchley to Bicester. Those sections are closed and, as she has said, the track has been lifted in some places.
We in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are committed to examining the feasibility of the east-west rail link, but it is important that a clear business case is made for such a large and expensive proposal before it is considered for public funding. I understand that the funding gap for the total project would be about £70 million. Possible ways forward include a phased approach to the scheme or a partial reinstatement. Those proposals have been discussed with the Department and the shadow Strategic Rail Authority. A separate proposal has consequently emerged involving the line from Oxford to Bedford. That would entail the reopening of the Bicester to Bletchley line and some improvements and upgrades to the existing track and infrastructure—the so-called western section proposal.
In order to encourage further investment in the rail network, the Government have provided the franchising director with additional funds aimed at supporting new investment proposals that produce wider significant benefits for both integration and modal shift. Most of that money, as my hon. Friend recognised, will be distributed through the RPP scheme. That scheme is designed to encourage and support innovative proposals at regional and local level that develop and encourage rail use and promote integration with other modes, such as those that increase accessibility for disabled people, and more generally improve the attractiveness of rail both to existing and new users. Support for those projects will enhance the quality of services offered by local and regional rail.
RPP bids are assessed on five key criteria identified in our paper "A New Deal for Transport". I will not go into those in detail, but it is important that each bid is judged on the basis of its impact on the environment, on the safety of the network and on the local and regional economy. Consideration should also be given to accessibility for disabled and other people to the network and the integration that would flow from the scheme, both in terms of local and national policy frameworks.

35WH
I am pleased to announce that a bid has been received under the RPP scheme for the reopening of the Bicester to Bletchley section of the east-west rail link. That bid has pre-qualified for further detailed consideration. That is the first hurdle. At the moment the franchising director is awaiting submission of a formal bid and business case in support of the proposal. That is necessary so that the bid can be formally assessed against the criteria that apply under the RPP scheme.
My hon. Friend asked whether the bids should include involvement by the train operating company and I can clarify that the consortium was advised at the pre-qualification stage that, while a total final bid would be possible without a train operating company, the involvement of one or more train operating companies would enhance the chances of the formal bid being accepted for funding. That may be particularly important for establishing the business case. When the franchising director receives the formal bid, it will be evaluated against the criteria as outlined and he will make a decision. I understand that new sections of the route would require processes under the Transport and Works Act 1992 to be followed and that could involve public inquiries.
My hon. Friend also mentioned local and regional transport plans. There is obviously considerable local authority involvement in the consortium. Local authorities are required to produce their local and regional transport plans and they should take account of the potential contribution that heavy rail could make to the integrated transport strategy as a whole to improve public transport and reduce car use. In doing so, they need to have regard to the shadow Strategic Rail Authority's developing national rail strategy. If local authorities include the reopening of this line as a priority in their local transport plans it would also enable them to provide financial support as an essential part of the jigsaw. If local authorities include them in their plans it is an important part of the process that hopefully will lead to a successful decision from the point of view of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members.
The franchising director is currently considering the replacement of franchise agreements and is looking for undertakings from companies for continuous improvements for passengers. Improvements in service standards and performance are needed to create an overall journey experience that meets passenger expectations from inquiry to arrival. The director has consulted with user groups and conducted his own national passenger survey.
The franchising director is considering changes to the boundaries of franchising and proposals by train operators for micro-franchising of individual lines and for the extension of the network. We want to see continual improvement and expansion of the rail network, and we welcome all viable schemes that will contribute to the modal shift and to promoting transport that is more environmentally friendly and sustainable. I hope that, under the RPP scheme, the consortium will soon submit a formal bid and business case for the western section of the east-west rail link. If that bid is successful, it will attract further interest and investment in the project.
36WH
A rail link between eastern and western Britain has clear economic benefits, and would provide relief for the road connections between the east and west, particularly for the A14 trunk road. We support rail initiatives through the RPP, and we applaud the consortium and our hon. Friends in the region for working towards submitting the bid for the western sector. We have charged the franchising director with assessing all RPP bids against a set of common, published and objective criteria. The formal bid has not, as my hon. Friend suggested, been recieved, let alone assessed against those criteria. Therefore, I can express public support inasmuch as I hope that the consortium will get the bid in. It would, however, be inappropriate for me to say that the bid is wonderful and should be supported, until we have seen and assessed it. That would be wrong, and unfair on other bids that may be in competition with it. I hope that the consortium gets the bid in quickly; we want the matter to progress, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will assist in that.
Another considerable task for which the franchising director is responsible is the replacement of the original passenger rail franchises. He must consider a range of factors, but enhancement of the rail network and the provision of a better service with a greater choice of routes are two important ones. He will review favourably any proposals to add to the existing rail network that are included in bids for replacement franchises, provided that additional public subsidy can be justified on the basis of extra benefits.
The replacement process provides a unique opportunity for reopening new lines. The development of the railway network is an on-going process, and funds such as the RPP will allow the franchising director to consider proposals at any time and to have funding available to support those that meet the relevant criteria whenever they are submitted. Time will not be an issue. The time scales for individual projects depend on the complexity of the project and the timetable for the replacement of franchises, so it is not easy to specify how long a project or a phase of a project will take. If the formal RPP bid for the western secton is successful, I would expect that work to proceed as soon as practicable.
My hon. Friend asked about the marketing of sites. She probably knows that all rail property was subjected to an embargo until three months ago. Any sales are now subject to the approval of the director. I understand that Bedford St. Johns—the station that she mentioned—is not vital to the development of the line because Bletchley to Bedford services currently use Bedford Midland station, although I accept that safeguarding the track bed around Bedford St. Johns is important.
I have applauded the actions of the consortium and I want to see progress, but the ball is now clearly in the consortium's court and further progress cannot be made until a formal bid with a business case is received. I hope that that will be soon.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am giving the Minister for Public Health time to reach her position. There is no need to suspend the sitting as both the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), who is initiating the debate, and the Minister are now in their places. We can now move to debate the use of bovine material in non-food products.

Bovine Material
12.25 pm
Mr. Norman Baker: I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your filibustering for a few moments, which was entirely appropriate.
The title of our debate seems as dull as ditchwater, but we are debating an important issue. I gave the Minister advance copies of my questions, which I hope she found helpful when preparing her response.
People often imagine that the risk of contracting Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease from BSE-infected cows comes from food. I contend that that threat has been overplayed and that the risk from other means of transmission, especially through vaccines, has been significantly and worryingly underplayed. In an answer to a parliamentary question on 8 March this year, the Minister said that the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee
has stated that "BSE and vCJD were caused by a closely similar prion strain, and concluded that vCJD was an acquired prion disease caused by exposure to BSE or BSE like agent."—[Official Report, 9 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 787W.]
As of 31 January this year, according to information to be published by the House of Commons Library on 3 April, we know that 52 people have either definitely or probably died of variant CJD.
An answer to my parliamentary question of 9 March helpfully sets out the hierarchy of risk. Regarding animals with strains of prion, the most risky procedure is injection directly into the brain; the second most risky is injection into the bloodstream; the third most risky is injection into tissues around human organs; the fourth most risky is injection under the skin, but not into the bloodstream; and, the fifth, and so least, risky is ingestion through oral consumption or, in other words, food. On the basis of Government activity over the past 10 years, one would conclude that food was the greatest risk, but in terms of the hierarchy of risk drawn up by the Minister's own Department, it is the least risky option, which is worrying.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), when a Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, responded to a written question in March 1999, stating:
There is no scientific proof that BSE can be transmitted to man by beef, but this is seen by SEAC as the most likely explanation, and all our control measures are based on the assumption that it is.—[Official Report, 9 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 186W.]
I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman, but those words strike me as worrying. It is not the most likely explanation according to the proper hierarchy of risk, so the policy was based on an entirely erroneous assumption.
The vCJD unit was established in 1990 and is reponsible for monitoring incidence of CJD in the UK, but it too proceeds along a false path. It asks questions of those suffering from vCJD to find a link between the disease and BSE. However, the bias of the questions is towards occupational hazards and diet, not vaccines; other potential causes are virtually ignored by the unit. One vCJD victim was a vegetarian, which suggests that the net should be cast wider. I question the basis on which the vCJD unit is proceeding and the assumptions that underlie its activities.
38WH
Eating beef is regarded as posing the least possible risk, yet the current Government and the previous Government adopted a raft of measures to minimise that risk, and no one quarrels about that. The Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (No. 2) Order 1988 banned the use of milk from an affected cow for anthing other than feeding its own calf. The Bovine Offals (Prohibition) Regulations 1989 banned the use of specified bovine offals for human consumption. In 1990, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food issued guidance stating that head meat must be recovered from the intact skull before the brain is removed. The Bovine Offal (Prohibition) (Amendment) Order 1992 prohibited the use of head meat after the skull was opened. I could list other measures that Governments have taken to ensure that the human food chain is as safe as it can be. I do not criticise those measures; they were right to play safe.
However, we must contrast that Government action with the measures that were taken on vaccines which, in terms of the Government's hierarchy of risk, are more likely to transmit BSE than oral ingestion. The right hon. Member for Perry Barr was wrong to say that that is the most likely method of transmission. That is not what is stated in the Minister's hierarchy of risk, which appeared in Hansard early this month. It is nothing new: in 1988, an under secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Alistair Cruikshank, said:
There is probably no risk in drinking milk or eating flesh from animals affected by BSE, but the position is much less clear in relation to brains, spleen and other organs. This raised questions about the safety of human vaccines prepared using bovine material.
There has been a question mark about the matter for 12 years.
In June 1988, a Department of Health official, Dr. Hilary Pickles, said:
The highest risk would be from parenterals prepared from brain.
The Southwood report in February 1989 stated:
The greatest risk in theory would be from parenteral injection of material derived from bovine brain or lymphoid tissue. Medicinal products for injection or surgical implantation which are prepared from bovine tissues…might also be capable of transmitting infectious agents.
That view has not changed: on 21 July 1999, four scientists involved in the production of the Southwood report were interviewed by the BSE inquiry. Sir Richard Southwood was asked if it was his view, at the time, that
the degree of hazard from medicinal products was greater than the degree of hazard that applied in the case of oral ingestion—
a key question, to which he replied, "Yes." Later, he told the inquiry:
We really thought the medical problem was severe…We were very conscious, all the way through, of the worry about the vaccination programme.
There is no doubt that the advice from the experts from MAFF and the Department of Health and Sir Richard Southwood himself in 1988–89 was that there was a risk from vaccines using bovine material.
The answer given by the right hon. Member for Perry Barr was wrong. He is wrong if his understanding is that ingestion is the most likely method of transmission and

39WH
that contracting the disease is somehow also a matter of quantity because more people eat beef than are exposed to vaccines. That is how his words could be interpreted.
I thank the Minister for her detailed letter dated 14 December 1999, which included statistics. She said:
The vaccines in use at that time—
between 1989 and 1992—
which used bovine material in the early stages of manufacture and as a medium for cell growth were DTP (diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis), BCG, oral polio and measles vaccines.
The Minister continued helpfully to list the millions of vaccines used during that period when it could not be clear that the vaccines did not include bovine material from cows suffering from BSE. The primary courses of vaccine for diphtheria from 1989 to 1991–92 totalled 2.18 million; they included doses given to 2.11 million children aged 2 or under. The reinforcement doses for diphtheria in the same period were 1.72 million, including 132,000 given to children under the age of 4. Primary courses for tetanus cases for 1989 to 1992 were 2.33 million, of which 2.1 million were given to children aged 2 or under. Then the number goes down. I will not read all the figures but in each case, millions of people, predominantly children, were given vaccines containing bovine material from the United Kingdom herd at a time when the herd included cows suffering from BSE.
How many people were vaccinated with those stocks? The Minister gave details of total vaccinations, but this may not correspond to the vaccines about which I am concerned. If the number of these vaccinations that are of concern to me is lower than I thought because the stocks came from Australasia or elsewhere, will the Minister let us have the figure today? The vaccinations that concern me clearly also caused concern to the Minister at the time, and to his officials. Will the Minister say whether records were kept of the number of people who were vaccinated, and will there be long-term monitoring of their health? It certainly does not appear so. What role does the variant CJD unit play in all this? I suspect that there will not be any long-term monitoring. The Minister for Public Health said in her letter to me of 14 December:
It is not known how many vaccines used UK sourced bovine material during this period in the early stages of manufacture and as a medium for cell growth.
It appears that, at the time, insufficient attention was paid to that and that insufficient steps were taken to monitor what was happening. That is most worrying. It is incumbent on the Minister to give us as much information as possible when she replies to the debate, because parents whose children were vaccinated at that time want answers. I do not want to be thought to be scaremongering. Officials have used the word "remote" and I want my concern to be put in context. Important questions remain unanswered and I hope that the hon. Lady will answer them.
I am not clear about whether the use of UK-sourced bovine material at any stage of the manufacture of vaccines is now banned. There appear to be conflicting issues in this respect. In a parliamentary answer on 25 March 1999, I was told:
40WH
Bovine material prohibited from use in the human food chain is not prohibited from use in the manufacture of medicinal products, including vaccines—Official Report, 25 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 378.
It appears that, although guidelines may have been issued, there has been no formal ban. Yet SEAC has stated on the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food website:
From 1993, these control ["measures…to remove from the human food chain any tissues which might potentially harbour infection"]—have also been applied to animal feed, and from 1997, to cosmetic, pharmaceutical and medical products.
So is a ban in place, or not? Perhaps the Minister will clarify that.
I suggest that, at the time, the attitude of the Department of Health—the Minister was not in the Department at the time, so she cannot be held responsible in any way—was rather lax in the circumstances. I want to offer a reason for that and query why it happened. In March 1989, the Department of Health sent a questionnaire to manufacturers of medicines or medical devices asking them to identify products that contained bovine material. That was a clear indication that this was an issue. The deadline for replies was May 1989, but by September 1989 25 per cent. of companies had not replied. Why were they not chased? Why were the answers not received by the deadline that the Department set? Why was there so little vigour on the part of the Department of Health when public health was at risk?
In September 1989, the following products had been identified in order of concern. This information, which I will read to the Committee, comes from the Department of Health's internal BSE inquiry document, so the Minister may recognise it. It states:
products with bovine brain/lymphoid tissue as ingredients and administered by injection: 111;
products with bovine ingredients (other than brain/lymphoid tissue) and administered by injection: 135;
tissue implants, open wound dressings, surgical materials, dental and ophthalmic products with bovine ingredients: 27;
products with bovine ingredients and administered topically: 5;
products with other animal/insect/bird ingredients: 131,
products with materials produced from animal material by chemical processes (e.g. Stearic acid, gelatin and lanolin: 156.
Following the risk identified in 1988 and 1989 by officials in the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and confirmed by Sir Richard Southwood, why was bovine material not immediately required to be sourced from countries free of BSE? There was clearly a risk, so why was it allowed to continue in use? Why were existing stocks, manufactured using potentially contaminated material, not recalled immediately, particularly in the light of the Department's own hierarchy of risk, which shows that injections are potentially more damaging to human health than eating food? How quickly could the vaccines have been recalled? What were the stock levels of potentially contaminated vaccines when the 1989 guidelines were issued?
In March 1989 the Committee on Safety of Medicines used guidelines advising manufacturing companies to switch to non-UK-sourced bovine material. That was confirmed in colums 246–47 of Hansard on 19 October

41WH
1999. However, on 23 June 1999 the then Minister for Public Health, the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell), said:
The precautionary measures introduced in 1989 and subsequent amendments to them did not require manufacturers to prevent the use of existing supplies of medicinal products which had used bovine material in their early stage of manufacture. Neither did the later guidelines issued by the European Commission in 1992.—[Official Report, 23 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 382W.]
There is either a risk or there is not. If the Department thought that there was a risk, why were the products not recalled? If there was not a risk, why were guidelines issued? The middle path seems somewhat odd. Why did the Department of Health merely issue guidelines for vaccines, when the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had banned potentially contaminated food?
Again, in her letter of 14 December 1999, the Minister said:
The exercise to ensure that all manufacturers were complying with the guidelines—
the 1989 guidelines—
was not completed until 1992.
Three years passed. Why did it take three years to confirm that all manufacturers were using non-UK bovine material in their vaccines, when millions of children were vaccinated during that time? Why were stockpiles not cleared straight away and replaced with alternative sources from elsewhere in the world? According to Hansard of 19 October 1999, only by 1999 were all vaccines in use manufactured without UK-sourced bovine material.
What happened to potentially contaminated stocks of vaccines, allergen products, dental and surgical materials and bovine insulin? Were they used? Were they destroyed? If they were destroyed, how were they destroyed? What has happened to those vaccines? Were manufacturers simply allowed to use up existing supplies, were they encouraged to destroy them or were they recalled? I do not know the answer. Perhaps the Minister will tell me in a few minutes' time. How quickly could the vaccines have been recalled?
We know little about the potential danger. We know that there is a real danger and we also know from the chief medical officer that it could take 30 to 40 years to prove. Therefore, although it may be an historic problem for the Department of Health, it is a future problem for the children who may be vaccinated in this way.
I asked the Secretary of State for Health:
what estimate he has made of the quantity of vaccines held by manufacturers in whose early stages of manufacture bovine material had been used. [Official Report, 1 July 1999; Vol. 334, c. 280W.]
The one-word answer was "None". I find it extraordinary that the Department of Health could not have made that estimate then, given the problems that occurred. I have concentrated on vaccines, but I could equally have referred to allergen products, dental and surgical material, bovine insulin and indeed cosmetics, which I know fall outside the Minister's brief, but which contain bovine material.
Having identified a real risk, why did the Department of Health first appear lax and then not take action to ban products or to insist on recalls, in contrast to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? I suggest
42WH
that one reason was that they did not want to cause public alarm, and that that overruled the medical concerns. The Southwood report says that the danger was "remote". I accept that word, although there is a hierarchy that is smudged by recent events.
Giving evidence, Sir Anthony Epstein said that no action was taken
on purpose because the consequences for the vaccination programme, for the use of medicines, would have been quite disastrous.
I suggest that the Department of Health calculated that if it came clean about vaccines, as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had about beef, there would have been a loss of confidence in the vaccination programme. It therefore decided not to come clean, but to take a risk in order to maintain confidence in the vaccination programme.
That is a serious allegation, but it is the conclusion that I have reached from the evidence before me. The Minister owes it to all the children who have been vaccinated, and their parents, to give as much information as possible on the questions that I have asked today, so that we can go forward and plan properly for the next 20 years.
12.45 pm
The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): I shall try to answer as many as possible of the questions that were asked by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), and I thank him for having made me aware of some of them in advance. He raised some additional points to which I cannot respond now, but I shall follow them up in writing.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on initiating a debate on a very important subject. I know that it has been a matter of considerable concern to him, and that over the past few months he has asked several parliamentary questions about it. I welcome this opportunity to respond to some of his worries and to set out clearly the actions that have been taken in respect of the use of bovine material in non-food products since concerns were first raised about the potential for risk to human health from bovine spongiform encephalopathies, or BSE.
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the events between 1989 and 1993 to which he has referred took place under previous Governments. Nevertheless, I shall give as much information as I can. I take this opportunity to express the Government's concern about the distress caused to sufferers of the truly appalling illness that we now know as variant CJD, and to the families of its victims.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman's primary concern is the potential risk to public health from the use of bovine material in vaccines and surgical cat gut sutures. I begin by reassuring hon. Members that there is currently no evidence to link the use of any medicinal product with variant CJD. Although bovine material is used in the manufacture of some medicines and, indeed, in the manufacture of some vaccines, it is important to note that the bovine material is not an ingredient of any vaccine, but is merely used in the manufacturing process.
I am advised that general manufacturers of medicinal

43WH
products, including vaccines, avoid the use of animal sourced materials wherever possible. In the case of vaccines, bovine materials are used only to promote the growth of cells, viruses or bacteria during manufacture. Subsequent purification is designed to remove all materials that are associated with the manufacture but are not required in the final product. The manufacturers provide validation of those processes to the Medicines Control Agency.
Since 1989, bovine materials used in the manufacture of medicines have been subject to extremely rigorous guidelines that govern the geographical source of the material, the type of tissue used and the processes to which such material must be subjected to minimise any risk that it may represent. Those guidelines were first developed in the UK by the Government's independent scientific advisory committee, the Comittee on Safety of Medicines—the CSM—together with the Veterinary Products Committee, because the guidelines apply equally to veterinary medicines.
In 1988, when concerns were first raised about BSE, the CSM established a group of experts to consider the implications for the use of bovine materials in the manufacture of medicines—the BSE working party of the CSM. In March 1989, the CSM published guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on the sourcing and processing of animal tissues, based on the sub-group's findings. Those guidelines addressed the geographical sourcing of the material to be used and assesssed the potential risk from the use of certain animal tissues; it recommended processing practices to minimise the risk from the use of bovine materials.
When the guidelines were issued to industry, manufacturers of new medicinal products were expected to comply with them immediately, and manufacturers of existing products were asked how they intended to comply with them. I am advised that many manufacturers reported that they had already stopped sourcing material from the United Kingdom because of their concern about reports of illness in UK cattle.
That action was taken as a precautionary measure; the risk to public health from the use of bovine material in medicinal products was assessed by the scientific experts of the Southwood committee to be remote and theoretical. A decision was taken that existing supplies of medicines, including vaccines, should not be withdrawn from the market, because there was concern that withdrawal of such supplies without suitable alternatives being provided would result in a serious risk to public health. In the case of vaccines, there was particular concern that withdrawal could lead to a real risk of deaths caused by epidemics of the diseases that the vaccine programmes were intended to address, such as diphtheria, pertussis and whooping cough.
The Medicines Control Agency, which came into existence in April 1989 and replaced the medicines division of the Department of Health, followed up all manufacturers who had reported the use of animal material in the manufacture of medicines until they were able to report that they complied fully with the CSM guidelines. Priority was given in that exercise to vaccine manufacturers. I am advised that all vaccine manufacturers were contacted in 1989 and that they
44WH
decided immediately to source their bovine materials outside the United Kingdom to comply with the guidelines.
In 1992, the European committee of independent scientific experts—the committee for proprietary medicinal products—issued its own guidelines to the pharmaceutical industry based almost wholly on those that had been developed some three years previously in the United Kingdom. Those guidelines, with amendments made in the light of new scientific knowledge, are still in force today. The hon. Gentleman asked about bans and I am advised by the MCA that it enforces the guidelines and that it will not license products that do not comply with the guidelines.
The hon. Gentleman expressed specific concern about vaccines that remained on the market after the original guidelines had been issued by the CSM in 1989, and he asked how long they might have remained in use. Many manufacturers of medicinal products were already sourcing bovine materials outside the United Kingdom when the guidelines were issued. I am advised that many of the childhood vaccines used in the United Kingdom were manufactured abroad and did not use bovine material sourced in the United Kingdom. Wellcome, the monopoly manufacturer of DTP childhood vaccines, had used foetal calf serum and meat sourced in the United Kingdom, but by February 1989 it had identified a source of materials in New Zealand, so all vaccines manufactured by Wellcome after 1989 used bovine material from New Zealand.
The manufacture of vaccines is complex and takes many months. Material that was manufactured before 1989 continued to be used so that the vaccination programme would not be compromised. DTP vaccine was issued by Wellcome until June 1991, when stock ran out. Single component diphtheria and tetanus vaccines continued to be supplied until December 1991. I am advised by the MCA that expiry of the DTP vaccine occurred in November 1993, so, although most of it would have been used in 1991, it is possible that small quantities may have remained in doctors' surgeries and been used up to the expiry date.
In 1989, vaccines were issued directly by the manufacturers, not bought centrally by the Department of Health, as happens now. Therefore, there are no figures available on vaccine usage for that period. The MCA has assured me that from April 1989, no bovine material sourced in the United Kingdom was introduced as an element of the manufacturing process for vaccines produced at the time.
One aspect that has not been considered previously is the issue of cell lines, some dating back to the 1960s, from which some viral vaccines are produced. For completeness, I have asked the CSM to examine whether there are any BSE-related issues in this area. To provide the hon. Gentleman with the fullest information about the vaccines, it is important to give him the information I received from the MCA. The expiry date for the diphtheria vaccine produced by Wellcome was November 1992, whereas that for the tetanus vaccine was December 1993. The expiry date for the diphtheria tetanus absorbed vaccine was June 1993, and the DTP vaccine expiry date was November 1993. As I said,

45WH
many of the vaccines will have been used before the expiry dates, but those are the last expiry dates that I have been given.
Mr. Baker: Does that mean that no vaccines were recalled after the identification of the risk?
Yvette Cooper: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on that issue, because one of the vaccines may have been replaced. As I understand it, the vaccines that were manufacturered before 1989 were still in use until the latest date that they could legally be used—the expiry dates that I have given.
I should like to explain in more detail how the risk to human health from medicines, especially vaccines, was assessed, and how and why that was translated into action. I pointed out that Professor Southwood's report identified medicines manufacture as one of a number of uses of bovine material. Although the scientists concluded that the risk to man from bovine materials in medicines was remote and theoretical, they also concluded that parenteral products such as vaccines were, by the nature of their application, likely to present the highest risk. We must also remember that, at that time and until 1996, no action was taken against UK beef and beef products, such as those in the food chain.
When considering what action to take, the CSM addressed the question of whether current supplies of medicines, especially vaccines, should be withdrawn. In the light of the assessment of the risk as remote and theoretical, and the fact that the proposed action was regarded as a precaution rather than a response to an identified risk, I am advised that they conclude on the basis of knowledge at the time that it would not be appropriate to withdraw vaccine supplies. There was concern about the risk of emerging epidemics if the public turned away from vaccination programmes. Because of the minimal risk that it was thought that such vaccines represented, there were no plans to monitor usage of existing stocks, or to contact individuals who have received vaccinations.
46WH
Even in 1989, however, there was an understanding that there was likely to be a hierarchy of risk. The guidelines identified those materials thought to pose the greatest potential risk. The hon. Member for Lewes is concerned about people who were vaccinated during the transition period—if it can be described as such—when the change to sourcing materials from outside the UK was taking place. As I pointed out, there was and still is no evidence to link variant CJD with medicines or vaccines.
It is not possible to identify for follow-up purposes those who received vaccine during that time. However, we can examine the vaccine exposure of existing variant CJD cases. That has been done by experts from the BSE unit, the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control and the Department of Health. Their conclusions stated:
if CJD is the result of exposure to BSE cattle infected material, the vaccines given before the age of 2 appear to have no role in its aetiology to date.
Forty-nine of the 52 cases of variant CJD are in people who were born before 1980 and who would, therefore, have received the vaccines before exposure was possible. The remaining three were born in the 1980s, but, given the long period between starting manufacture from the raw materials and the completion of the finished product, exposure seems unlikely. That analysis will be repeated.
The guidelines that have been in force since 1999 require assurances from manufacturers on sourcing and manufacture. They are accepted by scientific experts as providing a fully effective means of minimising the risk from BSE and other transmissible spongiform encephalopathies.
I should like to address the concern about surgical cat gut sutures, although I do not have much time. Like vaccines, surgical sutures are essential products from which the health of millions of people has benefited. Absorbable surgical materials such as cat gut were brought under the controls of the Medicines Act 1971. Given the pressure of time, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on that subject.
It being One o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Asylum Seekers (Children)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make arrangements to ensure that the children of political asylum seekers attend pre-school facilities; and what the cost of that would be to public funds. [116535]

  Jacqui Smith
  Local education authorities already have a legal duty to ensure that all eligible four-year-olds, including children of asylum seekers, are entitled to a free part-time place in any registered pre-school setting. In addition, from April 2000, all local education authorities will receive funding to provide a free early education place to the most needy three-year-old children in their area. It is up to local education authorities to set their own criteria of social need which may include providing places to children of asylum seekers.

  Local education authorities receive funding from this Department for the provision of pre-school places in the form of a nursery education grant which is £1,130 per child per year for each eligible three and four-year-old child.

  It is not possible to calculate the overall cost of pre-school education for children of asylum seekers, as separate records are not kept.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what provision has been made for the funding of the teachers' threshold pay rise after the first two years. [116528]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Provision for teachers' pay beyond March 2002 falls into the next spending period and will be taken into account along with other factors when deciding future funding levels for education.

  Schools Funding
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on funding for schools in respect of post-16 education reforms. [116527]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The £35 million that the Government have identified as the cost to LEAs in 2000–01 of implementing its post-16 curriculum reforms was added to Education Standard Spending (ESS) for that year. It is for local education authorities to decide how much funding to allocate through their individual schools budget to each of their schools to allow them to implement the reforms successfully. In addition, schools will receive £290 million in special grant for 2000–01. Secondary schools will receive between £30,000 and 72W
  £50,000, depending on their size. This funding will be part of their delegated budgets: those with sixth forms will therefore be able to use it if they wish to supplement funding received through their local authority's allocation formula to implement the post-16 reforms.

  Teacher Dismissals
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers have been dismissed under the fast-track provisions. [116091]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Teacher dismissals are not recorded centrally. The National Employers' Organisation for School Teachers have carried out a survey of LEAs in England and Wales on the use of the new capability procedures for teachers which have now been incorporated in most schools. The survey collected responses from 116 LEAs (68 per cent.) for three school terms ending with the spring term 1999 and suggests that for all LEAs over 3,000 teachers had been subject to some form of capability review during the year, with over 600 dismissals under the new procedure. In addition, 194 teachers showed sufficient improvement and a further 439 cases are currently being processed. Work continues on monitoring and reviewing practice in schools and LEAs and the Secretary of State will be issuing further guidance for schools on staff capability after further consultation.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what actions he will take in connection with the Prime Minister's recent internet initiative to forward the interests of disabled people, with particular reference to(a) access to public buildings housing internet terminals, (b) provision of sufficient large screens for those with reading difficulties, (c) availability of computers on a personal basis for rehabilitation and employment advisers and (d) the creation of a website for disabled jobseekers. [115759]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 21 March 2000]: We are determined that people with disabilities should benefit fully from the Prime Minister's recent internet initiative, particularly in their working lives.

  Access to buildings housing internet terminals and the provision of large screen facilities intended for public use is covered by the goods and services provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The new duties on providers of goods, facilities and services to the public to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people came into force in October last year.

  Many of the Department's services used by people with disabilities are provided through the Employment Service. Its services are designed to meet the needs of all its clients, including people with disabilities. We believe that wherever possible help for disabled people should be offered as part of programmes used by a wide range of clients.

  The Modernising Employment Service Programme is developing new ways in which all jobseekers can have improved access to services through information and communications technology. People with disabilities will gain from this programme. For example, the specification for the touch screen kiosk technology to be available in

  73W
  Jobcentres across the country from autumn 2001 has taken account of the needs of clients with visual impairment. The same programme will also make sure computer workstations are available in sufficient numbers to ensure that every member of ES staff will have access whenever they need it.

  The Employment Service will continue to upgrade the information it provides on services used by jobseekers with disabilities on the Employment Service website. This includes information about the Access to Work programme and other specialist measures, as well as links to the DfEE Disability page at www.disability.gov.uk. The Employment Service plans to make improvements which will make their website even more user friendly.

  Large screen technologies and other forms of help will continue to be available under the Access to Work programme when needed for employment.

  Type of help

  Spend (£)

  Number helped

  Average cost (£)

  Special aids and equipment

  9 million

  10,000

  900

  Travel to work

  5.4 million

  4,500

  1,200

  Support workers

  4.2 million

  3,000

  1,400

  Adaptations to premises or equipment

  0.7 million

  400

  1,750

  Communicator support at interview

  66,000

  600

  110

  Miscellaneous support (not covered above)

  300,000

  550

  545

  Note:

  Some disabled people receive more than one type of support

  Education Action Zones
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for further rounds of education action zones. [116082]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  There are currently 73 large education action zones already running or in development and another 42 small education action zones will start in Excellence in Cities areas by September. In addition, as part of the expansion of Excellence in Cities announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 23 March, there are likely to be further small education action zones established next year.

  Community Action Programme (Discrimination)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the Community Action Programme to Combat Discrimination 2000–06. [115621]

  Ms Hodge
  The Government fully support the principle of an Action Programme to complement legislative proposals under Article 13 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which TECs(a) have and (b) have not published audited accounts for the years 1997–98 and 1998–99. [116306]

  Mr. Wicks
  My Department holds copies of the audited statutory accounts for all 72 TECs in England for these years. Copies have also been placed in the House of Commons Library.
  74W
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will break down the numbers of people whose level of Access to Work support last year fell into the bands(a) £0 to £1,000, (b) £1,000 to £5,000, (c) £5,001 to £10,000 and (d) more than £10,000. [115519]

  Ms Hodge
  The Employment Service does not collect information on Access to Work in the form requested. Access to Work has no upper or lower limit for support and applications fall within all the bands listed, including more than £10,000.

  In 1998–99, £19.5 million was spent helping 16,000 disabled people in employment. The average cost of support was £1,200.

  The following table gives a breakdown of the spend and numbers helped through the various elements of Access to Work during 1998–99:

  Rover
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to secure continuity for apprentices at Rover. [116295]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 27 March 2000]: Through our contractual arrangements with Birmingham and Solihull Training and Enterprise Council, work is already well underway to ensure that the training programmes of apprentices at Rover continue with minimum disruption.

  As an interim measure, where necessary, apprentices will continue full time training at local Colleges of Further Education while alternative employer placements are found.

  The TEC has a wide network of training suppliers and employers in the area and is confident that alternative placements can be found quickly for all apprentices who may be affected.

  Schools Access Initiative
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make grant allocations available to debt-free local education authorities in fulfilment of his Department's obligations under the Schools Access Initiative 2000–01. [116495]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Schools Access Initiative (SAI) is part of the overall schools capital programme and so support is delivered through the usual capital mechanisms, which for local education authorities is by way of credit approvals. It is not possible to introduce a different funding arrangement for the SAI or to make an exception for an individual authority.

  Class Sizes (Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average class sizes were in Essex(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools on (i) 1 May 1997 and (ii) the latest date for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures for the Mid-Essex area. [116028]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 27 March 2000]: The information is not available in the form requested. The available information on average class size in maintained primary and secondary schools for January and September is shown in the tables.

  The latest class size count was carried out in September for infant classes and found further reductions in the percentage of pupils in infant classes of over 30 in the local education authority areas of Essex, Thurrock and Southend-on-Sea. Between September 1998 and September 1999, the percentage of pupils in classes of 31 or more fell from 20 per cent. to 13 per cent. in Essex, 21 per cent. to 10 per cent. in Southend-on-Sea and from 15 per cent. to 11 per cent. in Thurrock. Information for September 1998 and September 1999 was published in separate Statistical First Releases entitled "Infant Class Sizes in England" on 4 March 1999 (99/99) and 21 January (2/2000), respectively. Copies of both releases are available in the Library.

  The class size count for January 2000 is currently being undertaken and provisional national estimates are expected to be published in a Statistical First Release in April.

  Average size of classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary and secondary schools in Essex, Southend-on-Sea, Thurrock and England: 1997–99

  Position as at January

  1999

  1998

  1997

  Essex1

  Primary

  3—

  27.6

  27.3

  Secondary

  3—

  21.7

  21.7

  Essex2

  Primary

  27.7

  3—

  3—

  Secondary

  21.6

  3—

  3—

  Southend-on-Sea2

  Primary

  28.4

  3—

  3—

  Secondary

  20.9

  3—

  3—

  Thurrock2

  Primary

  27.5

  3—

  3—

  Secondary

  23.7

  3—

  3—

  England

  Primary

  27.4

  27.7

  27.5

  Secondary

  21.9

  21.7

  21.7

  1 Before local government re-organisation in April 1998

  2 After local government re-organisation in April 1998

  3 Not applicable

  Average size of infant classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in Essex, Southend-on-Sea, Thurrock and England: 1998–99

  Position as at September

  1999

  1998

  Essex

  24.7

  25.2

  Southend-on-Sea

  26.1

  25.8

  Thurrock

  24.1

  24.9

  England

  24.9

  25.7

CABINET OFFICE

  Lord Levy
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office on which dates Lord Levy has had meetings with(a) Ministers and (b) senior officials in her Department since 1 May 1997, giving in each case the purpose of the meetings; and if she will make a statement. [113500]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Records of meetings with officials are not held centrally but, to the best of my knowledge, no Minister or senior official in the Cabinet Office has met Lord Levy since 1 May 1997 in his capacity as the Prime Minister's personal envoy delivering messages in the Middle East.

  Better Government for Older People
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if the Inter-Ministerial Group for Older People has met the Advisory Group of the Better Government for Older People Programme. [115753]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who chairs the Inter-Ministerial Group on Older People, is meeting representatives of the Programme's Older People's Advisory Group on 27 March.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office on how many occasions since 2 May 1997 news releases were distributed by the Central Office of Information by courier to(a) national, (b) regional and (c) local newspapers and media organisations; and what was the total cost of using couriers for each of the above categories. [115638]

  Mr. Stringer
  There were no occasions on which couriers were used to distribute news releases from my Department. No cost was involved.

  Diversity Strategy and Equal Opportunities
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if an appointment has been made to the post of Senior Adviser on Diversity Strategy and Equal Opportunities. [116825]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I have today announced the appointment of Mr. Museji Ahmed Takolia to the position of Senior Adviser on Diversity Strategy and Equal Opportunities. Mr. Takolia will take up this important and vital new role within Government on 10 April 2000.

  Mr. Takolia's role will be key to driving forward the Government's commitment to build a civil service which reflects the diversity of the society which it serves. His responsibility will include driving forward our efforts to increase the diversity of the civil service and to tackle the under-representation of ethnic minorities, particularly at senior levels. He will also be tasked with achieving early progress to demonstrate that faster change is possible, and to increase the level of appointments and secondments at senior levels from under-represented groups.
  77W
  Mr. Takolia will advise us on the whole of our diversity programme across government and will have the full backing of myself and my ministerial colleagues in order to achieve his objectives.

  Family Policy
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the family policy responsibilities of each Government Department. [115748]

  Mr. Straw
  I have been asked to reply.

  The family policy responsibilities of each Government Department are as follows:

  The Home Office hosts the Family Policy Unit, set up in April 1999 to support the Ministerial Group on the Family and to co-ordinate family policy across Government. The Home Office funds ParentLine and joint-funds the National Family and Parenting Institute (with other Departments) and runs a Family Support Grant for the voluntary sector. The Home Office is also responsible for the law on marriage, and for policy on race equality, active communities, youth offending, and the criminal law on domestic violence.

  The Department of Health has responsibility for children's social and health services. The Department funds a range of voluntary organisations concerned with children's welfare, and leads on the Quality Protects programme, improving the management of children's social services. The Department also has policy responsibility for child protection, adoption and fostering, support for children in need and their families, teenage pregnancy, and the contribution of health professionals to family support.

  The Department for Education and Employment is responsible for Early Years services, the National Childcare Strategy, the new ConneXions Service for teenagers, and hosts the Sure Start Unit. The Department is also responsible for parenting and relationship education in schools, involving parents in education, policy on children with special educational needs and family support based in schools. The Department also supports families through the New Deal programme, and leads on the promotion of work-life balance for employees.

  The Lord Chancellor's Department has responsibility for family law and court proceedings, and for marriage and relationship support. The Department funds family mediation through the legal aid budget and funds the work of marriage and relationship support organisations. The Department has policy responsibility for divorce and information meeting pilots, child abduction, private law

  Possession warrants executed in the county courts of Hampshire and for England and Wales during the period 1990–99

  County court

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Aldershot and Farnham

  251

  416

  428

  316

  555

  347

  211

  183

  247

  166

  Andover

  27

  65

  61

  49

  37

  52

  80

  44

  1—

  1—

  Basingstoke

  136

  237

  193

  219

  70

  117

  98

  115

  181

  205

  Portsmouth

  622

  736

  560

  520

  454

  466

  488

  490

  842

  717

  Southampton

  122

  494

  545

  421

  401

  347

  303

  314

  234

  327

  Winchester

  32

  75

  70

  36

  68

  52

  56

  29

  37

  35

  Hampshire

  1,190

  2,023

  1,857

  1,561

  1,585

  1,381

  1,236

  1,175

  1,541

  1,450

  England and Wales

  41,779

  61,139

  62,439

  51,333

  49,222

  51,096

  48,587

  49,865

  59,701

  71,256

  1 Closed

  78W
  Children Act applications, the division of property on divorce, the civil law on domestic violence, and the development of the new Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service.

  The Cabinet Office houses the Women's Unit, which has responsibility for ensuring that women's interests are mainstreamed in all government policy, including family policy. It also houses the Social Exclusion Unit, which is responsible for developing policies to tackle social exclusion, including in areas such as school exclusions and teenage pregnancy. Finally, the Modernising Public Services Group is responsible for developing more responsive public services (including extended opening hours of services where there is a demand), which will also help families and people with caring responsibilities.

  The Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for parental and maternity leave rights and right to time off work for the needs of dependants.

  The Department of Social Security has policy responsibility for benefits, including Child Benefit and Income Support. The Department is also responsible for child support.

  The Inland Revenue is responsible for tax policy, including the development of the new integrated Child Credit, the Working Families Tax Credit and Childcare Tax Credit.

  The Office for National Statistics is responsible for the civil registration service, including the registration of births, marriages and deaths.

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has responsibility for housing policy, including guidance to Local Authorities, and overall responsibility for regeneration policy.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  House Repossessions (Hampshire)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many house repossessions there were in(a) England, (b) Hampshire and (c) each local authority area in Hampshire, for each year from 1979 to date. [116641]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the table shows the number of warrants of possession executed. The information is available from 1990 onwards and can be provided only on the basis of individual county courts and not by individual local authority.

  Public Trust Office
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will announce future arrangements for the Public Trust Office. [116123]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on 8 February 2000,Official Report, column 132W.

DEFENCE

  Rover Class Tankers
  Mr. DuncanSmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to replace the Royal Fleet Auxiliary's Rover class tankers. [116451]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 27 March 2000]: We are currently considering options on how best to provide the Replenishment At Sea capability currently provided by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary's Rover class tankers, which are due to leave service in 2007.

  Foden Thompson Carmichael MWD
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to fit(a) roll bars or (b) other anti-crash features to the Foden Thompson Carmichael MWD; and if he will make a statement. [116030]

  Dr. Moonie
  The cab of the Foden Thompson Carmichael MWD meets accepted European Safety Standards (ECE 29) set for roof crush, rear crush and front impact. There is no evidence to suggest that it is an unstable vehicle and there are no plans to fit roll bars to it. As I indicated in my earlier response on 7 March 2000,Official Report, column 648W, a modification programme to bring all MK1 vehicles up to full compliance with the Construction and Use Regulations has begun and will include the fitting of an anti-lock braking system (ABS). No other anti-crash features are planned and the vehicle is considered safe in all regards.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 March 2000,Official Report, column 649W, what assessment his Department

  Age 45+

  Age 55+

  Department/Agency

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Average age

  Core—MAFF

  2,501

  36

  772

  11

  39

  Pesticides Safety Directorate

  35

  16

  8

  4

  37

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  46

  38

  19

  16

  42

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  416

  36

  143

  13

  40

  Farming and Rural Conservation Agency

  209

  32

  48

  7

  38

  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science

  196

  38

  69

  14

  40

  Meat Hygiene Service

  509

  34

  165

  11

  41

  Central Science Laboratory

  152

  26

  31

  5

  36

  Fisheries (Minimum Landing Sizes)
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from fishing organisations regarding the impact of the changes to minimum landing sizes for various species of fish; and what assessment he has made of the effect on fish stocks. [116093]
  80W
  has made of evidence sworn by 24684328 Lance Corporal Seers RLC at Kupres, Bosnia-Herzogovina on 14 January 1998 in respect of the Foden Thompson Carmichael MWD braking system. [116031]

  Dr. Moonie
  The evidence referred to was given to a Board of Inquiry which investigated a fatal road traffic accident in Bosnia in July 1997. In respect of all the evidence considered by the Inquiry on the braking system fitted to the Foden Thompson Carmichael MWD, recommendations were made to review the driver training procedures for the vehicle, and to introduce an additional check in regard to the pawl lever on the Jacob's Brake—the engine brake system which is complementary to the service braking system. The recommendations have been acted upon.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 March 2000,Official Report, column 649W, for what reason the two Foden Thompson Carmichael MWD vehicles were returned to BVD Ashchurch for repair by 6 Transport Squadron during Operation Lodestar in August 1996. [116032]

  Dr. Moonie
  Departmental records show that, in total, three Foden Thompson Carmichael MWD vehicles were returned to the UK for repair in 1996. All three vehicles were returned between January and July 1996 for repair following road traffic accidents while operating in Bosnia. It has not been possible to identify any Foden Thompson Carmichael MWD vehicles being returned to the Base Vehicle Depot (BVD) Ashchurch in August 1996.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Staff Age Profiles
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture,
  Fisheries and Food if he will state(a) the number and
  percentage of staff in his Department who are over the
  age of (i) 45 years and (ii) 55 years and (b) the average
  age of his staff. [115409]

  Mr. Morley
  At the end of 1999 the numbers and percentage of staff aged over 45 years and 55 years and the average age of staff in my Department and its Agencies was as follows:

  Mr. Morley
  Under the revised EU Technical Conservation Regulation which came into effect on 1 January this year, Minimum Landing Sizes for brill, dab, witch, flounder, turbot and lemon sole were ended. Some fishermen's organisations have asked for their restoration. We are currently considering this with the industry in the UK Fisheries Conservation Group.
  81W
  I have made clear that, if the industry so wishes, I would be prepared to reinstate some or all of these Minimum Landing Sizes on a national basis and seek to persuade the EU to restore them.

  It is too early to assess the impact of the changes in the EU rules.

  Waste Incineration Directive
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the potential impact of the Waste Incineration Directive upon farmers; and if he will make a statement. [116248]

  Mr. Morley
  I have received representations about the implications for farmers of this Directive, for which the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has lead responsibility, from the National Farmers Union, the Countryside Alliance and the National Pig Association.

  Harbour Grants
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what harbour grants were granted for each of the last five years broken down by amount and location; when harbour grants were discontinued; and how many schemes were pending at that juncture. [116108]

  Mr. Morley
  The table shows awards of national harbour grant made in England over the last five financial years.

  The Harbour Grant Scheme was closed to new applications in England on 21 May 1999. At the time the scheme closed, there were 10 projects which had been formally approved, plus a further 22 projects where applications had been submitted. All these projects are being considered for payment of grant.

  National Harbour Grant Scheme

  Amount of grant awarded by year and location1

  Location

  £

  1994–95

  Appledore

  50,000

  Bridlington

  7,900

  Broadstairs

  5,340

  Newlyn

  20,000

  Polperro

  1,550

  Queenborough

  18,000

  Ramsgate

  84,500

  West Mersea

  7,900

  Total for year

  195,190

  1995–96

  Appledore

  2,250

  Cadgwith Cove

  8,300

  Hull

  108,800

  Looe

  28,530

  Mevagissey

  2,300

  Newlyn

  5,500

  North Shields

  172,800

  Scarborough

  256,700

  Scarborough

  22,400

  Scarborough

  49,300

  Wells

  19,500

  Total for year

  676,380

  82W

  National Harbour Grant Scheme

  Amount of grant awarded by year and location1

  Location

  £

  1996–97

  Flamborough

  2,760

  Mevagissey

  9,400

  Mudeford

  2,850

  Padstow

  22,600

  Ramsgate

  4,500

  Sennen Cove

  5,500

  Total for year

  47,610

  1997–98

  Cadgwith Cove

  14,100

  Hartlepool

  470,500

  Illfracombe

  10,150

  Mevagissey

  96,750

  North Shields

  43,000

  Polperro

  35,000

  Rye

  14,000

  Scarborough

  77,000

  Seahouses

  14,600

  Total for year

  755,100

  1998–99

  Amble

  373,000

  Bridlington

  2,250

  Grimsby

  169,200

  Polperro

  2,300

  Sunderland

  122,100

  Total for year

  668,850

  1 Actual payments were not necessarily made in the same year as the award

  Bass Trawling
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the results of the recent consultation on bass trawling regulations in respect of(a) the number, (b) the percentage of respondents (i) agreeing and (ii) disagreeing with the proposed regulations (c) the number and (d) the percentage of respondents in favour of (i) partial and (ii) complete closure of the offshore fishery for bass. [115774]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 March 2000]: There were a total of 174 responses to the consultation carried out last autumn about possible restrictions on landing bass from UK commercial vessels. Only 13 respondents (7.5 per cent.) were opposed to the proposals made. A total of 53 respondents (30.5 per cent.) wished to go further than the proposals and called for a complete closure of the fishery. The number of responses calling for a partial closure was not recorded.

  Farmers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to make assistance for early retirement available to farmers under the provisions of the Rural Development Regulation (EC No. 1750/1999). [116222]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 March 2000]: Neither the England Rural Development Plan nor the Northern Ireland Rural Development Plan include an early retirement scheme for farmers under the provisions of the Rural Development Regulation (EC No 1257/1999). These plans are subject to the approval of the European

  83W
  Commission and to mid-term reviews. Decisions on which measures to use were taken in the light of extensive consultation and an economic appraisal.

  Implementation of the Rural Development Regulation in Scotland and Wales is a matter for the devolved administrations.

  Agricultural Land Values
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of recent trends in the value of agricultural land. [115949]

  Ms Quin
  The most comprehensive information on the sales of agricultural land is collected by the Valuation Office Agency and is analysed and published by MAFF. The table shows the average price of all agricultural land sold in England from 1993 to 1998.

  Average sale

  Price £/ha

  1993

  3,791

  1994

  4,229

  1995

  4,788

  1996

  6,058

  19971

  6,456

  19981

  6,185

  1 Provisional data

  Initial information for sales in the first two quarters of 1999 indicate a slight increase in price compared with the same period in the previous year.

  Similar data for Wales are published by the National Assembly for Wales.

  Food Standards Agency
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his Department's future relations with consumers' organisations following the establishment of the Food Standards Agency.[116826]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Ministry already has well-developed relations with consumers and their representative organisations which we intend to build on, following separation of the Food Standards Agency on 1 April.

  The consumer interest in food safety will become the principal responsibility of the Food Standards Agency. The Ministry's aim already states clearly the central role which consumer benefit plays in our work. This will not change, but the Ministry's first Objective will be amended (the word "food" in the former Objective will be replaced by the words "farm produce") to become:
  To protect public health in relation to farm produce and to animal diseases transmissible to humans.

  The Ministry will retain all its other objectives unchanged as set out in the Departmental Report.

  I want to strengthen the Ministry's links with consumer organisations. I have given my noble Friend Baroness Hayman specific responsibility for MAFF's relationship with consumers. She and I intend to meet representatives of the main consumer organisations as soon as possible after the establishment of the Food Standards Agency.
  84W
  Our goal is to ensure that consumer concerns are fully reflected in decision making across the Ministry's responsibilities.

  We will also be looking to change existing arrangements, which no longer serve to deliver real benefits to consumers. The Consumer's Committee for Great Britain was established under the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958. Despite its name, the Committee's statutory responsibilities relate only to the interests of consumers in the operation of marketing schemes made under the Act. As a result of changes over the years, only one such scheme now remains, covering wool, and this scheme does not have any direct impact on consumers. We are considering, along with the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly, whether the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 should be amended. In the meantime, I intend to leave the Committee in abeyance and not re-appoint members.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Passports
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to reduce the number of passports lost by his Department when returning them to their owners; and if he will introduce guidance to ensure they are returned using a registered delivery postal service. [115331]

  Mrs. Roche
  We believe that the most important factor in reducing the numbers of lost passports is the rapid turnaround of casework and the elimination of backlogs. Over 70 per cent. of all after entry casework is now completed within two weeks and we expect the backlog to be eliminated by the summer. In addition, we are examining our processes with a view to improving the security of passports. We are also examining the costs that would be associated with returning passports by recorded delivery.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the estimated number of illegal immigrants who entered the United Kingdom by hiding in motor vehicles during 1999.[115596]

  Mrs. Roche
  Information is recorded centrally on the numbers of persons issued with notice of illegal entry as clandestine entrants. This information is collated by the date of issue of notice of illegal entry and does not contain details of the date of entry to the United Kingdom. We have no estimate of the number of persons entering clandestinely whose illegal entry has not yet come to light or of those who claim to have entered illegally, but where a notice of illegal entry has not yet been served. For these reasons, I am unable to provide the information requested.

  Provisional information indicates that around 16,500 persons were issued with notice of illegal entry as clandestine illegal entrants during 1999.

  Budget Expenditure
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of the £100 million
  85W
  for modernising policing across the UK referred to in paragraph 5.75 of Budget 2000 (HC 346) will be spent on DNA technology; if this funding is in addition to the £34 million for the DNA database announced in Home Office Press Release 299/99; how the money will be spent; and if he will make a statement; [116256]

  (2) what proportion of the £100 million for modernising policing across the UK referred to in paragraph 5.75 of Budget 2000 (HC 346) will be spent on accelerating recruitment under the Crime Fighting Fund; by how much recruitment will be accelerated; whether this funding is in addition to the funding for 5,000 additional recruits announced in Home Office Press Release 304/99; if this funding means that more than 5,000 recruits will be recruited over the next three years using money from the Crime Fighting Fund; and if he will make a statement; [116258]

  (3) if he will list the capital modernisation projects that have been approved for criminal justice agencies, referred to in Paragraph 5.75 of Budget 2000 (HC 346); [116260]

  (4) how the £100 million for modernising policing across the UK referred to in paragraph 5.75 of Budget 2000 (HC 346) is to be spent; and if he will make a statement; [116255]

  (5) what proportion of the £100 million for modernising policing across the UK referred to in paragraph 5.75 of Budget 2000 (HC 346) will be spent on police radios; whether this funding is in addition to the £50 million of central funding announced for the Public Safety Radio Communications Project in Home Office Press Release 3033/99; and if he will make a statement.[116257]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answers 24 March 2000]: I refer the right hon. Member to the replies I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on 27 March 2000, Official Report, columns 1-3W.

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders released under the Home Detention Curfew scheme to date were convicted of each category of drug offence. [116661]

  Mr. Boateng
  Of those prisoners released up to 14 March 2000 under the Home Detention Curfew scheme, 2,931 were convicted of drugs related offences. The numbers of prisoners convicted of each type of drugs offence are shown in the table.

  Number

  Production

  103

  Supply

  969

  Possession with intent

  1,238

  Possession

  396

  Unlawful import/export

  190

  Other drugs

  35

  Total drugs

  2,931

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders released on the Home Detention Curfew scheme have subsequently been(a) charged with and (b) convicted of further offences after completing the scheme; how many such
  86W
  offenders were charged with or convicted of an offence similar in character to the one for which they were originally convicted prior to their release through the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [116533]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information about offences committed by offenders who have completed a period on the Home Detention Curfew scheme is not held centrally.

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those prisons which he has assessed as being free from the use of illegal drugs. [115944]

  Mr. Boateng
  Figures from the random mandatory drug testing programme provide the best available measure of the levels of drug misuse across establishments, and over time. The table lists the establishments which have consistently produced rates of positive random drug tests of less than 5 per cent, during the last two years:

  Prisons producing rates of positive random drug tests of less than 5 per cent, during the last two years

  Establishments:

  Albany

  Blantyre House

  Down view

  East Sutton Park

  Haslar

  Parkhurst

  Rochester

  Wakefield

  Werrington

  Whatton

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have been identified as heroin users as a result of random drug testing in each of the last five years. [115947]

  Mr. Boateng
  The table shows the number of samples which have tested positive for opiates under the random mandatory drug testing programme in each of the last four years during which the programme has been running nationally.

  Year

  Number of samples testing positive for opiates

  1996–97

  3,096

  1997–98

  2,720

  1998–99

  2,860

  1999–20001

  1,831

  1 Year to date figure for April—December 1999

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which retailers have agreed to take part in the asylum seeker support voucher scheme administered by Sodexho Pass. [116590]

  Mrs. Roche
  A number of the large retail chains have agreed to take part in the asylum seeker support voucher scheme. A considerable number of smaller retailers have
  87W
  also agreed to take part in the scheme. As of 27 March, 4,411 retailers incorporating 10,789 outlets have been signed up to the Sodexho Voucher Scheme.

  Contractual negotiations are continuing with other retail chains and it would be inappropriate to release any of the names of the chains involved.

  Global Cultural Diversity Congress
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what adjustments he plans to make to his forecast of income and expenditure of the Commission for Racial Equality, published on page 113 of the Executive NDPBs 1999 report (Cm. 4657) to take account of the losses incurred following the collapse of the Global Cultural Diversity Congress. [116526]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None.

  The forecast of income and expenditure published on page 113 of the Executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies 1999 Report was made by the Commission for Racial Equality.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the total cost to public funds of the Global Cultural Diversity Congress. [116585]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None. Until we have the report of the findings of the liquidator it is not possible to make any meaningful estimate of total costs.

  Bonds
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to visitors from which countries he intends to apply his proposed pilot scheme for bonds. [116524]

  Mrs. Roche
  No decision has been made yet on where to run the pilot scheme. However, as the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), announced on 20 March 2000,Official Report, columns 833-36, it will not operate in any of the countries in the Indian Subcontinent.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review

  Police strength in England and Wales—total strength for ordinary duty as at 30 September 1999

  All ranks1

  Police force

  Chief Constable

  Assistant Chief

  Superintendent

  Chief Inspector

  Inspector

  Sergeant

  Constable

  Total police ranks1

  Avon and Somerset

  1.0

  3.0

  23.0

  36.0

  147.6

  452.4

  2,325.7

  2,988.7

  Bedfordshire

  1.0

  2.0

  13.0

  10.0

  54.8

  141.5

  826.1

  1,048.4

  Cambridgeshire

  1.0

  2.0

  14.0

  13.0

  61.3

  203.5

  977.4

  1,272.2

  Cheshire

  1.0

  3.0

  19.0

  30.0

  98.0

  328.0

  1,564.6

  2,043.6

  City of London

  1.0

  2.0

  8.0

  12.0

  46.0

  100.8

  574.8

  744.6

  Cleveland

  1.0

  1.0

  24.0

  2.0

  60.0

  196.0

  1,088.6

  1,372.6

  Cumbria

  1.0

  2.0

  10.0

  19.0

  51.0

  170.0

  839.9

  1,092.9

  Derbyshire

  1.0

  3.0

  23.0

  28.0

  94.0

  289.0

  1,325.6

  1,763.6

  Devon and Cornwall

  1.0

  4.0

  33.0

  45.0

  133.0

  422.8

  2,222.3

  2,861.1

  Dorset

  1.0

  2.0

  17.0

  22.0

  66.0

  204.1

  964.1

  1,276.1

  88W
  the arrangements for the financial accountability of non-departmental public bodies linked to his Department. [116529]

  Mr. Straw
  I have no plans for such a review. Responsibility for reviewing the arrangements for the financial accountability of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) lies with Her Majesty's Treasury and the Cabinet Office. Each Home Office NDPB has an Accounting Officer who is responsible to the Home Office Departmental Accounting Officer, and operates in accordance with a financial memorandum agreed by the Department.

  Sex Offender Orders
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sex offender orders under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 have been made. [116525]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on the number of Sex Offender Orders made is currently not held centrally, although we are working on a system to ensure that we receive this information on a regular basis.

  We are aware of at least 20 sex offender orders having been granted.

  Immigration Applications
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the current average processing time is for immigration applications requesting leave to remain indefinitely. [116580]

  Mrs. Roche
  The time taken to process an application for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom is affected by a number of factors, including the complexity of individual cases. Over 70 per cent, of all after-entry casework, which includes applications for indefinite leave to remain, is now completed within two weeks of receipt. Applications where further inquiries are needed may take considerably longer. However, streamlined procedures have been introduced throughout the Integrated Casework Directorate to speed up the consideration of all applications, and these processes are regularly reviewed.

  Police Statistics
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the police officers available for ordinary duty on 30 September 1999, broken down by rank, for each police force in England and Wales. [116530]

  Mr. Straw
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  89W

  Police strength in England and Wales—total strength for ordinary duty as at 30 September 1999

  All ranks1

  Police force

  Chief Constable

  Assistant Chief

  Superintendent

  Chief Inspector

  Inspector

  Sergeant

  Constable

  Total police ranks1

  Durham

  1.0

  2.0

  18.0

  24.0

  77.0

  208.7

  1,224.0

  1,554.6

  Dyfed Powys

  1.0

  2.0

  15.0

  18.0

  46.0

  179.0

  787.6

  1,048.6

  Essex

  1.0

  3.0

  24.0

  46.0

  124.0

  446.4

  2,190.3

  2,834.7

  Gloucestershire

  1.0

  2.0

  10.0

  15.0

  55.0

  162.2

  852.8

  1,098.0

  Greater Manchester

  1.0

  6.0

  79.0

  89.0

  337.3

  999.6

  5,298.4

  6,810.3

  Gwent

  0.0

  0.0

  14.0

  16.0

  54.0

  200.0

  977.3

  1,261.3

  Hampshire

  1.0

  3.0

  39.4

  36.0

  164.8

  531.4

  2,635.2

  3,410.8

  Hertfordshire

  1.0

  3.0

  20.0

  23.0

  96.0

  259.3

  1,357.7

  1,760.0

  Humberside

  1.0

  2.0

  20.0

  26.0

  103.0

  279.6

  1,494.6

  1,926.2

  Kent

  1.0

  4.0

  26.0

  38.0

  142.0

  473.4

  2,572.3

  3,256.7

  Lancashire

  1.0

  3.0

  34.0

  36.0

  164.0

  519.1

  2,464.4

  3,221.4

  Leicestershire

  1.0

  3.0

  16.0

  19.0

  95.0

  271.4

  1,592.1

  1,997.5

  Lincolnshire

  1.0

  2.0

  11.0

  17.0

  65.0

  185.5

  829.3

  1,110.8

  Merseyside

  1.0

  3.0

  50.0

  55.0

  176.0

  615.8

  3,170.1

  4,070.8

  Metropolitan Police

  7.0

  29.0

  214.0

  388.6

  1,208.5

  4,050.9

  19,986.5

  25,884.5

  Norfolk

  1.0

  2.0

  17.0

  22.0

  73.0

  203.4

  1,063.2

  1,381.5

  Northamptonshire

  1.0

  2.0

  12.0

  10.0

  50.6

  174.1

  880.3

  1,130.0

  Northumbria

  1.0

  4.0

  36.0

  56.0

  183.8

  532.9

  2,986.4

  3,800.1

  North Wales

  1.0

  1.0

  16.0

  29.0

  71.0

  232.0

  1,049.0

  1,399.0

  North Yorkshire

  1.0

  1.0

  12.0

  12.0

  53.0

  215.5

  999.2

  1,293.7

  Nottinghamshire

  1.0

  3.0

  21.0

  19.6

  117.0

  328.0

  1,737.4

  2,227.0

  South Wales

  1.0

  4.0

  30.0

  36.0

  159.0

  442.0

  2,311.0

  2,983.0

  South Yorkshire

  1.0

  4.0

  38.0

  46.0

  168.0

  485.8

  2,422.2

  3,165.0

  Staffordshire

  1.0

  3.0

  21.0

  27.0

  112.0

  337.7

  1,704.3

  2,206.0

  Suffolk

  1.0

  2.0

  13.0

  15.0

  55.0

  171.4

  902.6

  1,160.0

  Surrey

  1.0

  3.0

  16.0

  19.0

  76.5

  261.8

  1,343.9

  1,721.1

  Sussex

  1.0

  4.0

  27.0

  38.0

  152.4

  466.0

  2,221.0

  2,909.3

  Thames Valley

  1.0

  3.0

  43.0

  28.0

  194.0

  565.4

  2,915.2

  3,749.5

  Warwickshire

  1.0

  1.0

  10.0

  8.0

  47.0

  124.5

  724.2

  915.7

  West Mercia

  1.0

  3.0

  18.0

  30.0

  99.0

  299.7

  1,528.7

  1,979.4

  West Midlands

  1.0

  4.0

  59.0

  46.0

  307.0

  987.4

  5,892.0

  7,296.4

  West Yorkshire

  1.0

  4.0

  45.0

  75.0

  238.0

  669.4

  3,840.6

  4,873.0

  Wiltshire

  1.0

  2.0

  14.0

  18.0

  62.0

  177.9

  875.3

  1,150.2

  Total all forces

  48.0

  141.0

  1,222.4

  1,598.2

  5,937.5

  18,564.8

  95,537.9

  123,049.7

  1 Full-time equivalents

  Note:

  In addition 2,414 officers were on secondment to NCS, NCIS and central services, making 125,464 as the total officer strength at 30 September 1999

  Rolling Electoral Register
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to implement the rolling electoral register under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 2000; if he will publish regulations relating to the rolling register in draft form; and if he will make a statement. [116657]

  Mr. Straw
  My intention is to bring regulations providing for rolling electoral registration into force with effect from 16 February 2001 (when the next electoral register will take effect). I hope that it will be possible to publish the regulations in draft form.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide funding for a research programme to find a less potentially lethal alternative to plastic baton rounds. [107812]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government have accepted Recommendation 69 of the Report of the Independent Commission on Policing, that a research programme to 90W
  find a less potentially lethal alternative to plastic baton rounds should be established. The issue is at present being actively considered and a decision on the way forward is expected in the near future.

  Police Officers (Oath)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what statutory provisions prohibit serving police officers swearing a new oath. [110957]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is no statutory prohibition on police officers swearing new oaths voluntarily. However, to take a new police declaration the attestation which they have already made would have to be set aside by statute.

  Education and Library Boards (Discretionary Awards)
  Mr.Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the expenditure was on discretionary awards by each Education and Library Board in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [114650]

  Mr. Ingram
  Discretionary awards expenditure by Education and Library Board in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years was as follows.
  91W

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–20001

  Total

  BELB

  1,006

  718

  558

  2,282

  WELB

  1,382

  778

  676

  2,836

  NEELB

  1,215

  930

  538

  2,683

  SELB

  1,585

  1,113

  600

  3,298

  SEELB

  1,014

  575

  280

  1,869

  Total

  6,202

  4,114

  2,652

  12,968

  1 Provisional figures

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Charter for Higher Education for Northern Ireland will be published; and if he will make a statement. [114666]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment has no plans to publish a Higher Education Charter for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans the Department of Education for Northern Ireland has to promote sporting provision and facilities in the further education sector; and if he will make a statement. [114653]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment has worked with the Further Education Sector to develop guidelines for colleges on a number of health related issues, including physical activities. Further, it has undertaken a mapping exercise on the provision and use of physical education and sports facilities, as part of the Northern Ireland Physical Activity Strategy Action Plan 1999–2002, and as a result has written to the colleges encouraging them to make increased use of such facilities.

  The Department has also recently nominated a representative to the Northern Ireland Physical Activity Implementation Group (NIPAIG) which will oversee the implementation of the NI Physical Activity Strategy. One of the key activities of the groups is to consider ways in which Further Education and Higher Education students' participation in fitness and sporting activities can be enhanced and how the time allocated to higher education based teacher training in Physical Education might be increased.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications have been made by students from Northern Ireland during the current year to UCAS and CAO/CAS; and if he will make a statement. [114659]

  Mr. Ingram
  For entry in 2000, there were 13,539 NI applicants to Higher Education courses through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) and 1,242 through the Central Applications Office at their respective closing dates for applications. The closing date for applications to UCAS was 15 December 1999 and 1 February 2000 for applications to CAO. Both UCAS and CAO expect further applications after the closing date.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the breakdown is by(a) gender, (b) age and (c) religious background of student enrolments in each
  92W
  further and higher education institution in Northern Ireland for each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [114676]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications were made by students from Northern Ireland during each of the last three years to UCAS and CAO/CAS; and if he will make a statement. [114660]

  Mr. Ingram
  NI applicants to Higher Education courses through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) and the Central Applicants Office (CAO) are as follows:

  UCAS applicants

  CAO applicants

  1998

  15,515

  1,348

  1999

  15,067

  1,437

  2000

  13,539

  1,242

  Note:

  Figures for 2000 are at the respective closing dates for applications (15 December for UCAS and 1 February for CAO) and do not include late applications.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the student dropout rates were for each further and higher education college in Northern Ireland in each of the past three years; and if he will make a statement. [114678]

  Mr. Ingram
  This Department does not calculate drop out rates for Higher Education institutions. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has calculated projected non-completion rates for full-time students starting first degree courses in Higher Education institutions in the UK. Currently, values are available for 1996–97 only. The values for the Queen's University of Belfast are 10 per cent., and for the University of Ulster are 17 per cent. It should be noted that differences between institutions, such as subject mix or the qualifications on entry of their students make comparisons between institutions unreliable. For this reason HEFCE has produced benchmarks against which an institution's value can be compared. The benchmarks for the Queen's University of Belfast and the University of Ulster are 12 per cent, and 18 per cent, respectively. The methodology used to calculate values and benchmarks is contained in the HEFCE publication "Performance indicators in higher education 1996–97, 1997–98".

  Student dropout rates for each further Education College are not available.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research his Department has commissioned or evaluated on gender differences in the participation of Protestants from a manual work background in post-school education in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [114658]

  Mr. Ingram
  This Department has not commissioned or evaluated any research which has looked specifically at gender differences in the participation of Protestants from a manual work background in post-school education in Northern Ireland.
  93W
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Government's current policy on promoting community relations programmes in post-school education in Northern Ireland. [114655]

  Mr. Ingrain
  The Department fully recognises the importance of promoting community relations programmes in post-school education.

  The Department is setting up a working group together with representatives from the further education sector and the National Union of Students/Unions of Students in Ireland (NUS/USI), to consider how cultural diversity can best be recognised and promoted.

  The Northern Ireland Universities have affirmed their commitment to promoting a pluralist environment which celebrates diversity across their campuses. They are working closely with the Student Unions in support of their programme for promoting community relations among students.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the PAFT analysis carried out by the Department of Education for Northern Ireland regarding recent changes to student financial support arrangements. [114664]

  Mr. Ingram
  The PAFT analysis of the student support arrangements introduced from the 1998–99 academic year recognised that the changes would have beneficial effects for some groups of students, but might also have the potential to act as a disincentive for others entering higher education. It concluded that, in general terms, the policy of maintaining parity in student support matters with England and Wales has been, over the long term, to the advantage of Northern Ireland students and that, in value for money terms, it represented an effective use of resources.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the expenditure was on promoting community relations work in each further and higher education college in Northern Ireland in each of the past three years; and if he will make a statement. [114677]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Department does not hold these details.

  £

  Academic year

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Allocation

  Expenditure

  Allocation

  Expenditure

  Allocation

  Expenditure

  Armagh

  7,618

  7,720

  16,033

  15,931

  14,046

  1—

  BIFHE

  94,612

  94,503

  180,076

  104,220

  302,739

  1—

  Castlereagh

  7.612

  7,612

  14,779

  14,779

  28,047

  1—

  Causeway

  10,927

  10,927

  33,913

  19,040

  42,923

  1—

  East Antrim

  19,763

  21,097

  38,048

  28,500

  54,998

  1—

  East Down

  14,188

  14,196

  28,945

  26,196

  42,735

  1—

  East Tyrone

  17,830

  18,370

  30,704

  26,071

  36,986

  1—

  Fermanagh

  12,990

  12,920

  38,410

  34,927

  51,878

  1—

  Limavady

  3,236

  3,236

  32,293

  32,293

  37,541

  1—

  Lisburn

  8,958

  8,958

  14,231

  14,230

  30,371

  1—

  94W
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the(a) number of and (b) expenditure on postgraduate awards in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement, [114652]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of, and expenditure on, postgraduate awards in each of the last three years are as follows:

  Financial year

  Number of awards

  Expenditure (£000)

  1997–98

  575

  4,565

  1998–99

  536

  4,253

  1999–2000

  434

  3,903

  These figures exclude a small number of postgraduate awards made by the Education and Library Boards under the Department of Higher and Further Education Discretionary Awards arrangements. The collation of such information would involve disproportionate costs.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans the Government have to make UCAS collect data relating to the religious background of applicants from Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [114654]

  Mr. Ingram
  My Department has written to the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) asking it to include a question about community background on UCAS application forms completed by Northern Ireland-domiciled students. The request is under consideration and a conclusion may not be reached for some months. Pending the outcome I should say there is no question of my Department forcing UCAS to include a question on community background. Such a question would in any event be subject to voluntary response by the student applicant.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate his Department has made of the cost of restoring maintenance grants for students in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [114662]

  Mr. Ingram
  If maintenance grants for Northern Ireland-domiciled students were to be restored, the costs could be in the region of £40 million in a full year.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the access fund allocation and take-up rate was for each institution of further and higher education in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [114657]

  Mr. Ingram
  Access Funds allocation and take-up rates for the last three years are:
  95W

  £

  Academic year

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Allocation

  Expenditure

  Allocation

  Expenditure

  Allocation

  Expenditure

  Newry

  44,212

  43,480

  53,168

  48,444

  70,229

  1—

  NIHCC

  3,265

  2,771

  47,071

  29,381

  44,815

  1—

  North Down

  33,202

  33,202

  68,075

  60,639

  89,571

  1—

  North East

  40,522

  42,997

  67,303

  54,521

  74,053

  1—

  North West

  31,142

  33,235

  102,440

  95,961

  118,265

  1—

  Omagh

  12,595

  12,595

  18,902

  18,902

  28,507

  1—

  Upper Bann

  28,264

  26,066

  32,920

  26,015

  60,296

  1—

  Total

  390,936

  393,885

  817,311

  650,050

  1,128,000

  1—

  1 Expenditure details not yet available

  Note:

  Funding has been substantially increased over this period and is evidence of Government's commitment to implementing their Lifelong Learning Policy

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate his Department has made of the cost of abolishing the system of student tuition fees in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [114661]

  Mr. Ingram
  If the contribution towards the cost of tuition fees was to be abolished, the cost would be in the region of £15.5 million in a full year.

  Enrolments at NI higher education institutions 1996–97 to 1998–99

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  The Queen's University of Belfast

  11,763

  6,794

  18,557

  13,750

  6,712

  20,462

  13,575

  7,446

  21,021

  University of Ulster

  13,131

  5,698

  18,829

  13,617

  6,541

  20,158

  13,464

  6,015

  19,479

  St. Mary's University College

  601

  19

  620

  590

  22

  612

  609

  29

  638

  Stranmillis University College

  594

  65

  659

  578

  70

  648

  668

  282

  950

  Total

  25,989

  12,576

  38,665

  28,535

  13,345

  41,880

  28,316

  13,772

  42,088

  Enrolments on vocational courses at NI further education colleges/institutes, by mode of attendance, 1996–97 to 1998–99

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  College/Institute

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  Armagh

  1,287

  605

  1,892

  1,374

  591

  1,965

  1,295

  613

  1,908

  BIFHE

  4,680

  17,462

  22,142

  4,407

  17,456

  21,863

  4,030

  18,336

  22,366

  Castlereagh

  777

  2,552

  3,329

  851

  2,463

  3,314

  767

  2,487

  3,254

  Causeway

  1,211

  2,143

  3,354

  1,065

  1,958

  3,023

  1,070

  1,834

  2,904

  East Antrim

  1,127

  3,763

  4,890

  1,152

  3,923

  5,075

  1,069

  3,769

  4,838

  East Down

  1,227

  2,879

  4,106

  1,227

  2,523

  3,750

  1,154

  2,722

  3,876

  East Tyrone

  863

  1,817

  2,680

  868

  1,978

  2,849

  828

  1,879

  2,707

  Fermanagh

  1,076

  1,790

  2,866

  1,060

  2,060

  3,120

  948

  2,318

  3,266

  Limavady

  839

  1,046

  1,885

  821

  1,116

  1,937

  934

  1,374

  2,308

  Lisburn

  1,103

  2,562

  3,665

  1,108

  2,333

  3,441

  1,097

  2,417

  3,514

  North Down and Ards

  1,878

  4,183

  6,061

  1,973

  4,409

  6,382

  2,049

  4,580

  6,629

  North East

  2,098

  4,227

  6,325

  2,181

  3,790

  5,971

  2,107

  3,915

  6,022

  Newry and Kilkeel

  1,858

  3,241

  5,099

  1,820

  3,682

  5,502

  1,774

  3,831

  5,605

  NIHCC

  378

  162

  540

  422

  226

  648

  395

  158

  553

  North West

  2,496

  5,442

  7,938

  2,474

  6,247

  8,721

  2,358

  6,212

  8,570

  Omagh

  918

  1,822

  2,740

  917

  1,977

  2,894

  778

  1,715

  2,493

  Upper Bann

  1,217

  4,373

  5,590

  1,248

  3,969

  5,217

  1,201

  4,286

  5,487

  Total

  25,033

  60,069

  85,102

  24,968

  60,701

  85,669

  23,854

  62,446

  86,300

  Note:

  Figures represent snapshots of enrolments at 1 November each academic year

  Prisoners (Parole)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial grant was made available to prisoners who were subject to release under the early release scheme when they were granted parole over Christmas and the New Year. [115378]
  96W
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many student enrolments there were on a full-time and part-time basis for each further and higher education establishment in Northern Ireland over the past three years; and if he will make a statement. [114675]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is contained in the tables.

  Mr. Ingram
  Each prisoner was paid a home leave allowance of £3 per day for every day he was on home leave. He also received a £1 subsistence allowance irrespective of the number of days out on home leave.

  All prisoners granted Christmas Home Leave received the same financial allowances.

  Cross-border Implementation Bodies
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the remuneration and expenses due to board members of the cross-border implementation bodies continue to be paid since the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly on 11 February; and which members of the boards of the cross-border implementation bodies have declined to accept (i) remuneration and (ii) expenses since the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly on 11 February. [115336]

  Mr. Mandelson
  None of the members of the boards of the North/South Implementation Bodies has yet been paid any of the remuneration due to them since the bodies were established on 2 December 1999.

  Since the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly, only members of the Board of the North/South Language Body have received reimbursement of expenses. These were in respect of a meeting that took place prior to suspension.

  No members of the Boards have declined to accept remuneration or expenses since the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  RUC (Compensation Claims)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 14 March 2000,Official Report, column 124W, on RUC (Compensation Claims), what procedures are in operation recording expenses arising from compensation claims against the RUC; and for how long such records have been kept. [115799]

  Mr. Ingram
  From April 1998, following the introduction of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act, details of compensation claims against the Royal Ulster Constabulary are maintained under new claims; claims disposed of; damages paid; Plaintiff's solicitors costs; Crown Solicitors costs and Crown Solicitors outlay.

  It is not possible to quantify other costs/expenses associated with compensation claims as work is carried out by many different branches within the RUC as a part of their overall responsibilities.

  Adult Education
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reason the decision was taken to discontinue funding awards for students from Northern Ireland to undertake courses at residential institutions for adult education in Great Britain from the beginning of the 1999–2000 academic year; and if he will make a statement. [115911]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Comprehensive Spending Review, which set public expenditure priorities for Government Departments in 1999–2000 and beyond, provided additional funding in education to develop Government policy of Lifelong Learning in a number of directions such as:

  Increasing places in further and higher education;

  establishing the University for Industry and Individual Learning Accounts in Northern Ireland, and

  putting in place actions to address significant problems of adult literacy and numeracy.

  98W
  Inevitably, however, reductions had to be made in a number of student support programmes to allow priorities to be clearly targeted and, as a consequence, some difficult decisions had to be made. Underpinning these decisions was the objective of concentrating available resources on those students awards which support domestic provision and which have the most economic relevance to Northern Ireland, such as research studentships.

  In light of this it was decided not to continue to fund the very small number of awards usually made available to Northern Ireland students wishing to undertake courses at residential institutions for adult education in Great Britain from 1999–2000 academic year.

  Nevertheless, support has been sustained for adult education access courses to higher education in Northern Ireland, both through continuing bursaries available at Magee College, University of Ulster and, more importantly, through funding of higher education access courses provided by the Further Education and Higher Education Colleges in conjunction with the local universities. These provide a very important domestic route to higher education for mature students in Northern Ireland who would otherwise be unable to enter higher education through conventional academic channels.

  Camperdown Garden Village
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many dwellings are proposed in Planning Application No. X/2000/0001/0 for a residential development known as Camperdown Garden Village; what proposals there are for a foul sewage system for this development; how many new primary school places will be required for this development; what proposals there are to improve the existing road system at the site; and if he will make a statement. [116085]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Planning Service under its chief executive, Mr. H. S. Mckay. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from H. S. McKay to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 28 March 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the proposed residential development known as Camperdown Garden Village.
  A planning application received in December 1999 indicated a total of 2500 dwellings at the site.
  There is no suitable foul sewage system to serve the proposed development and if permitted substantial infrastructure will be needed.
  If the development were to be approved, additional education provision for about 665 children of primary school age would be required. A site for a new primary school is indicated on the sketch scheme submitted with the application.
  Vehicular access to the site is via four junctions from existing roads; two are on the Comber Road and two are on the Ballyrainey Road, which is improved and re-aligned. The dedicated bus lane in the old railway line is served by a park and ride facility. The E-Way study, commissioned by the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Co. examines alternative public transport options for re-using the old railway line to Comber.
  The application is currently under consideration and comments are awaited in relation to the application and the environmental statement. Following the receipt and consideration of these comments a decision will be taken on how best to progress the application.
  I do hope you find this helpful.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the EU flight ban against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was suspended. [116741]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer to the written answer given by the Minister for Europe to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) on 14 March 2000,Official Report, column 142W. The EC Regulation required to give effect to Common Position 2000/176/CFSP suspending the flight ban against the FRY was adopted by the Council of the European Union on 20 March 2000. EC Regulation 607/2000 came into force on 22 March and, in addition to suspending EC Regulation 2151/1999 imposing the flight ban until 28 August 2000, permits, in relation to the suspension of the flight ban, specific exemptions from Regulation 1294/1999 concerning a freeze of funds and a ban on investment, and from Regulation 2111/1999 prohibiting the sale and supply of petroleum products to certain parts of the FRY.

  Council of the European Union
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for April together with the major European Union events for the next six months. [116742]

  Mr. Vaz
  The answer is as follows:

  Monthly forecast of EU business: April 2000
  This calendar is primarily concerned with European Union matters, but certain other relevant events are also included. Events and dates quoted are based on the information available on the date of issue.

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  April

  3-4

  Cairo

  EU-Africa Summit

  4

  Brussels

  Intergovernmental Conference (Preparatory Group)

  7-8

  Lisbon

  ECOFIN Council (Informal)

  10-11

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  11

  Luxembourg

  EU/Turkey Association Council

  10-14

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  13

  Luxembourg

  Consumer Affairs Council

  15-16

  Oporto

  Environment Council (Informal)

  17-18

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  May

  2

  Brussels

  Telecommunications Council

  3-4

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  5-7

  San Miguel, Azores

  Informal Meeting of Foreign Ministers

  8

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  8

  Lisbon

  EU/New Zealand Ministerial

  11

  Brussels

  Health Council

  15-16

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  15-16

  Oporto

  WEU Council

  15-19

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  16

  Brussels

  Culture Council

  18

  Brussels

  Industry Council

  18

  Brussels

  Development Council

  22-23

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  100W
  April:

  3-4 April—Cairo EU—Africa Summit

  Socio-economic Issues

  Prospects for Regional Integration

  Integrating Africa into the world economy, including trade, investment, transfer of technology and debt.

  Political Issues

  Human rights, democratic principles and institutions, good governance and rule of law, including empowering the civil society, terrorism, migration issues and xenophobia.

  Peace building, conflict prevention, management and resolution, including refugees and illegal arms trafficking.

  Development Issues

  Challenges to sustainable development in Africa, including poverty eradication, investment in human resources, education, health and environment

  4 April—Brussels Intergovernmental Conference (Preparatory Group)

  No agenda available

  7-8 April—ECOFIN Council (Informal)

  No formal agenda

  10-11 April—Luxembourg General Affairs Council

  No agenda yet available

  11 April—Luxembourg EU/Turkey Association Council

  Agenda not yet finalised

  10-14 April—Strasbourg European Parliament Plenary

  No agenda yet available

  13 April—Luxembourg Consumer Affairs Council

  No agenda yet available

  14-16 April—Oporto Environment Council (Informal)

  No formal agenda

  17-18 April—Luxembourg Agriculture Council

  No agenda yet available

  European calendar: April—September 2000
  This calendar is primarily concerned with European Union matters, but certain other relevant events are also included. Events and dates quoted are based on the information available on the date of issue.
  101W

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  May

  25

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  25-26

  Lisbon

  EuroMed Foreign Ministers Meeting (Informal)

  28-30

  Evora

  Agriculture Council (Informal)

  29-30

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  30

  Brussels

  Energy Council

  June

  5

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN Council

  6

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  7

  Fiji

  ACP/EU Ministerial

  8

  Fiji

  Signing of post Lome convention

  8

  Luxembourg

  Education Council

  13-14

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  13-16

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  15

  Luxembourg

  Research Council

  16

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  19-20

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  19-20

  Sta. Maria de Feira

  European Council

  21-23

  Cyprus

  3rd Euro-Mediterranean Conference of the Ministers of Industry

  22-23

  Luxembourg

  Environment Council

  26-27

  Luxembourg

  Transport Council

  28

  Lisbon

  EU/India Summit

  July

  3-7

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  6-7

  Lille

  Culture Council

  7-8

  Paris

  Social Affairs Council (Informal)

  10-11

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  15-16

  Paris

  Environment Council (Informal)

  17

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  17-18

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  24

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  27

  Bangkok

  ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) Ministerial

  28-29

  Bangkok

  ASEAN Post Ministerial

  28-29

  Arles

  Justice and Home Affairs Council (Informal)

  August

  There are no Councils scheduled for this month

  September

  1-2

  Evian

  Gymnich

  3-5

  Biarritz

  Agriculture Council (Informal)

  6

  New York

  EU/Ukraine Summit

  9-10

  Paris (tbc)

  ECOFIN Council (Informal)

  18

  Brussels

  Telecommunications Council

  18-19

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  25-26

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  28

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  28

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  28-29

  Marseilles

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  European Institutions
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the running costs in the last year for which figures are available of(a) the North Atlantic Assembly, (b) the WEU Parliamentary Assembly and (c) the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly; and what was the United Kingdom's contribution in each case. [116650]

  Mr. Vaz
  These are the figures for 1999 budgets and estimated costs for 2000:

  Organisation/Year

  Total cost Year (£)

  UK contribution (£)

  UK cost share (%)

  NATO

  1999

  1,764,634.91

  316,233.42

  18.32

  2000

  1,796,860.00

  294,519.84

  17.25

  102W

  Organisation/Year

  Total cost Year (£)

  UK contribution (£)

  UK cost share (%)

  WEU

  1999

  3,825,724.23

  650,375.21

  16.75

  2000

  3,409,062.90

  579,540.69

  16.75

  OSCE

  1999

  934,289

  84,086

  9

  2000

  No formal estimates available

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost of the UK delegations to(a) the North Atlantic Assembly, (b) the WEU Parliamentary Assembly and (c) the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, in the last year for which figures are available. [116651]
  103W
  Mr. Vaz
  Authorities for the House of Commons and House of Lords are responsible for the financing of delegates' attendance at the Assemblies. Costs are borne on the votes of the House of Commons and House of Lords.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has received from(a) the US authorities, (b) the EU authorities and (c) NATO member states, concerning the internal US Defense Department report into the leaking of NATO military information during the Kosovo conflict; [116349]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the United States Defense Department report into alleged espionage at NATO during the Kosovo conflict; and if he will make a statement on it; [116351]

  (3) when his Department was first informed of the US report into alleged espionage at NATO during the Kosovo conflict; [116350]

  (4) what representations he has made to NATO countries about the US internal report on alleged espionage at NATO during the Kosovo conflict. [116352]

  Mr. Vaz
  NATO and Pentagon spokesmen have made it clear they have no evidence of Serbian espionage at NATO during the Kosovo conflict. In the light of initial media reports, there were contacts with US and NATO officials to establish whether there was any substance to the allegations. But there were no representations made to, or received from, EU partners or NATO Allies.

  Tartan Day Reception
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the British Ambassador in Washington concerning invitations to Scottish politicians to attend the Tartan Day Reception in the UK Ambassador's residence in Washington. [116574]

  Mr. Battle
  The Secretary of State has had no discussions with the British Ambassador concerning invitations to the Tartan Day Receptions in Washington.

  Ambassadors (Political Impartiality and Discipline)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) rules relating to political impartiality and (b) disciplinary procedures apply to ambassadors. [116575]

  Mr. Hain
  All members of the Diplomatic Service, regardless of grade or position, are subject to the Diplomatic Service Code of Ethics and to Diplomatic Service Regulations, which include Regulations on required standards of conduct. The Code of Ethics requires officers to maintain political impartiality at all times. Any member of staff found to have contravened Diplomatic Service Regulations is subject to the disciplinary procedures set out in the Regulations.

PRIME MINISTER

  Health Spending
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement on 22 March 2000,Official Report, columns 981-84, what is the proportion of national income that is estimated will be spent on health by the end of 2003–04. [116869]

  The Prime Minister
  As announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 21 March, provision has been made available for the UK which will allow the average real-terms increase for the UK health service over the next four years to be 6.1 per cent. So health service spending will rise from last year's £45.1 billion, and this year's £49.3 billion, to: next year, £54.2 billion; the year after, £58.6 billion; then £63.5 billion; and then from April 2003, £68.7 billion.

  As a result, on current forecasts, UK health spending as a proportion of GDP will increase to around 7.6 per cent. by 2003–04. It is expected that spending within the private health care sector will remain at around 1 per cent. of GDP and the overall rise to 7.6 per cent. is almost solely accounted for by the real terms increase in NHS spending.

  The 8 per cent. EU average, as calculated by the OECD, is based on total health care spending. It is therefore directly comparable to the 7.6 per cent. figure.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Taxis
  Miss Mclntosh
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if the Committee will establish a booking system for taxis to be available to hon. Members after late-night sittings. [116041]

  Mrs. Roe
  I do not consider such a system to be necessary, as there are adequate facilities available already. In addition to the taxi light and bell at the Members' Entrance in New Palace Yard, there is an auto-dial telephone programmed with two numbers to the Millbank taxi rank. Hon. Members have absolute priority at all times in summoning taxis at the Members' Entrance, and prior booking arrangements with taxi firms should remain the responsibility of individual hon. Members.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the basis for the reference in his Department's news release no. 49/2000 of 2 March to a 20 ft high, 10 acre concrete platform at the new Wembley National Stadium. [115228]

  Kate Hoey
  The reference to the 20 ft high proposed platform was based on fact. The reference to a size of 10 acres was an unfortunate error, picked up from descriptions given at earlier meetings; the reference should have been to a size of about 5 acres. The proposed
  105W
  platform remains poor value for money and an inappropriate solution to the need for an international athletics facility.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  BNFL
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 28 February 2000,Official Report, columns 51-52W, on the visit of British nuclear officials to Japan, for what reason details of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate report on irregularities and safety of MOX production at Sellafield were released to the Japanese authorities prior to their official release in the United Kingdom; and which bodies in Japan received the NII reports and under what conditions of confidentiality. [114141]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Health and Safety Executive's Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations visited the Japanese nuclear regulator, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI), on 7 February 2000 when he made a detailed presentation of his findings into the falsification of pellet diameter quality assurance data in the MOX Demonstration Facility at Sellafield. He also handed over to MITI a pre-publication copy of the report prepared by HM Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII), "An investigation of pellet diameter data in the MOX demonstration facility at the BNFL Sellafield site and the effect of this on the safety of MOX fuel in use". He did this as part of the on-going dialogue between HSE/NII and MITI, as the relevant safety regulators, in view of the importance to Japan of the issues in the report and to allow the Japanese authorities sufficient time to prepare for any inquiries they might receive. The Japanese authorities agreed to make no public comment about the report or HM Chief Inspector's discussions with them before its publication.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make an assessment of the effectiveness of Lloyd's Register Quality Assurance Ltd. as verification agents of British Nuclear Fuels environmental, health and safety policies and practices at Sellafield. [114823]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 23 March 2000]: Lloyds Register Quality Assurance (LRQA) Ltd. is a commercial organisation accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service for the certification of quality and environmental management systems (ISO 9000 and 14000). They are contracted by BNFL for this purpose. BNFL's decision to use LRQA is a matter for BNFL.

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the normal period of service for a non-executive director of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. [115994]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 27 March 2000]: The length of service of non-executive directors of BNFL varies according to the needs of the company. Subject to this, a non-executive director can normally expect to be appointed for a period of up to three years and, assuming satisfactory performance, can expect a re-appointment for a second term of a similar duration. Further
  106W
  re-appointments are sometimes made, taking account of the Code and Guidance of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  Electricity Industry (Safety)
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what account Ofgen took of the minimum staffing levels required in respect of safety when setting its revised price controls for the electricity industry; and if he will make a statement. [l14132]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: Safety is of paramount importance in the electricity distribution industry and an issue which transcends price controls. Companies have statutory obligations, enforced by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) as well as the Electricity Supply Regulations 1988, which is the responsibility of the Engineering Inspectorate in my Department. The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, in proposing price controls, takes account of these obligations, and companies, in accepting the price controls, accept their obligations to operate safe networks with the revenues provided.

  British Investments (Azerbaijan)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the value of British investments in Azerbaijan in(a) oil and gas extraction, (b) oil and gas transport, (c) oil and gas support services, (d) hotels and leisure, (e) banking, (f) service industries, (g) manufacturing, (h) retail sales, (i) telecommunications, (j) construction and (k) agriculture. [115558]

  Mr. Caborn
  The exact figures are not available but our Embassy in Baku have estimated that the total amount of UK investment in Baku is around $1 billion. This represents money actually spent by UK companies like BP Amoco in the country on design or engineering work to date. The breakdown is as follows:

  $

  (a) oil and gas extraction

  755 million

  (b) oil and gas transport

  210 million

  (c) oil and gas support services

  25 million

  (d) hotels and leisure

  1 million

  (e) banking

  2 million

  (f) service industries

  2 million

  (g) manufacturing

  0

  (h) retail sales

  500 thousand

  (i) telecommunications

  2 million

  (j) construction

  2 million

  (k) agriculture

  500 thousand

  Total

  1 billion

  Internal Market Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the outcome of the Internal Market Council held in Brussels on 16 March; and if he will make a statement. [115548]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I represented the UK at the Internal Market Council in Brussels on 16 March.
  107W
  There was an open debate on the Commission's outline proposals for an EU Food Authority, guided by a series of Presidency questions on the separation of risk assessment and risk management, the relationship between the EU Authority and national bodies, the scope of the Authority's responsibilities and access to the Authority. Other Councils will also be considering the Commission's White Paper and there will be a report to the European Council in June. The Commission will take account of the Council's views in formulating its detailed proposals which will be issued in September.

  There was discussion of the Cardiff Economic Reform Process and of the preparations for the Lisbon Special Summit. The Council agreed Conclusions on economic reform to be forwarded to the Lisbon Summit and there was general support for the Presidency framework for Lisbon. The Council acknowledged the significance of Lisbon as a starting point for economic reform for the new economy and discussed the need for return to be accompanied by rationalisation of the Council structure.

  The Commission introduced a review—which took full account of UK views—of the Simpler Legislation in the Internal Market (SLIM) initiative; the Council will be asked to agree Conclusions on the review at the IMC on 25 May. There was a debate on the Commission's eEurope initiative and the Presidency noted that an Action Plan will be adopted at the June European Council in Feira.

  The Council reached political agreement on amendments to the Community Customers Code and on the Jams Directive, where the exclusion of "bakery jams" is preserved and is therefore a satisfactory outcome for the UK. The Presidency reported briefly on the Copyright Directive and the Spanish asked for rapid progress on the Community Designs Regulation.

  During lunchtime discussion of the Takeovers Directive, UK and Spain reported that a solution of the issue of communications between Gibraltar competent authorities and counterparts in other member states was in sight.

  Habitats Directive
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the timing of the licensing of the White Zone. [115733]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 21 March 2000]: I refer my hon. Friend to my previous answer of 21 December 1999, Official Report, column 455W. I can inform him that officials are currently working to put in place a statutory framework for applying the Habitats Directive to offshore oil and gas activities.

  Utilities Costs
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the average cost of(a) 650 therms of gas and (b) 8,000 units of electricity to consumers (i) paying by direct debit and (ii) paying by means of a pre-payment meter in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [115912]
  108W
  Mrs. Liddell
  Provisional estimates of these costs for 1999 are presented in the table, as are equivalent bills for customers on standard credit terms. The majority of customers are still on standard credit terms.

  Provisional estimates of 1999 annual electricity and gas bills for domestic consumers1

  £

  Payment method

  Gas (650 therms)

  Electricity (8,000 kWh)

  Standard quarterly credit

  320

  594

  Direct Debit

  281

  574

  Pre-payment meter

  336

  608

  1 Average UK bills, including VAT

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 15 March 2000,Official Report, column 190W, on the nuclear industry, if he will provide a technical description of the reasons which led to each of the shutdowns listed. [115914]

  Mrs. Liddell
  This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. All of the shutdowns are briefly described in each power station's fortnightly newsletters, which are in the public domain.

  North Yorkshire Power Line
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will investigate alternative methods of providing electricity other than the proposed Lackenby-Picton transmission line; and if he will make a statement. [116238]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The decision on the North Yorkshire power line was made in March 1998. Development consents were granted for this line in 1998 following exhaustive public inquiries and there is no machinery for now reviewing those consents.

  Government Offices, Eastcote
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future plans for the Government offices at Eastcote. [116739]

  Mr. Byers
  This site is currently owned by my Department (DTI), but shared with the MoD. DTI use has now come to an end, leaving the site under-utilised. It is my Department's intention, therefore, to make a free transfer of the Eastcote site to MoD ownership, as that department is best placed to explore the possibility of re-locating existing units to other sites. Depending on the outcome, this could lead to the site being released for alternative civilian use. This work will form part of MoD's ongoing review of its estate in Greater London, which has the objective of concentrating Defence activities on a smaller number of core sites.

  Bilateral Concordat (Wales)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to publish the bilateral concordat between his Department and the Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales. [116740]
  109W
  Mr. Byers
  The First Secretary and I have today agreed the text of the Concordat between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales. Copies of the Concordat have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, and the text will be available on the Department of Trade and Industry website.

  Rover
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what actions the Government have taken in relation to the decision by BMW to sell part of the Rover Group; and if he will make a statement. [116868]

  Mr. Byers
  BMW's recent decision to divest itself of elements of the Rover Group was a commercial one. The Government are determined to help the people, communities and businesses respond to BMW's decision.

  On Thursday 23 March I met the Chairman of BMW AG, Professor Milberg, and his senior management, impressing upon them the need for BMW's continuing involvement. After a useful and constructive discussion, BMW has agreed to look at ways to try to maximise job retention and at how the company might work with the recently established Task Force to promote the regeneration of Longbridge and the other sites affected.

  During my visit to the region on 17 March I announced the establishment of a Task Force, headed by Alex Stephenson, Chairman of Advantage West Midlands, the Regional Development Agency. The Task Force membership includes people from key organisations concerned with regenerating the economy of the affected parts of the West Midlands. I asked it to report to me within six weeks.

  The Task Force will:

  Assess the impact of any reduction in activity at Longbridge on the people, businesses and communities of the region;

  Advise on the public and private resources needed to help deal with the consequences, and

  Draw up proposals for action by local partners and by central government.

  I announced that £129 million of government funding would be available to support projects in the region aimed at dealing with the consequences of BMW's decision.

  The Employment Service is setting up a Rapid Response Unit at Longbridge to help deal with any redundancies. This will involve establishing a job shop to give advance notice about job vacancies, careers advice and benefits, a fast-track claims process for employees who were made redundant, and access through the local TEC to training to meet the needs of the employees.

  The Task Force has also made contact with the 98 leading suppliers to Rover and expects to have an analysis of their situation later this week. In addition it is contacting the remaining suppliers, including second and third tier suppliers. A hotline for handling queries from suppliers and from individual employees affected is also being established.

  The Task Force has also held preliminary discussions with BMW about the future of the Longbridge site and will be holding further discussions with BMW, Alchemy and Ford about future intentions so far as employment is concerned, about the site and development issues.
  110W
  The Government have also raised with BMW a range of other issues including their plans in relation to other sites and plants and the concerns of the network of dealers.

SCOTLAND

  Shipbuilding (Clyde)
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's support for shipbuilding on the Clyde. [115197]

  Dr. Reid
  This Government fully recognise the importance of shipbuilding industry generally, and the Clyde shipbuilding industry in particular. We will continue to do everything we can to support the industry.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 29 February 2000,Official Report, column 260W, on assisted areas, what are the problems of population sparsity affecting the Inverness travel-to-work area. [115781]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 21 March 2000]: Extremely low population density leads to additional costs in the provision of goods and services. There is a lack of economies of scale and, in combination with peripherality, this makes for structural economic weaknesses. The whole of the Highlands and Islands Enterprise area was thus proposed for inclusion in the new Assisted Areas map.

  Websites
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the expenditure incurred by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on(a) the setting up and (b) the operation of websites, indicating the cases in which the expenditure has been above that budgeted; and if he will list for each website (i) the topics which have been covered, (ii) the current average number of hits per months and (iii) the estimated expenditure on each website for each of the next three years. [115802]

  Dr. Reid
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Set up costs: £2,700

  (b) Operating costs to date: £1,300

  (c) Topics covered in the Scotland Office website (www.scottishsecretary.gov.uk):

  Welcome message from the Secretary of State

  Scotland Office news releases

  Profiles of the Ministers

  Transcripts of speeches

  What the Scotland Office does

  Advocate General for Scotland (currently under construction)

  Contact addresses and phone numbers

  Selected links to other sites (mainly Government)

  (d) The website was launched in November 1999. The number of hits has risen from 14,775 in November to 83,857 in February 2000. The number of page requests per month over the same period has risen from 2,407 to 8,883. The number of unique visitors to the site is not currently measured.

  111W

  (e) Annual expenditure on the website over the next three years is currently estimated at £2,000 per year but the design and content of the site will be kept under review

  Insolvency
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice is given by the Accountant in Bankruptcy in Scotland to insolvency practitioners in personal sequestrations with regard to the vesting of(a) personal pensions, (b) retirement annuity contracts and (c) occupational pension schemes. [116230]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 27 March 2000]: The Accountant in Bankruptcy provides written guidance in the form of "The Accountant in Bankruptcy's Notes for the Guidance of Interim and Permanent Trustees". Section 6.18 of this guidance covers the treatment of pensions.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Housebuilding (Chelmsford)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 20 March 2000,Official Report, column 402W, on housebuilding (ref. 114782) and his proposed changes to Regional Planning Guidance for the South East and East of England on 27 March, if he will assess the impact of his statement on housebuilding on 7 March 2000, Official Report, columns 863-7, on the Chelmsford local authority area, indicating the number of houses to be built in Chelmsford over the next (a) five years and (b) 16 years. [116029]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 16 March 2000,Official Report, column 330W and to the pursuant answer of 20 March 2000, Official Report, column 402W. Full details of our proposed changes to the draft RPG for the South East were published on 27 March. These included an illustrative breakdown of housing within the region to county level, including an annual rate of provision for Essex. It will be for the Essex County Structure Plan to determine the level of housebuilding to be included in the Chelmsford Local Plan area.

  Hedges
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what response he has received to the consultation paper on controlling nuisance hedges in residential areas; and if he will make a statement. [116382]

  Mr. Mullin
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on 21 March 2000,Official Report, column 471W.

  Foreign Commercial Vehicles
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce a road tax or vignette on foreign commercial vehicles entering the United Kingdom. [116536]
  112W
  Mr. Hill
  Any vignette scheme, or any form of levy, would have to apply to domestic vehicles as well as foreign. To discriminate against foreign vehicles would be illegal under Community law. The Transport Bill contains enabling powers for local authorities to introduce charging schemes on their roads, but there are no plans at present to introduce widespread charging on the trunk road network.

  Electronic Vote Counting (London Elections)
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if electronic counting of votes will be used at the forthcoming election of the Mayor of London and the London Assembly on 4 May. [116695]

  Mr. Hill
  The Greater London Returning Officer has informed me that following a successful trial on 22 February 2000, he intends to use electronic counting equipment to count the votes cast in the first election of the Mayor of London and the London Assembly on 4 May. He is satisfied that the system can deliver a speedy and accurate result and at the same time safeguard the probity and secrecy of the ballot.

  Wild Birds Directive
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the sites so far classified or identified for classification as special protection areas under the EC Wild Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) in the UK. [116738]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Joint Nature Conservation Committee, in co-operation with the statutory nature conservation agencies, have been conducting a major review of the UK list of Special Protection Areas following the agreement and subsequent publication of SPA selection guidelines in July 1999. Ministers will be consulting interested parties about those sites which are not already classified as SPAs. The new list has today been placed in the Library.

TREASURY

  Climate Change Levy
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of Article 52 of the EC Treaty on the provisions for persons to notify the Commissioners when they are liable to be registered for the climate change levy. [116581]

  Mr. Timms
  I am satisfied that the provisions for climate change levy which will appear in the Finance Bill will be compatible with all our obligations under the EC Treaty.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if the climate change levy will be levied upon(a) actual and (b) estimated energy supply in a period; and what provisions are to be made for overpayment on the basis of estimated bills; [l16586]

  (2) what factors may be taken into account in determining culpability for the late submission of climate change levy returns; and if he will introduce an element of culpability to the penalty regime; [116587]
  113W
  (3) if he will make a statement on the definition of (a) taxable commodity under schedule 1 paragraph A3(1)(b) of the climate change levy legislation and (b) utility, contained in the legislation to ensure that suppliers liable to climate change levy are easily identifiable. [116591]

  Mr. Timms
  HM Customs and Excise have undertaken an extensive consultation exercise on the draft climate change levy legislation published on 26 November 1999. The results of this consultation are being taken into account in the proposed legislation. This will be contained in the Finance Bill to be published shortly.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will confer on Her Majesty's Customs and Excise discretion to reduce penalties for late submission of climate change levy returns; and if he will review the interest rate on the penalty for small businesses. [116588]

  Timms
  As a result of the consultation exercise undertaken on the draft climate change levy legislation by HM Customs and Excise, I will be proposing changes to the penalty system for late submission of climate change levy returns. I have no plans to review the interest rate on the penalty for small businesses.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his reasons for exempting Northern Ireland from the climate change levy. [116578]

  Mr. Timms
  I have announced that we shall be exploring with the European Commission the scope for allowing a temporary exemption from climate change levy for natural gas in Northern Ireland for a period of up to five years. This reflects the very different nature of the energy market in Northern Ireland and the fact that gas is only as yet available in a limited area. A temporary exemption will facilitate the development of the infrastructure and make gas available to a greater number of potential customers.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the climate change levy will be charged on supplies of energy(a) from Northern Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom and (b) from other parts of the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland. [116579]

  Mr. Timms
  Climate change levy is only charged on supplies to final consumers. If the proposed exemption from climate change levy for natural gas in Northern Ireland is approved by the European Commission, climate change levy will be charged on all sales of products within the scope of the levy where the customer is located in the United Kingdom, except for sales of natural gas where the customer is located in Northern Ireland. The location of the supplier is not relevant.

  Scottish Power plc
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about Her Majesty's Treasury's holding of debt in Scottish Power plc. [116743]
  114W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  On 24 March 2000 HM Treasury sold back to Scottish Power the £142 million (nominal) bond it had held since the privatisation of the company in 1991. Proceeds from the buyback were £148,469,927.55.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many recipients of the working families tax credit have a child less than one-year-old. [115247]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 20 March 2000]: About 92,000 working families' tax credit awards made to the end of February 2000 were to families with children aged less than one year.

  Road Fuel Duty
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the levels of duty on unleaded petrol and lead replacement petrol. [116119]

  Mr. Timms
  In October 1999 the duty rate for higher octane unleaded petrol was cut from over 5 pence per litre to 2 pence per litre above the rate for unleaded. This was to facilitate the introduction of lead replacement petrol (LRP) which is treated as higher octane unleaded petrol for duty purposes. Following increases in road fuel duties announced in the Budget the rate of duty on higher octane unleaded petrol is now 2.07 pence per litre above that on unleaded petrol.

  Although LRP does not contain lead, it will generally be used by cars that formerly used leaded petrol. This part of the car population tends to be older, less fuel efficient than newer cars and, consequently, to have poorer emissions performance. The twin aims therefore are to have a duty rate that is not as high as that on leaded petrol—indeed is less than the former rate on higher octane unleaded—but at the same time to leave in place a measure that encourages replacement of less fuel efficient cars.

  Over-the-counter Drug Deaths
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the total number of deaths caused by(a) paracetamol/co-proxamol, (b) dothiepin, (c) aspirin, (d) ibuprofen and (e) benylin in each of the last five years. [115945]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 28 March 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent question asking for the latest assessment of the total number of annual deaths caused by (a) paracetamol/co-proxamol (b) dothiepin (c) aspirin (d) ibuprofen (e) benylin. I am replying in Dr Holt's absence.
  The latest figures of drug related deaths caused by the substances listed above are provided for England and Wales in 1997. The information is supplied using the ONS database of deaths where the underlying cause of death was drug-related as described in Health Statistics Quarterly, Number 5. The table shows the number of deaths where the substances were mentioned on the death certificate. No deaths were recorded as being attributed to benylin.
  115W

  Drug related deaths1 for specific substances in England and Wales, 1997

  Number

  Paracetamol/Co-proxamol2

  562

  Dothiepin

  235

  Aspirin

  51

  Ibuprofen

  2

  1 Deaths with underlying codes 292, 304, 305.2-305.9, E850-E858, E950.0-E950.5, E962.0 and E980.0-E980.5, using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, where the named substance was mentioned on the death certificate.

  2 Includes deaths where paracetamol or any compounds containing paracetamol, such as co-proxamol are mentioned in the death certificate.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Abolition of Feudal Tenure (Scotland) Bill
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of compensation payments by those on benefits under the Abolition of Feudal Tenure (Scotland) Bill; if he will take steps to take into account such payments in the calculation of benefit entitlement; and if he will make a statement. [116520]

  Mr. Bayley
  Departmental officials are in contact with the Scottish Executive about the full impact of the Abolition of Feudal Tenure (Scotland) Bill and will be examining the implications for benefit recipients.

  IT Services
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for the strategic management of information technology services within his Department; and if he will make a statement. [116744]

  Angela Eagle
  Following a review carried out in 1999, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State approved a recommendation to transfer responsibility for the strategic management of the Department's information technology (IT) services from the Information Technology Services Agency (ITSA) to within the Department's HQ. This change will help maximise our ability to get the most out of our IT suppliers and facilitate the continued development of the Department's corporate IT strategy.

  This development has been endorsed by colleagues in the Treasury and Cabinet Office and means that the ITSA will cease to be an Executive Agency from 1 April.

  Asylum Seekers (Social Security Payments)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make payment of social security to political asylum seekers with children of school age conditional upon their children attending the appropriate school. [116534]

  Mr. Bayley
  No.

  Poverty (Leeds)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the total number of 116W
  people living below the poverty line in (a) the Leeds, Central parliamentary constituency and (b) the City of Leeds in each year since 1990. [112044]

  Mr. Bayley
  Poverty and social exclusion are complex multi-dimensional issues, affecting many aspects of people's lives—their income, health, housing, the quality of their environment and their opportunities to work and learn. There is no single measure which captures the complex problems which need to be overcome.

  We are determined to tackle the problems that condemn many individuals and communities to poverty. That is why we set out our strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion in our first annual report "Opportunity for All" (Cm 4445). The report includes a range of indicators that capture the many aspects of poverty and social exclusion.

  We are unable to present low income statistics for Leeds, Central parliamentary constituency and the City of Leeds because they are not statistically robust for areas smaller than geographical regions. However, information for the whole of Yorkshire and Humberside Government office region is shown in the table.

  Number of individuals below 60 per cent. median income in Yorkshire and Humberside, including the self-employed

  Million

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  1994–95

  1.1

  1.4

  1995–96

  1.0

  1.1

  1996–97

  1.1

  1.2

  1997–98

  1.0

  1.2

  Note:

  Some of the fluctuation in numbers between years may be due to sample variability

  Source:

  Households Below Average Income

  Some indicators of poverty and social exclusion are available at the local authority level. For example, the following table shows the number of beneficiaries receiving Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance.

  Number of beneficiaries on Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance (income-based) for the City of Leeds and Leeds, Central parliamentary constituency

  Thousand

  Period

  Yorkshire and Humberside GOR

  Leeds local authority district

  Leeds, Central parliamentary constituency

  August

  1993

  894

  n/a

  n/a

  1994

  896

  124

  n/a

  1995

  901

  118

  n/a

  1996

  869

  122

  n/a

  1997

  805

  108

  30

  1998

  769

  101

  23

  1999

  763

  98

  23

  n/a = Not available

  Notes:

  1. Beneficiaries are claimants, their partner, and any dependent child or young person aged 0 to 19.

  2. Information by GOR is not available prior to 1993. However there were 747 thousand Income Support beneficiaries in May 1991, and 812 thousand beneficiaries in May 1992 in the Yorkshire and Humberside Government Standard Statistical region.

  3. Information by parliamentary constituency is not available prior to August 1997.

  117W

  4. Information on beneficiaries is not available for local authority districts prior to 1993.

  5. Local authority areas are assigned by matching postcodes against the relevant ONS 1995–99 Version 1/Version 2 postcode directories.

  6. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  7. Numbers are based on a 1 per cent, sample up to 1994 and a 5 per cent, sample thereafter. Numbers are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  8. Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance replaced Income Support for the unemployed from October 1996.

  9. Income Support (IS) figures quoted prior to October 1996, include unemployed IS claimants.

  Improving educational attainment is an intrinsic part of our strategy for tackling the causes of poverty and social exclusion. In 1997 in Leeds, 63 per cent. of students in English and 63 per cent. in Maths achieved Level 4 and above in Key Stage 2. By 1999 this had improved to 72 per cent. in English and 71 per cent. in Maths.

  The health of our children is also an important indicator of levels of poverty and social exclusion. In the City of Leeds in 1997–98, the rate at which children (aged under 16) were admitted to hospital as a result of an unintentional injury resulting in a hospital stay of more than three days was 1.0 per thousand (to the nearest 0.5 per thousand). This has fallen from 1.5 per thousand in 1995–96.

  Further information on the indicators we will use to monitor its progress in tackling poverty and social exclusion, including definitions and baseline data, has been placed in the Library on 21 September to accompany "Opportunity for All".

  Income-related Benefits
  Mr. Dennis Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of raising the children's rates in the various income-related benefits (in addition to normal indexation) by(a) £5 per week in October 2000 and (b) a further £5 per week in April 2001. [115492]

  Mr. Bayley
  The cost of introducing these increases in Income Support, income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit for children under 16, and those aged between 16-19 who remain in full-time non-advanced education, would be approximately £400 million in 2000–01 and £1.5 billion in 2001–02 (figures rounded to nearest £50 million).

  These costs do not include the costs of any equivalent increases in working families tax credit but do include the impact that increases to working families tax credit would have on Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  Fraud
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he will take to rectify the performance of local authorities where such performance is judged unsatisfactory by benefits fraud inspectors. [116115]

  Angela Eagle
  Following publication of a Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report, the local authority is invited to 118W
  consider and respond to the report and to submit any proposals for improving its performance and remedying any failings that are identified.

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has powers under section 139D of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to direct an Authority as to the standards it is to attain and the time within which they are to be attained. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in the House on 6 March 2000, Official Report, columns 755-56, councils have been warned that where investigation by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate identifies persistent failings, he will use those powers to direct them to improve their performance.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what means he will use to ensure that the information collected by local authorities to meet the reporting requirements of the housing benefit best value performance indicators for 2000–01 is(a) verifiable and (b) accurate. [116114]

  Angela Eagle
  Best value performance indicators will from this April be the main yardstick against which local authorities' performance is judged. Authorities are required to set out each year in published best value performance plans details of past performance against the indicators and challenging targets for future improved performance. These plans and the performance information they contain are subject to statutory audit.

  Auditors are responsible for ensuring that authorities have adequate systems in place for producing accurate performance data. In addition, the Department has made arrangements for performance data to be reported periodically by authorities as part of the normal provision of Housing Benefit management information. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently announced his intention to use his statutory powers to compel authorities to provide this information. Guidance on the Housing Benefit indicators and revised statistical forms were issued by the Department to all authorities last December.

  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate will also test the robustness of local authority performance data both as part of its on-going cycle of inspections of Housing Benefit administration, and in its role as a best value inspectorate.

  Winter Fuel Payments (West Chelmsford)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many men there are in the West Chelmsford parliamentary constituency aged between 60 and 64 years; and when they will receive the £100 winter fuel payments for last winter. [116299]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department does not hold data to enable us to determine the number of men aged between 60 and 64 years in the West Chelmsford constituency.

  Arrangements regarding payments to those newly eligible for Winter Fuel Payments will be announced shortly.

HEALTH

  Cardiac Services
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on cardiac services in England. [115161]

  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the national service framework for coronary heart disease. [115162]

  Yvette Cooper
  On 6 March my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched the National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease. This framework is a radical and far-reaching blueprint to transform prevention, diagnosis and treatment of coronary heart disease and will help save 200,000 lives by 2010.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of cardio-thoracic services in the north-west of England. [l15165]

  Yvette Cooper
  Cardiothoracic services in the north-west of England will be improved in line with the National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease and the Strategy for the Development of Invasive and Tertiary Cardiac Services in the North-West Region (Dargie Report), published in April 1999.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on acute waiting lists during the past winter. [115163]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Health Service has done this winter what it should always do—it has prioritised emergencies. There are always more pressures on the NHS from emergency admissions in the winter months. The waiting list figures for December and January reflect the fact that the NHS as planned did give priority to emergency cases.

  The waiting list is currently 39,000 below the level inherited. We remain on track to achieve our manifesto commitment to reduce waiting lists by 100,000 from the level inherited.

  Adoption
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to improve adoption procedures. [115166]

  Mr. Hutton
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced that he is to conduct a review of adoption with ministerial colleagues. The review will consider how best to develop a modern adoption system which puts the interests of the child first and provides a sensitive and efficient service, building on the Government's Quality Protects programme for transforming children's services.

  Intensive Care Beds
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many additional intensive care beds have been made available in NHS hospitals since 1 January. [115168]
  120W
  Ms Stuart
  More than 100 additional critical care beds were available this winter, and more will be opened next winter, following the current thorough review of critical care services.

  Treatment Variations
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to tackle wide variations in treatment in different parts of the country. [115169]

  Yvette Cooper
  Tackling unacceptable variations in performance and treatment is one of the key challenges we have set the National Health Service. We have already established new mechanisms; we are setting standards across the NHS through the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the National Service Framework programme; ensuring delivery of these locally through clinical governance, and monitoring delivery through the performance assessment framework, the Commission for Health Improvement and a programme of national patient surveys. Over the next few months we will work with key professionals and frontline staff to see how we can improve NHS performance and productivity so that we make the best use of the record increases in NHS funding announced in the Budget.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accident and emergency departments are being modernised; and if he will make a statement on progress to date. [115172]

  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accident and emergency departments are being modernised; and if he will make a statement on progress to date. [115182]

  Ms Stuart
  The £115 million capital investment in accident and emergency services is enabling 244 improvement schemes to be carried out in 182 hospital trusts in England. Good progress is being made: almost all the schemes are already under way and 90 (37 per cent.) have now been completed. 194 schemes (80 per cent.) are scheduled for completion by July 2000.

  Consultant Neurologists
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will increase the number of consultant neurologists. [115173]

  Mr. Denham
  We review the requirements for consultants in neurology annually. There are around 150 specialists in training and we expect most of these to become available for consultant posts between 2003 and 2004. This will be 90 more than are needed to replace consultants expected to retire.

  Family Friendly Working Practices
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to extend family friendly working practices in the NHS. [115174]

  Mr. Denham
  In 1999 the Government launched the Improving Working Lives campaign. Each region has appointed a Champion to lead a multi disciplinary task force to develop family friendly policies and identify and
  121W
  share good practice. They will pay particular attention to trusts with high levels of vacancies. A kitemarking system will be set up, so that National Health Service organisations that perform well can be recognised.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress made in introducing family friendly working practices in the NHS. [115184]

  Mr. Denham
  We have launched a £1 million Improving Working Lives campaign in the National Health Service. A similar budget has been agreed for 2000–01. Each region has set up a multi-disciplinary task force to share good practices. The task forces will support implementation of the Working Lives Standard and concentrate on those trusts with the most vacancies. In September 1999 Ministers launched a consultation exercise to develop a set of standards on good employment practices against which employers and their staff can measure themselves. Responses indicate general support from local NHS organisations, individuals and staff-side representatives. The re-drafted standards are currently out for consultation.

  Last year's national recruitment campaign attracted over 5,000 former nurses back to the NHS, and 60 per cent. of those returning have taken up part-time posts, proving that NHS employers are becoming more flexible and family friendly.

  Elderly People
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the extra capitation given to health authorities in respect of the elderly. [115175]

  Mr. Hutton
  The current allocations formula recognises that the elderly make more use of health services than the rest of the population. Health authorities with a relatively elderly population have their weighted capitation targets increased accordingly.

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much extra funding has been made available to the NHS since May 1997. [115176]

  Mr. Denham
  National Health Service net expenditure in 1996–97 was £32.9 billion. In 2000–01 NHS expenditure will be £44.2 billion, a real terms increase of 20.5 per cent. on 1996–97. By 2003–04 NHS expenditure will reach £56.4 billion, a real terms increase of 42.7 per cent. on 1996–97.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the United Kingdom's gross domestic product was devoted to health care(a) in 1996–97 and (b) in 2000–01; and what was the European average for those years. [115183]

  Mr. Denham
  In 1996–97, United Kingdom Gross National Health Service expenditure was 5.7 per cent. of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

  Based on the latest forecasts of GDP and planned NHS expenditure figures, for 2000–01, UK gross NHS expenditure is forecast to be 6.1 per cent. of GDP.
  122W
  The Department does not collect information on health care expenditure in other European countries. It is collected by the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and can be obtained from the 1999 OECD health database.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the work of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. [115177]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has made a good start to its work. NICE has produced a fast-track appraisal of the anti-flu drug Relenza and an appraisal on wisdom teeth. NICE'S work programme was announced in November 1999 and has an agreed schedule of further appraisals, guidelines and GP referral protocols.

  NHS Hospitals (Hygiene)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to raise standards of cleanliness and hygiene in NHS hospitals. [115178]

  Mr. Denham
  Trust chief executives are responsible for standards of cleanliness and hygiene in hospitals. All acute trusts have the assistance of the infection control team. The controls assurance framework published on 22 November 1999 has a section relating to infection control, including specific reference to cleanliness. The Infection Control Nurses Association and the Association of Domestic Managers have published "Standards for Environmental Cleanliness in Hospitals", which NHS Estates is sending to all NHS trusts.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the first primary care trusts to become operational. [115179]

  Mr. Denham
  Seventeen primary care trusts will become operational on 1 April 2000. They will deliver more integrated primary and community services, ensuring better access for patients, therefore providing a stronger role for community services in the National Health Service.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of(a) the cost of setting up primary care trusts and (b) the cost of their annual operation. [115181]

  Mr. Denham
  Each health authority where there is a proposal to establish a primary care trust (PCT) receives a contribution from central funds of £25,000 towards the costs of preparing the proposal for local consultation and of the consultation itself. If the proposal is approved by the Secretary of State, a further central contribution is made towards the preparatory costs of the PCT. This contribution comprises £100,000 for a commissioning only PCT or £175,000 for a PCT which will also provide services. In addition, local health systems are expected to contribute to the costs of establishing and developing a new PCT.
  123W
  Seventeen PCTs have been approved to begin operating from 1 April at a total central cost of £3.325 million. Information is not, however, held centrally on the total cost of establishing each PCT.

  NHS Direct (Cumbria)
  Mr. Martlcw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when NHS Direct will start to operate in Cumbria. [115180]

  Ms Stuart
  The White Paper 'The New NHS: Modern, and Dependable" announced the Government's commitment to NHS Direct. At present, NHS Direct covers 65 per cent. of the population. By the end of October this year, the whole of England, including Cumbria, will be covered.

  Nurse Training
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to increase the number of places available for nurse training. [115185]

  Mr. Denham
  We provided increased investment to enable us to deliver 6,000 new nurse training places by 2002. This target was based upon delivering 1,000 of those new places in 1999–2000, but we are now planning to deliver around 1,600. Further investment will enable us to provide an additional 1,000 nurse and midwifery pre-registration training places in 2000–01.

  Cancer
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to increase the availability of modern equipment for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer in NHS hospitals. [115186]

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to increase the availability of modern equipment for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer in NHS hospitals. [115187]

  Yvette Cooper
  In January, the Government announced a £100 million cash injection which will pay for the most up to date equipment (computed tomography, scanners, simulators and planning computers to calculate radiotherapy doses) to diagnose and treat cancer more quickly and effectively. This £100 million cash boost for cancer is the biggest-ever single investment in cancer equipment in the history of the NHS.

  This record investment is on top of the allocation of £93 million from the National Lottery that has been allocated for cancer diagnosis and treatment equipment (breast screening equipment—mobile trailers, ultrasound and mammography machines, MRI scanners and linear accelerators) to over 200 NHS hospitals.

  Painkillers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to reduce the number of deaths caused by painkillers. [115151]

  Yvette Cooper
  We have introduced tight restrictions on the pack sizes of over-the-counter painkillers, together with overdose warnings for paracetamol products. The effect of these measures is being monitored. We are 124W
  currently reviewing the need for strengthened warnings for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with other European member states.

  NHS Dentistry (Lincolnshire)
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for improving access to NHS dentistry in Lincolnshire. [115171]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Investing in Dentistry initiative offered £210,000 in grants to Lincolnshire dentists in return for promises of 16,500 patient registrations. Lincolnshire Health Authority has submitted a proposal for a dental access centre which is now being considered. If the bid succeeds the centre will be operational by the end of this year. We will publish further plans to improve access to dentistry in a dental strategy for England in due course.

  Miscarriages
  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his reply of 14 February 2000,Official Report, column 387W, if he will list for the years for which they are available the estimated numbers of women diagnosed as receiving hospital care for miscarriage grossed to allow for missing, incomplete and inaccurate records; and if he will give an indication of the accuracy and completeness of this information. [113093]

  Yvette Cooper
  It is regretted that the reply of 14 February was incorrect. The information provided in the table showing the estimated numbers of women diagnosed as receiving hospital care for miscarriage for the years prior to 1997–98 was grossed to allow for missing, incomplete and inaccurate records. The difference between grossed and ungrossed figures in recent years is between 3-4 per cent. The following table contains the information requested.

  Year

  Number of miscarriages

  1989–90

  48,500

  1990–91

  50,600

  1991–92

  53,100

  1992–93

  52,400

  1993–94

  51,300

  1994–95

  48,700

  1995–96

  43,900

  1996–97

  44,500

  1997–98

  141,800

  1 Provisional

  The information in the table is obtained from the Hospital Episodes Statistics system. The data for the years prior to 1997–98 are grossed and have been adjusted to allow for missing, incomplete or inaccurate records.

  Data extracted were those with the diagnosis code OO3 (ICD-10) Spontaneous Abortion.

  Nursing Care
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government plans to take to provide compensation for nursing home patients and their relatives who have suffered financial loss and hardship due to
  125W
  the imposition of means testing by social services departments based on eligibility criteria which have been found to be unlawful. [114741]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department issued guidance in August 1999 following the Coughlan case (Health Service Guidance (1999) 180: Local Authority Circular (99)30) required health and local authorities to satisfy themselves that their criteria were lawful, taking legal advice where necessary. Where authorities subsequently revise their criteria in the light of the Coughlan judgment they should reassess clients against the revised criteria.

  Any possible claims for compensation due to the operation of unlawful eligibility criteria for nursing home care are the responsibility of the relevant health authorities and local councils.

  Mental Health—number of 24 hour staffed beds

  Region

  Health authority

  Position at March 1999

  Position at December 1999

  Increase

  London

  Barking and Havering

  0

  0

  0

  London

  Barnet

  15

  15

  0

  London

  Bexley and Greenwich

  8

  8

  0

  London

  Brent and Harrow

  32

  32

  0

  London

  Bromley

  10

  10

  0

  London

  Camden and Islington

  60

  72

  12

  London

  Croydon

  0

  0

  0

  London

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  39

  43

  4

  London

  East London and City

  106

  106

  0

  London

  Enfield and Haringey

  56

  56

  0

  London

  Hillingdon

  0

  28

  28

  London

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  13

  13

  0

  London

  Kingston and Richmond

  62

  62

  0

  London

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  138

  142

  4

  London

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  185

  185

  0

  London

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  50

  50

  0

  South East

  Berkshire

  0

  0

  0

  South East

  Buckinghamshire

  29

  29

  0

  South East

  East Kent

  45

  45

  0

  South East

  East Surrey

  21

  21

  0

  South East

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  175

  175

  0

  South East

  Isle of Wight

  0

  8

  8

  South East

  North and Mid Hampshire

  167

  167

  0

  South East

  Northamptonshire

  10

  10

  0

  South East

  Oxfordshire

  0

  20

  20

  South East

  Portsmouth and SE Hampshire

  47

  54

  7

  South East

  Southampton and SW Hampshire

  83

  83

  0

  South East

  West Kent

  0

  0

  0

  South East

  West Surrey

  0

  0

  0

  South East

  West Sussex

  18

  18

  0

  England

  4,013

  4,301

  288

  Source:

  Common Information Core, quarterly monitoring

  Herbal Remedies
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress made by the Pharmaceutical Committee of the European Union in establishing a secure route to market for herbal remedies. [115793]

  Ms Stuart
  The European Pharmaceutical Committee on 22 March considered the interpretation of Directive 99/83/EC relating to the use of bibliographic data to demonstrate that a medicine has well established use. In the light of the Committee's discussion we are assessing how the Directive may help us to move towards our objective of achieving more effective regulatory

  Psychiatric Beds
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of 24 hour staffed beds for people with severe and enduring mental illness were used in each health authority in London and the South East since 1998–99. [115787]

  Hutton
  Information on the percentage of 24 hour beds for people with severe and enduring mental illness used in each health authority in London and the South East since 1998–99 is not held centrally.

  However the table contains data on the number of 24 hour beds in each health authority in London and the South East for the end of the financial year 1998–99 and the latest position available (December 1999).

  arrangements for herbal medicines, balancing public safety and consumer choice. We will make a statement when we have completed this assessment.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the Medicines Control Agency next to meet representatives of consumer, retailer and practitioner organisations. [115800]

  Ms Stuart
  The Medicines Control Agency has frequent meetings with a wide range of interest groups. The agency held meetings with a number of organisations
  127W
  including representatives of businesses and practitioners in the natural health sector on 21 March. Further discussions with organisations representing consumers, retailers and herbal practitioners are to be held on 28 and 31 March.

  Hospital Consultants (Distinction Awards)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many distinction awards were made to hospital consultants and at what total value in the last year for which figures are available.[116113]

  Mr. Denham
  In the 1999 awards round, a total of 481 new distinction awards were granted to hospital consultants. The breakdown of levels of award and their values is shown in the table.

  Award

  Value1 (£)

  Number granted

  Total value2 (£)

  A+

  58,525

  37

  2,165,425

  A

  43,125

  142

  6,123,750

  B

  24,640

  302

  7,441,280

  Total

  481

  15,730,455

  1 As at 1 April 1999

  2 The total value of the awards granted assumes full-time employment

  Hospital Matrons
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reintroduce the post of matron in hospitals. [116356]

  PCT

  Region

  Chair

  Political Activity

  Southend

  Eastern

  Katherine Kirk

  Labour

  Southampton East

  South East

  Pauline Quan-Arrow

  None

  Epping Forest

  Eastern

  Susan Leggate

  Other

  South Manchester

  North West

  Michael Green

  Labour

  Poole Central and North

  South West

  Anne Holland

  LibDem

  Poole Bay

  South West

  Peter Harvey

  None

  Hillingdon

  London

  Sarah Pond

  None

  Mansfield

  Trent

  Tony Hughes

  Labour

  Newark and Sherwood

  Trent

  Bonnie Jones

  None

  Central Derbyshire

  Trent

  Stuart Fletcher

  None

  NE Lincolnshire

  Trent

  Valerie Waterhouse

  None

  Daventry and South Northants

  South East

  Simon Schanschieff

  None

  The Nelson

  London

  Kay Sonneborn

  None

  Fenland

  Eastern

  David Burall

  LibDem

  Peterborough North

  Eastern

  Mohammed Choudhary

  Labour

  Peterborough South

  Eastern

  Marco Cereste

  Conservative

  Tendring

  Eastern

  David Rex

  Conservative

  Transplants
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding he has allocated to allow officials of his Department to study the co-ordination of transplant availability and organ procurement in Spain; and what were the results of the study, with special reference to early awareness by authorities of potential kidney donors. [115214]

  Mr. Denham
  As a matter of course, officials at the Department are in regular and frequent communication
  128W
  Mr. Denham
  Each National Health Service trust has a nurse executive director who is a member of the trust board. Some are titled "chief nurse", and they could, if they so chose, be called "matron". They are therefore very senior people with influence in their organisation and are responsible for, among other things, quality and nursing standards.

  Some are also patient services managers and their role equates more closely to the span of responsibility of the traditional matron. The role of the matron therefore still exists in many trusts across England, albeit with a different title.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the chairmen of primary care trusts and primary care groups, indicating the political background and affiliation of each where it is known. [116648]

  Mr. Denham
  We do not collect monitoring information on the political activity or affiliation of primary care group members because primary care group appointments are not made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Primary care trust chairs are appointed by my right hon. Friend and, 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. The Department does not collect information on the political affiliation of those appointed to National Health Service bodies.

  Primary care trust chair details are shown in the table.

  with the head of Organisation National de Transplant, Dr. Blanca Miranda, and the lead official in the Spanish Ministry of Health, Dr. Raphael Matesantz. The Department are aware of the Spanish developments in procurement of organs for transplantation.

  In February we announced action plans for the modernisation of transplant services in England. These have taken into account lessons learned from the Spanish experience including all aspects of organ procurement.

  Medicinal Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of medicinal drugs as a percentage of NHS funding for the next five years; and what the figure was for the last five years. [115943]

  Ms Stuart
  Decisions about the amount spent on drugs over the next five years will be made locally.

  The table shows the expenditure on drugs as a percentage of National Health Service funding for each of the past five years.

  Total NHS drugs bill as a percentage of total NHS expenditure

  Year

  Percentage

  1994–95

  12.1

  1995–96

  12.7

  1996–97

  13.3

  1997–98

  13.7

  1998–99

  13.8

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a substantive reply to his letter of 9 February on behalf of 40 of his constituents. [116532]
  130W
  Ms Stuart
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State replied to the right hon. Member on 27 March.

  Trust Deficits
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to eliminate(a) current financial deficits of NHS trusts and (b) the accumulated NHS deficit; and if he will make a statement. [116537]

  Mr. Denham
  The new resources for the National Health Service announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget will help the NHS to run balanced budgets year after. A substantial part of the accumulated deficits represent longer term liabilities such as clinical negligence costs for which funding is made available as payment falls due.

  Older Women
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to promote the health of older women. [115170]

  Mr. Hutton
  Modernising services for older people, including older women, is a priority for this Government. This is why we should be publishing a National Service Framework for Older People later this year. In the meantime, we have already launched an osteoporosis strategy and published an important resource pack for older women called "Enjoy your later life: Physical and Emotional Wellbeing for Older Women". These have been widely welcomed.

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

The British Steel Industry
2.36 p.m.
Lord Islwynasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their most recent assessment of the future of the British steel industry.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the UK steel industry has undergone substantial restructuring since the 1970s. Productivity and yield rates have increased and emissions have declined. The industry continues to take positive action to maintain its international competitiveness through such measures as greater teamworking, the introduction of new technology and the development of new products. I believe that it has excellent long-term prospects.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, with BMW in mind and with uncertainties in other sections of the motor industry, will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will keep in the closest possible contact with Corus, formerly British Steel, in order to be fully aware of the company's future policies? Does he appreciate that steel is still the cornerstone of the Welsh economy, so that, whereas we can argue for matching funds for objective one status, nevertheless a major steel closure would make a difficult situation even worse?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I entirely agree that the health of the motor industry is quite essential to the steel industry. I acknowledge the difficulties with BMW at Longbridge. However, we still have Land Rover at Solihull, the Peugeot 406 at Ryton, the R75 at Cowley and the Jaguar S-type at Castle Bromwich. There is a good deal of the motor industry over which that question does not hang.
Ministers are in almost constant contact with Corus. They had a meeting with its representatives only this morning about the issue raised in the Western Mail regarding Nedcar in the Netherlands. They were reassured to learn that Corus has good relations with both the old and new management at Nedcar. We are also entirely seized of the importance of the steel industry to the Welsh economy.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the Minister aware—as I am sure he must be—that 70 per cent of steel exported from this country goes to mainland Europe and that, although, as he mentioned, the steel industry here has substantially improved its productivity, in terms of sales in euros this has been totally overtaken? There has been a 10 per cent improvement in productivity
634
over recent years but a 30 per cent increase in the price in euros. Is it not time that the Government seized the problem of the exchange rate and made a firm commitment on what we are going to do about the euro and avoided putting further imposts on the steel industry, such as the rerating which has apparently occurred in South Wales?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have consistently rejected the view that they should intervene directly in the exchange rate or set exchange rate targets to the Monetary Policy Committee, as opposed to the interest rates and price stability targets which it sets. It is of course true that the majority of British steel exports go to Europe, but it is encouraging that, with the recovery of the soul h-east Asian economies, there is an opportunity for increased exports there as well.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Corus, formerly British Steel plc, has obtained—I am pleased to say—a substantial order from the Turkish electricity industry for some 70,000 metric tonnes of steel? That is good news against a backdrop of a company which lost a quite considerable amount of money last year. In that respect, does my noble friend share my concern and that of the workers, mainly because of the strength of sterling but probably also because of the multinational nature of the company now, that orders could go abroad as easily as remain in the United Kingdom? Does he agree that there is therefore, as he indicated earlier, a need to keep in close contact with the company in that regard so that there will be tangible support such as is now being obtained with the climate change levy?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am happy to join with my noble friend in congratulating Corus on the Turkish order. I believe that I have made clear the importance which the Department of Trade and Industry attaches to close contact with Corus. I hope that I have given evidence that we are maintaining that close contact.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Minister will recall that I expressed sympathy for him last Thursday when he had to come along instead of the Minister responsible at the DTI, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. I express the same sympathy for him today. Is the Minister aware that I am delighted to hear his song of praise for a privatised industry? I cannot remember hearing the same song at the time it was privatised by the Conservative Government. However, the problems raised by the previous two speakers are real. I refer to the problem of Longbridge perhaps reducing its demand for steel and to the weak euro. Can the Minister promise that no more burdens, especially along the lines of emissions, will be placed upon the steel industry in this country?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when the noble Lord finally asked a question as opposed to expressing sympathy, he asked me to promise that no

635
more burdens should be placed upon the steel industry. Burdens have not been placed upon the steel industry. Within the limit of our abilities we have done everything we can to support the steel industry in this country.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend deplore those on the Liberal Benches and elsewhere for wanting to talk the pound down? Is it not a fact—I asked this question before and I shall ask it again—that the pound has been extremely reasonable and steady against the major currencies of the world? It is the euro which has declined, not only against the pound but against all other major currencies in the world. Therefore, it is not sterling that needs to be dealt with but the euro. That will be done when the rest of the world has more confidence in Europe than it has in this country and others.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend has asked this question before and I have answered it. I agreed with him that the strength of the pound has increased in relation to the euro very much more than it has in relation to the dollar and the yen. However, if he is suggesting that we should do something about the weakness of the euro, he is slightly outside the realms of possibility of government policy.
Baroness Hogg: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the budget forecasts of the economy are based on a decline in sterling and that, as the Red Book states, if it does not occur there will be further losses in market share?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. We believe that the position of sterling is over-valued in the long term. Our budget forecasts are based on that assumption.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, if my noble friend believes that it is over-valued in the long term, why does he not do something in the short term?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend and others always seem to think that there is something which the Government can do about exchange rates. We believe that the best we can do for exchange rates and for the economic future of this country is what we have been doing; that is, to ensure economic stability consistent with high levels of growth and employment.

Higher Education: Funding
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Youngasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that universities will be able to recruit and retain staff following the estimated 1 per cent fall in the value of government grants for the "unit of resource".
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the recruitment and retention of staff is a matter for higher education institutions. Our spending plans made substantial extra funds available for higher education: a real terms increase of 11 per cent over four years. We are clear that, unlike the previous government, which dealt harshly with university funding, we are giving universities and colleges the chance to improve the quality of their teaching and research. The 1 per cent efficiency saving reflects a recommendation made by the Dearing Report on the funding of higher education.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is she aware that Sir Brian Fender commented that the recent funding is less than satisfactory, particularly in recruiting and rewarding staff? Is she further aware that, unless universities recruit and retain the very best staff, they will cease to be very good universities and that young people will go abroad? There is already evidence that the best are going to the United States. This is a serious issue which I hope the Government will address.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am aware of the remarks made by Sir Brian Fender. It is always very nice when we can provide more funding. I have no doubt that many people in universities have expectations of more in future. However, as I stated in my initial reply, the Government have put a substantially increased amount of funds into our universities, which compares with substantial cuts under the former government.
Between 1989 and 1997 there was a 36 per cent decline in the unit funding of our universities and a 6.5 per cent projected efficiency saving for the first two years. In comparison, this Government are being immensely generous. I am aware of the importance of recruiting good staff for our universities. I believe that the profession still attracts many able young people. I am aware of the report of the Bett Committee and proposals from that committee for improvements. We are considering the whole question in the next spending review, but I cannot anticipate the outcome.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the sense of relief at the Government's funding of universities in bringing the unit of resource, the efficiency gains, down to 1 per cent as against the very severe decline in the unit of resource over the previous decade under the former administration? Is she further aware that there is now a real sense of concern about uncompetitive salaries within the higher education system? Can she assure us that in the comprehensive spending review due later this year, the problems of universities will be given very real attention?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of the relief which greeted the arrival of the new Government and their changed position in relation to funding of universities. I was a head of a university

637
institution who, along with other heads of such institutions, was in despair at the end of the former Government's time in office. I am aware of the points raised by my noble friend. As I have said, in the next comprehensive spending review we shall be looking at higher education funding, and many other areas, but I cannot anticipate the outcome.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the bulk of the funding provided for the higher education sector in the last comprehensive spending review was used to make good the backlog on capital expenditure on equipment rather than on salaries? Given the expansion in the numbers of students, as the noble Baroness pointed out, the unit of resource is going down. This problem is particularly acute in science and engineering departments. Is not the Minister worried, given the degree to which some of our industries—the pharmaceutical sector in particular—are dependent on taking on high quality graduates in those disciplines, that the uncompetitiveness of teaching salaries is running down those departments to the detriment of our industries?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am aware that quite a high proportion of the additional expenditure has been allocated to capital projects. However, I believe that that was what the universities wanted. Their infrastructure was in such an appalling state after the severe cuts that were made under the previous administration that it has been necessary to put this right. Of course am also aware of the fact that salaries in higher education have not risen as much as they have in many other parts of the public sector. However, as I have already said, it is a matter for universities to decide how much of their extra funding they use for academic pay. I can only repeat once more what I have already said about the next spending round.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, on the very day that the Prime Minister has sought to wrap himself in the skirts of Britannia, can the Minister tell the House that she will end the discrimination against English students attending universities in the United Kingdom who need to pay fees, and against English universities where Scottish students attending English universities need to pay fees? If New Labour truly stands for a United Kingdom and for fairness, is it not high time that the Government responded to the expectations they raised at the time they were elected to office that funding would be made available for higher education?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as regards the issue of discrimination—I believe that was the term used by the noble Lord—I refute that this is a matter of discrimination. We have a devolved system. If Scottish institutions and the Scottish Executive choose to spend their money in a different way, that is a matter for them. I do not accept that English students are discriminated against. They may make decisions on a voluntary basis about where they attend university. They can decide whether to stay in England or move to Scotland.
638
In response to the noble Lord's point on investment in higher education, the Government are doing exactly what they said they would do: over the four years from 1998–2002, we are investing an additional £1 billion. That represents an 11 per cent increase in real terms and a 22 per cent increase in cash terms. Furthermore, that sum represents a much greater investment than anything done by the previous government during their period in office.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Government have been slow to realise the extent of the damage done to the public services by 14 years under the previous government, during which they squeezed pay in the public sector? This is already beginning to have an impact on this Government's only attempt to make various improvements in various parts of the public sector. For example, we almost had no schoolteachers so that we could not do what we wanted to do in education. We almost had no nurses so that we could not do what we wanted to do in the health service. Unless we do something about rates of pay in higher education, we shall not be able to fulfil our objectives in that area either.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not accept what my noble friend has said. We have made very substantial pay increases—far above inflation levels—to both teachers and nurses.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, while I am obviously in the hands of the House, because we have reached 17 minutes of Question Time, I believe that we should probably move on.

Abnormal Loads: Escorts
2.55 p.m.
Lord Hoyleasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have reached any conclusions on whether it is necessary to use highly trained police officers and their equipment when transporting abnormal loads.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the public consultation on our proposals to transfer some of the responsibility for escorting abnormal loads from the police to private escorts has been completed. Some respondents have questioned the viability of the proposals and there are a large number of technical points which need to be addressed. Further discussion with the police service will be necessary, but we will announce our conclusions as soon as we can.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, perhaps I may say to my noble friend that nobody could accuse the Home Office of reaching an early conclusion on this matter. It was first mooted in 1994, an interim report was published in 1997 and final comments and views were

639
requested in January 1999. In the meantime, of course, we see miles of traffic queuing at a standstill on our motorways because abnormal loads are being moved at peak periods. I ask my noble friend: please can we have some action on this matter?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think that I had better accept that as a friendly question. I agree with my noble friend, it has taken an inordinately long time even to get close to reaching a conclusion. Furthermore, he is right to remind the House that this matter was the subject of discussions even, I believe, before 1994. Careful consideration was being given to the post-Sheehy proposals and close inspection was made of both the core and ancillary tasks of the police service. I take my noble friend's point to heart and I shall certainly go back to have more talks with officials to find ways to speed up progress in this area. However, I think that it is fair to say to the House that this is a complex issue with many subsidiary issues involved. Several agencies must be consulted so that the final proposals are absolutely right.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, can my noble friend indicate to the House what proposals his officials have in mind? Is he aware that around 150,000 escorted movements take place each year? There does not seem to be any kind of national plan and the service differs from county to county. I believe that it is urgent that something is done about this. Is my noble friend further aware that there are only two simple requirements here? First, night travel should be imposed, with none taking place during the day. Secondly, if such night services are to be escorted by the police, let the contractors and not the police pay for it. That might give us an indication of how much the police are presently having to pay for such duties.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as I said in an earlier response, this is a complex area, although my noble friend is right to draw attention to the impact that such load movements have on our roads. I have been told that there are around 1.5 million movements of abnormal loads per year. I am also advised that, when calculations were last made, it was estimated that the cost of escorting abnormal loads lay somewhere in the region of £7 million per annum. The proposals have looked at the idea of introducing private escorts. However, this must be subject to further discussions, which is only right. However, I repeat that this area is complex and we need to take care because there is no easy answer to the problem. Simply to assert that we can transport abnormal loads on the motorway network during the hours of darkness falls short of solving the problem. Other issues must be taken into account, not least because most major repair works and changes to the motorway network, such as the re-alignment of routeways, take place at night. Noble Lords will appreciate that this is a complex issue, but I agree that conclusions must be reached soon.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, if this issue is so complex, could the Minister not answer his noble friend simply on the point of whether contractors should pay for the policing of such loads? The Minister's noble friend has asked a simple question which could receive a simple answer.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, under the provisions of Section 25 of the Police Act 1996, it is open to the police to charge for this service. The facility for such charging is already in place. However, some parts of the haulage trade would be quite happy to have charges raised on them, while others believe that it is a service and should be provided free. Some would be happy with private escorts, while others believe that the police should carry out these duties. It is most important that the Government should reach a balanced view. We must listen to the haulage industry, listen to the police service and try to work together to get it right.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, does not part of the difficulty lie in the fact that the Home Office is conducting all these discussions and writing letters rather than answering questions?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we carried out a detailed consultation. The noble Lord will know that, because it was his government that began this process. They were determined in 1995 to introduce private escorts for abnormal loads on motorways. They failed to do it in their time; we intend to get it right in ours.

ECHR: Legislative Compatibility
3 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Allowayasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ensure that, when the rectitude of a statement on a Bill's compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights is challenged, a reasoned justification will be given in the course of debate on that Bill.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we believe that a Minister in charge of a Bill should address convention-related issues during proceedings on the Bill. It will be for him or her to decide how best to do so in the context of the debate.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Does he recall that at all four stages of the Representation of the People Bill the rectitude of the statement which he made as to compatibility was challenged on the basis of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights? Does he recall also that no reasoned justification was given? If the advice on which that statement was made is

641
kept on file, why, in accordance with government practice, was the substance not disclosed in the exercise of' his ministerial discretion?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reminder. He is right that it was a question that he raised at each stage of the Representation of the People Bill. It is a matter for Ministers to give their opinion as to whether or not the legislation for which they are responsible conforms with convention rights. That is a statement that is made on the face of each Bill. Legal advice to Ministers is kept in confidence, as has been the practice across many years and across many administrations.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one man's reasoned justification is another's smooth excuse?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I rather like the way my noble friend puts that.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that one of the duties of the human rights committee of your Lordships' House will be to monitor Bills for compatibility with convention rights and to give a reasoned report to your Lordships' House on any apparent incompatibility? Can he therefore tell us, now that a distinguished academic has been appointed as legal adviser, when the committee will be set up and start work?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I can confirm the noble Lord's first statement. It is the Government's intention to introduce the Human Rights Act on 2nd October this year. We have not fixed on a firm date for the creation and establishment of the Joint Committee of both Houses. However, the points raised by the noble Lord are up for its urgent consideration.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, despite the fact that the committee is about to be set up, it is important that the Minister concerned should be capable of expressing his own view of the statement that the Bill is compatible. If the Bill is not compatible, it will be changed under the fast-track procedure because of the Human Rights Act. Should not the Minister therefore be prepared to give his own view and not hide behind the fact that his legal advice is confidential?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am interested in the point made by the noble Baroness. However, I do not believe it would be right for the Minister to offer a personal view. It must be a view based on sound legal reasoning. Ultimately it is a matter for the courts to determine. We give a legal reason and that is the explanation which should be carefully provided for.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is the Minister fully seized of how urgent the setting up of
642
the Joint Committee has become in order for Parliament to have proper access to an objective and independent body of opinion in human rights issues as they affect the drafting of statute?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it goes without saying that the Government are seized of that fact. After all, it is our legislation. We are proud of it and want to ensure that it is effective. The points made by the noble Lord are perfectly proper. As soon as the committee is in place—appointments are already being made—it will begin its important work.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for not answering either of my Questions.

Census (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
Lord Weatherillrose to move, That the proceedings of Tuesday 14th March be vacated.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion is required to vacate the proceedings on Third Reading of my Bill on 14th March. Those proceedings were entirely formal, as the single line recording them in Hansard attests. Unfortunately, they are now thought to have been defective because I did not at that time invite the House to agree to the privilege amendment. That is because at that stage it was not thought that the Bill would have any financial implications. However, on further inquiry it appears that the Bill may result in some additional costs which will need to be sanctioned by the other place. This means that a privilege amendment is required in order not to offend the financial privilege of the Commons. Accordingly, the Bill has been returned from the Commons for that to happen.
If your Lordships agree to my Motion, I shall invite your Lordships to give the Bill another Third Reading and to agree the privilege amendment before the Bill is finally sent back to the Commons. I beg to move.
Moved, That the proceedings of Tuesday 14th March be vacated.—(Lord Weatherill.)
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot allow this moment to pass without some comment. I make it plain that I ascribe no specific blame to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. But this is a most unusual procedure. I am sure it is not without some precedent, but it is unusual for a Bill to be vacated.
It is my understanding that this Bill is in fact a government hand-out Bill and it is doubly a reason why the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, is not to blame. But I wonder when the last occasion was that this happened to a Bill drafted by parliamentary counsel. Also, does the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, know what Minister was responsible for this? Would it not have been better, rather than having to ask this question in the House, to have put this on the Minute of the House last Thursday and an explanation be given and recorded in Hansard? Would not that have

643
been more convenient to Members of your Lordships' House rather than having this small debate this afternoon?
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I can enlighten the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. The last time a privilege amendment was omitted was in 1992, when your Lordships agreed to a Motion to vacate proceedings on the Third Reading of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. There are other examples in 1984 and 1980.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is a Private Member's Bill and not a government Bill. But it is only right that I should intervene as the Minister representing the Treasury in this House to say that no blame whatever attaches to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. This Bill was introduced by the noble Lord and it was only at a later stage that the Treasury, which is the controlling department for the Office for National Statistics, realised that there may be some financial implications. If this has caused difficulty to the House, I apologise on behalf of the department. But it should be clear that the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, is entirely without fault.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Census (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Bill read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Care Standards Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Independent hospitals etc.]:
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) An independent hospital includes a hospital sited on property owned by the health service but which is not managed or controlled by the health service.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to a further amendment tabled in my name, Amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 1 is a very simple probing amendment, the purpose of which is to clarify the meaning of "independent hospital" in the context of Clause 2. In Committee, the Minister confirmed that pay beds within NHS hospitals are subject to NHS rules. However, there is an element of ambiguity that relates to hospitals that are sited on NHS property but which are not managed or controlled by the health service. There are examples of hospitals that are owned by the NHS but which are leased to a private operator. Common sense and logic would suggest that these are "independent hospitals" and, therefore, subject to regulation by the national care standards commission. But, as we are all aware, the definitions in this Bill are orientated around physical premises. In the case of
644
hospitals, we need to be absolutely clear that it is the management and control of a hospital, rather than where it is or who owns it, that determines the regulator.
The Minister will doubtless tell me that the meaning of Clause 2(2) is perfectly clear and that a health service hospital is defined in Clause 97 as having the same meaning as in the 1977 Act. I took the trouble to look up the definition in that Act, which reads as follows:
"'A health service hospital' means a hospital vested in the Secretary of State [for the purposes of his functions] under this Act",
or vested in an NHS trust. I should be grateful for the Minister's confirmation that the potential ambiguity to which I referred—which, I should add, is a concern voiced by the BMA—is easily dealt with.
I turn to Amendment No. 3, which is another probing amendment. Clause 2(4) makes it clear that GP surgeries carrying out NHS work are exempted from the definition of "independent clinic" and will, therefore, fall within the scope of NHS regulation. However, GPs often carry out private practice work from their surgeries; for example, various types of minor surgery, laser treatment and vasectomies. These treatments frequently involve anaesthesia or sedation. There is an issue here about dual registration. On the one hand, primary care premises where private work—and only private work—is carried out will fall within the remit of the new regulatory framework. On the other hand, GP premises where NHS work is carried out are exempt under Clause 2(4). Can the Minister say whether it is correct to assume that GPs providing NHS services from their premises, where some private work is also undertaken, will not need to register with the new national care standards commission?
At present, GPs must register under the nursing homes regulations should they treat patients other than those on their own lists. Some GP practices provide services such as vasectomies to their own patients, as well as to patients of neighbouring GPs. This is a health service contract that can be paid for out of the waiting list initiative money. Can the Minister say whether, under the regime put in place by this Bill, GPs who provide NHS treatment for patients not on their own lists will need to register with the national care standards commission? I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, perhaps I may question the Minister as to what procedure he proposes to adopt at this stage. I make that request because he is not only going to reply to the noble Earl, but will also be proposing some amendments tabled in his name. Before the noble Lord replies to the noble Earl, perhaps I may suggest that he, first, proposes his own amendments and then gives us an opportunity to respond to them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I should be happy to follow that proposal for the convenience of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, brought to our attention in

645
Committee reservations about the quality of care provided to private patients by call-out doctors, who were contacted by phoning an advertised number. I said then that I would take the matter away and reconsider it.
I thank the noble Lord for raising these concerns. I agree with him that such doctor call-out services should be regulated. Therefore, we have brought forward Amendment No. 2, which introduces a new category to be regulated—independent medical agencies. This will require call-out doctors to be regulated by the commission. Amendments Nos. 4, 10, 31, 32, 154 and 155 are consequential to the introduction of this new provision.
In proposing Amendment No. 2, perhaps I may also say that I believe it would be wrong to think only about the services that are being provided at present; indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said in Committee, we also need to consider the future, as healthcare provision is developing at such a rapid pace. New technologies, such as telecare and telemedicines, may have a very profound impact on the way that illnesses are diagnosed and services delivered in the future. Those technological developments will, in themselves, have an impact on the role of healthcare practitioners and on decisions about where relevant healthcare services can be delivered most appropriately to patients.
We must ensure that the national care standards commission is in a position to react and keep pace with those changes. We have, therefore, brought forward Amendment N a. 51 to enable the scope of the independent healthcare regulated by the commission to be extended by regulation, if and when necessary in the future. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out in Committee, the provision of healthcare is changing. So Amendment No. 51, which will give the commission this flexibility, is important.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister briefly for both those amendments, especially for Amendment No. 2. It was most helpful of the Consumers' Association to point out such an important lacuna in the Bill. I am extremely grateful to the Minister not only for responding by way of that amendment but also for taking it a step further and, in a sense, looking beyond that as to what other flexibilities may be required in the Bill.
Lord Peston: My Lords, before my noble friend the Minister replies to the interesting queries raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I have one point to raise. It is possible that I have misread the second paragraph of Amendment No. 2, but it does not seem grammatically correct. I cannot quite make sense of it. It may be because I am no good at reading legislation and, indeed, that any lawyer would make perfectly good sense of it; but there is either an "it" missing, or something similar. In any event, the sentence starts with the word "but", which I believe to be unacceptable.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I would never dare to suggest that my noble friend cannot read legislation appropriately. I am not sure about the grammar, but if we are talking about an establishment within which services are provided by medical practitioners in pursuance of the National Health Service Act 1977, it cannot be defined as an "independent clinic". My noble friend's point actually takes us on to the issues raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, with which I shall now deal.
The noble Earl is right in both the suggestions that he made. He has proposed that the definition of "independent clinic" in Clause 2 should be amended so that it will exclude establishments in which the majority of services are NHS services. He then posed the probing question in that respect. In response, I can tell the noble Lord that the independent healthcare provisions of the Bill are built on the fundamental principle that it will not be the commission's task to be concerned with NHS services. Providers of NHS services will come under the separate arrangements specifically introduced to provide quality assurance in the NHS. Therefore, clinics that provide any NHS service will come under the NHS arrangements, and not under the national care standards commission.
We believe that it would be unnecessary and, indeed, that it would amount to over-regulation to require doctors who have to comply with NHS arrangements to be regulated also by the commission. Perhaps I may point out that the noble Earl's question relates to the issue of the majority of services. It would be difficult to keep track of doctors' practices in order to monitor the 50/50 split. However, I understand that the noble Earl raised the matter more as a probing amendment than anything else.
On similar lines the noble Earl has tabled an amendment to the definition of "independent hospital" in Clause 2, the effect of which would be to include in the definition a non-NHS hospital situated on land owned by the NHS. We see no need for this amendment. Clause 2, as currently drafted, provides that any non-NHS hospital that satisfies any of the other conditions in Clause 2, regardless as to whether it is situated on land owned by the NHS, comes within the definition of "independent hospital" and will be regulated by the national care standards commission.
Earl Howe: My Lords, first of all I thank the Minister for his clear and full explanation of the government amendments, which I welcome. I take this opportunity to thank him for writing to me so comprehensively and on a number of occasions since the Committee stage to explain the meaning and purport of all the government amendments that we shall consider today. That was helpful and has certainly eased my task considerably.
I turn to the two amendments in the group that I have tabled. As I said earlier, they were intended as probing amendments. However, the replies that the Minister has given are unequivocal. Both I and the BMA will be extremely grateful for that. It is always reassuring to find that there is no ambiguity in

647
legislation. It is as well that we should spot such potential ambiguities as they arise. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 34, leave out from ("provided") to end of line 35 and insert ("by medical practitioners (whether or not any services are also provided for the purposes of the establishment elsewhere).
But an establishment in which, or for the purposes of which, services are provided by medical practitioners in pursuance of the National Health Service Act 1977 is not an independent clinic.
(4A) "Independent medical agency" means an undertaking (not being an independent clinic) which consists of or includes the provision of services by medical practitioners.
But if any of the services are provided for the purposes of an independent clinic, or by medical practitioners in pursuance of the National Health Service Act 1977, it is not an independent medical agency.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) except any description of undertaking from the definition in subsection (4A);").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Care homes]:
Lord Rixmoved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 13, leave out ("suffering from illness") and insert ("ill").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during Committee stage of this Bill I made the case for removing the word "suffering" from its association with the basic definition of terms such as "disability" on the grounds that it is both negative, and in many cases inaccurate. A number of your Lordships supported my suggestion for the same reason and for reasons of linguistic economy.
In the interests of linguistic economy, I shall keep my comments brief. I am delighted that the Government have already indicated that they are minded to accept my Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 in relation to all three definitions in Clause 3. It demonstrates that the law can be modernised and used in more subtle and accurate ways. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on having done away with suffering.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for proposing these amendments. As he has indicated, I am pleased to accept them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rixmoved Amendments Nos. 6 and 7:
Page 3, line 14, leave out ("suffering from disability or infirmity") and insert ("who are disabled or infirm").
Page 3, line 15, leave out ("suffering from dependence") and insert ("dependent").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 4 [Other basic definitions]:
Lord Rixmoved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) "Day Services" means any centres or other facilities for daytime training or occupation, including arrangements for supporting people using facilities generally available to members of the public, funded or provided, directly or indirectly, by a public authority for the use of persons over pension age or persons with a physical or mental disability.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am dazed with expressions of gratitude! I speak to Amendment No. 8, which is grouped with Amendments Nos. 9 and 67. Amendment No. 8 will be familiar to noble Lords who braved the Care Standards Bill in purging the excesses of Christmas! As we are now approaching Easter, I am sure that your Lordships will not mind if I recap briefly.
This amendment seeks to include day services within the range of provisions regulated and inspected by the new commission for care standards. It is, quite frankly, absurd to legislate to protect the interests of vulnerable children and adults and then create exceptions based on where that care is provided. This is no minor exception. A substantial number of people with learning disabilities, young and old, spend a significant proportion of their week in the care of day services, and I suspect that the numbers relating to older people generally are also fairly substantial.
In Committee the Minister advised the Chamber that a power exists in the Bill to bring in day services at a later date. He also said that the omission of day services relates to the practical question of what can sensibly be undertaken by the commission. Today I urge the Minister to accept that practical challenge and clearly direct the commission to take responsibility at the earliest opportunity for care standards in day services for children and adults.
I am aware that from the outset staff working in day centres will be covered by the new general social care council provisions, and that is indeed welcome. However, I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify the extent of the coverage in this field. I look forward to the Minister's explanation of his Amendment No. 67, which is grouped with mine. Day care staff rarely remain in one geographical location while discharging their duties. These days, day care can cover a wide range of activities including sports, training, visiting libraries and other community resources. One would expect staff to be covered in all these settings, not just within the four walls of the day centre.
One final concern is whether staff undertaking a supervisory role in wider day service settings will be understood as providing "personal care" as the Bill requires. I should be grateful if the Minister could assure me on the breadth of the term "personal care"

649
as interpreted in the Bill and as mentioned in his amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that he accepts the need to offer greater protection to the users of day services. I believe my amendment to be well within the spirit of this important piece of legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I wish to second everything that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has said. These Benches tabled a similar amendment in Committee, but we thought that it was best to join forces on Report, especially as we thought that the Minister might bring forward his own amendment. I am delighted to see that that is the case. It is clearly not only necessary to have a definition of "day services", but also to have the Minister's assurance of when that regulation will come into effect. We very much hope that in addition to putting forward his amendment, which we believe defines in a perfectly satisfactory way what those day services should be, he will also give us the kind of assurance that we sought in Committee; namely, that that regulation will be introduced as soon as practicable.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I apologise if your Lordships cannot hear me but I shall do my best. The Government are to be congratulated on the fact that in this Bill they have set out in the early clauses rather than the late clauses the ways in which it needs to be interpreted. Up to a point they have done that well. However, they have left out one or two things that ought to have been included, including the definition of "day services", for which the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has now put forward a definition and a useful amendment.
In order to save time, perhaps I may say in passing that the starred amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, seeks to introduce a definition of a "nursing and ca re staff agency". Both definitions will help with the interpretation of the Bill. I hope that the Government will regard the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, with which we are now dealing, very sympathetically.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions that have been made in regard to this very important question. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for raising this matter both at Second Reading and in Committee.
Let me begin by speaking to my own amendment to Clause 52, Amendment No. 67. Clause 52, which sets out the definition of a social care worker, allows for regulations to provide for staff in day centres to be defined as social care workers. It was pointed out in Committee that the Bill contained no definition of the term "day centre". My amendment provides that. It covers establishments that provide nursing or personal care on a non-residential basis, wholly or mainly for persons who are or have been ill, are disabled or infirm, or who are or have been dependent on alcohol or drugs.
650
I have given careful thought to the issue of regulating day care in the light of the concerns expressed in our earlier debate. As noble Lords will remember, I said then that we must be careful not to overload the commission as it takes on its considerable and vital responsibilities, and that it would therefore not be practical to regulate day care from the start. But I said that the power existed in Clause 40 of the Bill to introduce regulation for further services, such as day care, at a later date.
From today's discussions it would appear that noble Lords—although they understand the necessary constraints that there must be when getting new arrangements off the ground—wish for greater certainty about our intentions for regulation in this area. I can confirm today that we will use the powers in Clause 40 to introduce regulation by the national care standards commission of day centres which provide nursing or personal care.
For the reasons that I gave at Committee stage, it will not be possible to do this from the start of the commission's life, but we will carry out a review within one year of the commission being established to decide the details of exactly how and when the regulatory regime will come into force.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 define "day services" more widely than those services that are provided in day centres. I have discussed with the noble Lord, Lord Rix, his concerns that a lot of activities for people with learning disabilities are arranged by day centres but take place outside the centre and may therefore not be covered by the provisions of the Bill. Regulation of dispersed day services not attached to a particular facility and not specific to those receiving care would present significant difficulties in terms of definition and boundaries. However, regulation of day centres will include inspection of fitness of staff and the appropriateness of activities arranged in and through the centre. An additional safeguard will be, as I have said, that day centre staff, as social care workers, will come within the remit of the general social care council.
The definition of "personal care", on which I was asked to comment, is to be found in Clause 97(3) of the Bill, which states:
"In this Act, the expression 'personal care' or 'nursing or personal care' extends to advice and encouragement, but does not include any prescribed activity".
In essence, the term "personal care" is mainly intended to cover assistance with bodily functions—such as washing, feeding, dressing, toileting—and the words "includes assistance with bodily functions" are used in the Registered Homes Act.
The commitment I have given today means that for the first time there is a clear guarantee that day centres will be subject to a system of regulation and inspection to ensure proper standards of care and protection. In the light of that commitment, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the Minister, sits down, perhaps I may be allowed to mention that, when it comes to the interpretation of the Bill, the undertaking to put something, if necessary, into regulations is nothing like as useful as including the definition in Clause 4, which the noble Lord, Lord Rix, wishes to do. From that rather important point of view, I hope that the Government will accept the amendment after all.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I was waiting for a response from the Minister to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I, too, have some queries. In regard to the review the Minister has promised—which we obviously welcome—how long will that take? If the review takes place within a year, will its findings be known perhaps three years later? Will there be a time limit on that? And, following on from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I should be very grateful to know whether it is possible to place that firm commitment either in regulations now or on the face of the Bill.
The Minister said that day centre staff will be monitored in their activities. I presume that means their activities outside the building.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, on the assumption that the Minister has not sat down—
Lord Burlison: My Lords, it is out of order for the noble Baroness to speak now.
Lord Hunts of Kings Heath: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. In relation to the term "day centre", my amendment ensures that the general social care council will regulate establishments that provide nursing or personal care on a non-residential basis, wholly or mainly for persons who are or have been ill, are disabled or infirm, or who are or have been dependent on alcohol or drugs. I hope that is helpful to the House.
So far as concerns the question of when the review will take place and how long afterwards would any necessary action be taken, I am not in a position to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on that matter. But the fact that we have set a date for the review to be undertaken one year after the establishment of the commission is a sign of our commitment to wanting that to happen. We share the views of noble Lords about the importance of this matter.
Lord Rix: My Lords, in view of the Minister's gesture of goodwill towards the review and the suggestion—if not the promise—that the findings of the review will be promulgated not too long after the one year is up, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Masham of Iltonmoved Amendment No. 8A:
Page 3, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) "Nursing and care staff agency" means any employment bureau supplying nurses in any part of the Register of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 8A and in speaking to Amendments Nos. 10A and 138, I declare an interest as I have to use various nursing agencies to get help for my husband, who has a selection of serious medical conditions. There are not enough nurses available for people needing nursing care in their own homes, in nursing homes and in our hospitals. Because of this it is easy for people who may put patients at risk to get employment. Agencies can be very stretched when such a shortage exists.
A nurse who has been dismissed from a hospital trust for misconduct may be taken on by an agency which may not bother to check the references. Because of being a qualified nurse, such a person might be put in charge of the drugs cupboard and given the keys. By the law of averages, there will be agency nurses who will have serious problems of personality or addiction. Nothing can ever be foolproof. But the registration of nurses' agencies could help to provide safer, better standards for vulnerable patients.
Nurses' agencies supply qualified nurses to many thousands of elderly or disabled people at home, as well as to our National Health Service hospitals, nursing homes and so on. This amendment would give powers for the regulation of nurses' agencies to the national care standards commission which will already be responsible for personal domiciliary care services and for private and voluntary healthcare under this Bill. It will do that by creating a definition of a "nurses' agency" parallel to the definitions of domiciliary agencies and other services to be regulated.
The Care Standards Bill, as currently drafted, repeals the Nurses Agencies Act (NAA) and extends to nurses the Employment Agencies Act (EAA) which would then be the only regulation of the sector. Those proposals are inadequate and betray the policy intention behind the Care Standards Bill to assure minimum standards of care and public protection.
Damage to health for vulnerable people at home or in hospital cannot be set right by reactive enforcement. Not all types of temporary worker present these risks. The difference is that nobody dies from accountancy. This amendment is related to the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to Clause 91. I believe that active regulation of nurses' agencies is essential. The existing regulation for nurses' agencies is not ideal, but if this amendment to Clause 4 is not passed, I shall support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to remove Clause 91 and retain the Nurses Agencies Act 1957. However, if this amendment is accepted, Clause 91 could stay.
A key purpose of the national care standards commission is to reassure members of the public that care services are of requisite standard; for example,

653
people will be advised to purchase personal care only through a registered domiciliary agency. It is illogical to deny this safeguard and reassurance to people seeking higher dependency care at home. Many people already think that nursing agencies are fully registered. All other major types of care service will be subject to actively enforced minimum standards. The proposed new regime will leave nurses' agencies as the only exception. That would mean a missed opportunity which could have dangerous consequences. Services should be required to register with an appropriate authority so that operators can be traced, controlled and excluded where practice falls below standard.
The Employment Agencies Act operates no register. Services should be routinely inspected so that standards are assured in advance of failure or scandal. The Employment Agencies Act is enforced only in response to complaints to the Department of Trade and Industry. Services should be run only by "fit persons" judged against clear criteria of qualifications and conduct.
As regards nurses' agencies, the recruitment and placement of registered nurses should always be carried out under the supervision of a registered nurse who is professionally accountable for his or her own actions. For people buying home nursing, professional assessment and care planning are essential. Daily judgements must be made based on clinical knowledge. That will include infection control, access to drugs, and medical confidentiality.
Nurses are also entitled to professional support from the agencies supplying them. For the national care standards commission to inspect nurses' agencies would be a low-cost measure because most of the businesses concerned also supply domiciliary care. Therefore, inspections can be carried out at the same time.
This amendment is supported by Age Concern, the British Federation of Care Home Proprietors, Care Forum Wales, the Hampshire Care Association, Help the Aged, the Independent Healthcare Association, Mencap, the National Care Homes Association, the UK Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, and the United Kingdom Home Care Association. Nurses are not all angels—many are—but all people needing their care are vulnerable and in need of protection before and not after disaster happens. I hope that that will be avoided. I hope that your Lordships, and especially the Minister, will accept this necessary amendment. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendments. If they are accepted, I believe that there will no longer be any necessity to move Amendment No. 138 to Clause 91 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
I have no strong views on the legislation under which the supply of agency nurses should be regulated. I wish the Government well in their endeavours to reduce hospital dependency on agency nurses. However, I seek an assurance that regulation will be
654
specific to nursing and at least in line with the regulations for the provision of personal carers by domiciliary agencies.
Given that objective, there seems to be a great deal of sense in placing nurse agency activity under the care standards commission alongside domiciliary care agency activities, not least when it may well be, as the noble Baroness has already said, the same agency carrying out the same functions.
The Employment Agencies Act could then bite in an appropriate way and not on the rather dangerous assumption that one commercial activity is much like another. I could just about put up with an agency gardener doing undesirable things to my rose bushes, but I could not put up with an agency nurse doing undesirable things to a member of my family. We should not wave goodbye to the Nurses Agencies Act without an assurance of specific and effective regulation under the care standards commission being there in its place.
I am aware of professional nursing sensitivities at a time when nurses are becoming more like doctors and domiciliary work carers more like nurses. I trust that my noble friend's amendments will tread gently on all sensitivities, protect patients, and commend themselves to the Minister.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, for two practical reasons: first, it can do no harm and nothing but good for the good nurses; secondly, I think it might ensure that anyone who is dismissed or disappears from a previous job for having fallen ill will not escape, as so many people do, because they have been given a reference which does not say how bad they are. For all kinds of reasons—for example, being sued in the courts—people often prefer to give very anodyne, if not misleading, references. If there was an official agency to whom they had to give such a reference, they would think more carefully. Incidentally, they would feel much safer.
For both those reasons, among the other much mere important ones, I hope that the House will look upon this amendment with favour.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Park, have put forward such strong reasons in favour of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness that it would, in my opinion, be most unwise and unfortunate if the Government were on this occasion, as on the previous occasion regarding the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, to say that they would like to hold another inquiry and then have a regulation to deal with the matter. That would be most unsuitable and unfortunate. Therefore, on this occasion I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 138 standing in my name, which I had intended as a vehicle for raising exactly the same issues as those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I do not

655
believe that there is much disagreement in the profession that the Nurses Agencies Act is out of date and merits abolition. The extent to which the Act provides protection is, in practice, extremely limited, but if it is patient protection that we are looking for, as we clearly must, then, as has been said very succinctly already, the Employment Agencies Act, which effectively takes the place of the Nurses Agencies Act under Clause 91, has even less to recommend it. Even with the special requirements proposed for care agencies in the latest draft regulations, the Employment Agencies Act is, in my view, wholly inadequate to ensure the standards of public safety that we should now be insisting upon, and which the Bill seeks to promote.
First, under the Employment Agencies Act, there is no register of agencies, so there is no knowledge of which businesses exist to provide a service. Secondly, as the noble Baroness emphasised, inspection and enforcement under the Act occurs only when the DTI receives complaints. When the health and well-being of sick and vulnerable people are at stake I do question whether a reactive as opposed to a proactive enforcement system is appropriate.
Thirdly, the Employment Agencies Act regulations contain no requirement at all for a nurse to supervise recruitment and placement, which means that agencies can operate with an inadequate understanding of health issues and with no professional accountability in any meaningful sense. There are no rules on fit persons. The answer, I respectfully suggest, is for the national care standards commission to have delegated powers to register and inspect nurses agencies and for the repeal of the Nurses Agencies Act not to occur until adequate replacement measures are in force.
Perhaps I may just emphasise to the Minister that the issues that I and other noble Lords have just highlighted are far from being theoretical; they are very real. There are some nurses agencies that are not operated as well or as scrupulously as they should be. From a practical standpoint, the additional regulatory role that I have suggested for the commission should not involve it in a great deal of additional work because, as I think the noble Baroness said, most nurses agencies are also domiciliary care agencies in any case. Therefore, it would be a cost-effective and efficient way of doing the job.
The point I would stress to the Minister is that it is not enough to argue, as he did earlier, that proper registration and inspection of nurses agencies are unnecessary because nurses are professional people. Nor do I believe that codes of practice can take the place of an inspection regime that is automatic. It really is not appropriate to treat agencies that deal with people's health in the same way as one treats agencies that supply secretaries. The implications for the user are of a wholly different order.
It is interesting that the Government have tabled amendments which seek to regulate doctors agencies under the national care standards commission. I have no inherent objection to those amendments, but it does seem inconsistent for the commission to regulate
656
doctors agencies and not nurses agencies. There are very few doctors agencies compared to the number that place nurses. Furthermore, a small number of doctors, I am advised, are placed through agencies, compared to the huge volume of nurses placed each year.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, and hope that he can provide some reassurance in relation to the very real concerns that have been expressed from all sides of the House.
Perhaps I may conclude with two specific questions. Can the Minister confirm that one effect of the repeal of the Nurses Agencies Act 1957 will be to classify as agencies nursing banks run by NHS trusts? If so, does he think this desirable, bearing in mind that the nurses employed by the bank system are NHS employees? Secondly, can he confirm that the change will result in additional costs for NHS trusts, which will no longer be able to claim back an element of VAT from the agencies which supply them?
Lord Rea: My Lords, having listened to the noble Baroness and other noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment, I feel this is a necessary and important amendment. I was particularly impressed with the long list of extremely reputable national agencies that she read out which support the amendment, including the UKCC. I did not hear the Royal College of Nursing mentioned among that group. I should be interested to know why. My noble friend may not be able to accept the amendment as it stands, but I feel that he will be sympathetic to its spirit, and I should be grateful to hear how the Government intend to deal with this important issue.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I totally support the arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Howe from the Opposition Front Bench. I would add only one other point. Looking around the House I think I am the only noble Lord who has held the position both of Secretary of State for Health and Social Services and Secretary of State for Industry. What struck me, as I moved from one department to the other, was how totally different they are: different in tradition; different in culture; different in attitude; and with a very considerable difference in experience and skills.
I shall not weary the House now with some of my experiences. However, in dealing with the pharmaceutical industry when I was at the Department of Industry, it was perfectly clear that it knew nothing about the pharmaceutical industry because it was sponsored in fact by the Department of Health. I find bizarre this proposal that nurses agencies should be handed to the tender care of the DTI. There is nobody in that department who can deal with them. I say that on the basis of past experience. They may have recruited all kinds of experts in nurses agencies in the past few years, but somehow I doubt it. It is such a totally different field from anything that the Department of Trade and Industry will have dealt with hitherto. Presumably, that department will be the one that will need to

657
make the regulations and to supervise the administration of the sections of the Act. I find that incredible.
It may well be—and I have no particular expertise in the field—that, as my noble friend has said from the Front Bench, the Nurses Agencies Act 1957 is now substantially in need of modernisation. It needs to be brought up to crate to deal with the profession and its activities and with agency activities as they are today and will be over the next few years.
I cannot believe it is right to put these matters under the control of the same department as controls the supply of secretaries, accountants, consultants and so on to industry a rid commerce. I say to the Minister that he cannot accept that position. The amendment may or may not be right—there are further stages of the Bill—but what the Government propose is not the right answer. The amendment at least raises the issue and would be one way forward. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some comfort on this issue because I honestly do not believe that the Government's present proposals are viable.
4 p.m.
Baroness Emerton: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and to agree with of her noble Lords who have supported the amendment. The Royal College of Nursing supports the amendment. It has 1,000 managers represented on its care agencies forum. They would like the Minister to take account of these proposals. It is recognised that the Nurses Agencies Act 1957 is not very thorough. However, the RCN would be concerned if responsibility transferred to the DTI. The Royal College of Nursing, and certainly I as a nurse, would wish the Minister to take account of what has been said and accept the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I can think of no good reason, except possibly its drafting, why the Government should refuse to accept the amendment. Nurses have a wide range of skills. As my noble friend Lord Howe said, it is essential that they should be properly recruited to a nursing agency by someone who understands nurses and is qualified as a nurse. When sending a nurse to a private house it is essential that that nurse has the skills and experience necessary to deal with the patient that she or he is going to look after.
Nurse training today is not as general in scope as it used to be. Very often, nurses are trained in one specific field rather than as general nurses, as they were in the past. It would be disastrous to send a nurse who had been trained to look after geriatrics to look after a very young person or a child in their own home, as might happen. That would be chaotic. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I wish briefly to offer the strong support of these Benches to the amendrnents— particularly Amendments Nos. 8A and 10A. It is common ground between all speakers that the current system is not perfect. I do not think that
658
anyone is making that claim. I was extremely interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, had to say. I can think of few government departments less suitable for this role than the DTI. Perhaps the Treasury would be the best depository. It is extraordinary that the DTI should he suggested as the department to be responsible for governing the nursing agencies in these circumstances.
It is clear that we should bring the provisions of the Nurses Agencies Act into line with those for doctors agencies. After all, the Minister has made concessions in that area only today. We should seize the opportunity of this Bill to bring nurses agencies under the national care standards commission. Noble Lords on these Benches, in line with all other noble Lords who have spoken, strongly urge the Minister to do just that.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I rise to add my comments on the amendment. I would have added my name to it, but by the time I came off the Woolsack last night and telephoned to do so, it had already gone to print. But I strongly support the amendment.
I have received a briefing from the Royal College of Nursing. Yesterday afternoon it attended a meeting with us and set out the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton. The RCN is quite aware that something needs to be done about the Nurses Agencies Act 1957 but it is clear that moving responsibility over to the DTI is no answer.
I have no interest to declare, but many years ago I ran an employment agency. When at that time one applied for an employment agency licence, one had to sign an undertaking that one would not attempt to deal with nursing staff of any kind. It was always clearly recognised that nurses required a type of procedure and regulation different from those applicable to other employment agencies. To put the two together now, all these many years later, would be a retrograde step.
At present, local authorities carry out inspection. Where that works well, it works very well. But in some areas it does not work at all well. Inspection is patchy over the whole country. The care standards agency could still use local authorities to carry out much of the day-to-day inspection. That would not throw a great deal of additional work on to the care standards agency, but it would mean that control was with the body that properly understood the situation. This is a very good amendment and I support it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly recognise the strength of feeling on this issue in your Lordships' House. I also recollect that due to the lateness of the hour in Committee we were not able to debate this matter thoroughly.
Noble Lords are agreed that the current system is not operating very effectively. In practice, it offers little protection for those receiving care from nurses supplied by agencies and little protection for the nurses themselves. The evidence seems to be that the Act is inconsistently applied throughout the country and is

659
open to wide interpretation. The aim of the Government's proposals was intended to create a level playing field for nurses agencies. Bringing them under the Employment Agencies Act would therefore mean that they would be regulated under the same system as all other employment agencies.
Noble Lords have expressed concern about the repeal of the Nurses Agencies Act. It has been said that we are removing a system of inspection and licensing. Under the proposals before the House, nurses agencies would, like all other employment agencies, come under the remit of the Employment Agencies Standards Inspectorate. The inspectorate responds to concerns and complaints about agencies. That enables it to target its efforts where problems have been identified. The inspectorate also has the powers to carry out spot checks on agencies. It has strong enforcement powers and can prosecute agencies that do not comply with regulations. Prosecution can also result in fines being imposed. The DTI, which has not come in for universal approval in this area, can also seek to prohibit agencies from operating for up to 10 years.
The Employment Agencies Act provides a much tougher framework of protection for agency nurses and those they care for than in practice we have at the moment. Although the noble Earl, Lord Howe, described that framework of protection as being wholly inadequate, I remind him that it was the previous government who introduced that legislation. I believe that the framework is sufficient to provide the safeguards that people rightly require.
I turn to the specific amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, the noble Lord has certainly succeeded in confusing me. We are all agreed that the Nurses Agencies Act is not working very well. However, if, when he referred to legislation introduced by another government—of which I might well have been member—he intended to refer to the Employment Agencies Act, that was not entirely clear from what he said.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords. It was my intention to refer to the Employment Agencies Act.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister also make it clear that currently the Employment Agencies Act does not cover nurses agencies?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I can. I referred to the inadequacies of the legislation that now applies to nurses agencies. All noble Lords agree that that is unsatisfactory. I refer to the potential of the Employment Agencies Act, if it applied to nurses agencies, compared with the current situation which all noble Lords agree is unsatisfactory.
I turn to the specific amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. We have carefully considered the
660
option of requiring nurses agencies to be regulated by the commission, but there is a genuine issue as to whether nurses agencies should be treated differently from agencies that supply other healthcare professionals. We must also take into account the very strong regulatory framework within which nurses are regulated through the UKCC, which itself provides the public with a great deal of comfort and safeguards.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the UKCC attended the meeting yesterday and made clear its understanding that at the moment the whole system was in the melting pot. Can the Minister confirm that? Is the noble Lord aware that the UKCC also supports this amendment?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, various changes are proposed to the regulation of nurses alongside the regulation of other professional staff within the National Health Service. As to the successor body to the UKCC, I can assure noble Lords that the regulation of that profession will be no less robust than at present.
I make two other points in relation to how the Employment Agencies Act would operate if it embraced agency nurses. First, I assure noble Lords that we would closely monitor and keep under review the new arrangements so that if problems arose we could take further action. For example, under the Employment Agencies Act we would have power to make regulations directed specifically at nurses agencies if the need arose.
None the less, having intimated to noble Lords the reasons why the Government consider that to embrace nurses agencies within the Employment Agencies Act would be a better option than the present situation, we recognise the strength of feeling expressed this afternoon. With the leave of the House, I shall reflect on the matter between now and Third Reading. On that basis I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, to withdraw her amendment. I do not disagree with the concerns expressed today by noble Lords. It is important to ensure that, whatever route is adopted, nurses agencies are regulated effectively. I believe that what we propose is satisfactory, but none the less I should like to consider the matter again.
4.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he able to answer the specific queries that I raised about nurses banks and VAT reclaims for NHS trusts?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is a matter that I should like to consider. My understanding is that VAT would have minimal effect. If NHS nurse banks were to be embraced within the Employment Agencies Act, we would look at ways in which they could be exempted from it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank all those who have supported the amendment. I do not want fragmentation; I am a supporter of joined-up

661
government. I believe that to leave the largest group of employees—nurses—out of the Care Standards Bill is wrong. However, I am encouraged by the Minister's response. The noble Lord has assured the House that he will look at rite matter again. The amendment has received a good deal of support, and I hope that the Minister will take note of it. I shall stay on the noble Lord's back. It would be better if the Government tabled their own amendment. We do not want nurses to be left out of the Bill because that would cause fragmentation. If the noble Lord does not table an amendment at Third Reading, I shall do so. On that basis, I beg lease to withdraw Amendment No. 8A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 22, after second ("to") insert ("an independent medical agency,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 10A not moved.]
Clause 6 [National Care Standards Commission]:
Baroness Davidmoved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 40, at end insert—
("( )In the exercise of its functions the Commission shall give due consideration to the views of children affected by the provisions of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 11 is designed to ensure that the national care standards commission considers the wishes and feelings of children. I moved exactly the same amendment at Committee stage. I table the same amendment today because I am not entirely satisfied with the Minister's response. I hope that I shall receive a better reply today. The Children Act requires both the courts in private family cases and local authorities in regard to looked-after children to give due consideration to the wishes and feelings of children affected by their decision-making. It is, therefore, consistent under domestic law that the national care standards commission should be placed under a similar duty.
The consideration of the views of children is also a requirement of Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was ratified by the UK after the Children Act was enacted. The Government are due to report to the UN-based Committee on the Rights of the Child and would gain some credit if they had made some effort to implement Article 12 since they last reported. By this amendment the commission is not bound to follow the views of children but simply to give them due consideration. The purpose of the amendment is simply to ensure that the commission keeps in touch with the view of those it tries to help. The Government have continually urged local authorities to do that under the Quality Protects programme, and it is very difficult to see how they should not apply the same principles to the national care standards commission.
662
At Committee stage the Minister appeared possibly to misunderstand the point of the amendment. I pointed out to the Minister, that in dealing with the convention, he had referred to Article 4 and not Article 12 to which I had referred. He said:
"I assure the Committee that children's views will be at the forefront of the regulatory process, including inspection. Ensuring that children are listened to will be a crucial function of the children's rights director who will be a key senior appointment in the commission".—[Official Report, 10/1/00; col. 460.]
This possibly implies that the children's rights director will check that local authorities have listened to children, as is their statutory duty under the Children Act. However, the point of the amendment is that the work of the commission itself should be informed by the views of children, not just local authorities. So, for example, if the children's rights director were to develop standards relating to foster care or care in private health establishments, he or she would be obliged to ensure that the views of children in those placements were taken into account.
Clearly, the Government should practise what they preach under their Quality Protects programme which stresses the importance of children's participation. If local authorities under law and guidance are required to listen to children, so should inspection and regulatory bodies, in particular a body establishing a post called "children's rights director". Every children's organisation that I know of is keen that the views of children should be heard. I shall be very surprised if the Government cannot give a more favourable response than they did last time. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the noble Baroness has put the case eloquently for the amendment to which I have added my name. I wish to support strongly what she said. It is a question of consistency. If central government impose on local government duties through the Quality Protects programme then, through the commission, the Government should ensure that they adopt the same standard of consultation, and that they should have direct consultation. I do not think that it is too much to ask that the commission has that explicit duty. I ask the Minister to consider the amendment favourably.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I add my support to the noble Baroness's amendment for one reason. Over the years, it has been borne in on me that in homes and foster families one is dealing with some extremely disturbed and difficult children. One has the utmost admiration for the people who undertake the job of bringing them up and trying to turn them into responsible adults. One of the things one has learned is that if one treats people as responsible beings, listen to them and treat their views with respect, and make clear that that is one's attitude, one is likely to have a better response than if they are treated in what has been in some circles the rather more traditional way, saying, "Yes, we look after them, but the adults will decide what happens".

663
Having a specific obligation to give due consideration to the views of children, as the amendment provides, means that the people concerned will have to talk to the children. I have reread the speech that the Minister made in Committee. I recognise entirely the difficulty that the noble Baroness had with it. Of course all the things that we say, and the Minister said, are supposed to happen. But why cannot there be a specific requirement in the Bill—something to which people can point and say, "This is what Parliament has asked you to do. Please will you now do it"? I am sure that for those inspecting and those who have the responsibilities of the care of children it will make the task easier rather than more difficult.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there can be no doubt that listening to children helps to protect them from harm and low expectations. If children can speak up and be heard, abuse is less likely to happen. That is the lesson from so many inquiry reports that we have learned over the past few years. Children and young people demand and need to have a voice in all decisions taken about them—not just on the big issues such as education, health and their placement, but on the day-to-day issues for them such as pocket money, bedtimes, meals and so on.
The Government are committed to listening to children and to learning the lessons of past inquiries which have identified many of these concerns. Listening to children was a priority area for expenditure under year one of the Quality Protects children's special grant. We have also been organising a series of regional events at which Ministers, senior members of the Department of Health and other interested parties will be listening directly and talking to looked-after children. We are working with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Association of Directors of Social Services and a small project team of young people to plan these events, both now and in the future.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lady David, that I am, of course, mindful of Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I have no disagreement with her that listening to children will be a crucial part of the national care standards commission's role. Ensuring that children's views are heard will be a key function of the children's rights director as a senior appointment within the commission. In the White Paper, Modernising Social Services, where the role of the children's rights director was set out, it was envisaged that the children's rights director would help the commission to give full and effective coverage of children's services and children's rights in its statutory regulatory responsibilities and in the reports it makes on the discharge of those responsibilities, ensuring that the views of children placed in the facilities and services regulated by the national care standards commission are given proper weight in the regulatory task, and report directly to the chief inspector of the Social Services Inspectorate any significant evidence relevant to the rights and safety of
664
children gained from the commission's regulation and assessment of services for children which might help local authorities or other providers improve the services and support to children.
Building on that, there is no doubt that the commission will need to give due consideration to the views of all users of regulated services if it is to fulfil its role properly. But I am not convinced that we need the proposed amendment on the face of the Bill to achieve that. However, I assure my noble friend that we shall issue directions to the commission as soon as we can requiring it to give due consideration to the views of all users of regulated services, including children.
I hope that on that basis my noble friend will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, and Lord Jenkin, for their extremely helpful support. Everything seemed to be going my way at the start of the Minister's speech. He seemed to recognise the need. I was hopeful for a really favourable response. I have received a half-favourable response, I think. He is not willing to put these simple two lines on the face of the Bill, but there will be directions. I am not entirely happy with that, but I shall be willing to read again what he said and see what comfort I can gain from it. I do not guarantee not to come back to this issue at the final stage of the Bill. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jonesmoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 41, at end insert—
("(4) Regulations under this section shall correspond to section 23(2) and section 23(3) of the Health Act 1999 with respect to the disclosure of confidential information that relates to and identifies a living individual.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to ensure that the national care standards commission, while carrying out its functions, provides the same standard of safeguard as regards identification for patients in the independent healthcare sector as those provided by the Commission for Health Improvement which are contained in the Health Act 1999. I make no bones about it. We felt that the Minister's response to a similar amendment tabled in Committee was unsatisfactory.
Health information about patients should not be disclosed without proper justification. Personal health information is collected for the provision of care to individual patients, and generally should not be used for other purposes without patients' permission. Information may be used without consent only in exceptional circumstances; for example, where disclosure is essential to avoid a risk of death or serious harm to people and it is not possible to obtain consent. The grounds for disclosure must be of sufficient severity to justify a breach of the duty of confidentiality.
When this amendment was previously moved and withdrawn in Committee, the Minister suggested that it was unnecessary, given that the national care

665
standards commission would be subject to the Data Protection Act. However, the amendment seeks to place the national care standards commission on a par with the Commission for Health Improvement, which is, after all, also subject to the data protection legislation and thereby would provide the public with the same safeguards from identification, regardless of whether they are NHS or independent healthcare patients. I believe that the principle of parity of treatment for confidential information purposes is of great importance.
In closing, I ask the Minister whether the Government consider that the Data Protection Act is sufficient to safeguard from identification patients in the independent healthcare sector, and what additional protection will be provided for patients of NHS and primary care trusts by regulations under Section 23 of the Health Act 1999. What is sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander. Can the Minister advise whether the remit for the recently established National Confidentiality and Security Advisory Board, which was announced on 15th March this year, will include promoting best practice on the confidentiality of patient information in the independent sector? If not, why will NHS patients receive the benefit of regulations and the advisory hoard, while patients in the independent sector must hope purely and simply that the Data Protection Act is adhered to? I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has made the case for this amendment most succinctly. I simply do not understand why the national care standards commission should not be subject to exactly the same legal duties with regard to patient confidentiality as apply to the Commission for Health Improvement. I support every thing that he said.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, of course, I accept the noble Lord's concerns and recognise that we had an interesting debate on this matter in Committee. We believe that the amendment is not necessary. It is our view that the commission's right of access to confidential information is already more restricted than that of the Commission for Health Improvement. I say immediately that I believe that all noble Lords will share concerns about the confidentiality of medical records. I am sorry that I was not able to reassure noble Lords on that point in Committee.
I deal, first, with that part of the amendment which relates to Section 23(2) of the Health Act. As the noble Lord explained today, the purpose of that section is to safeguard the confidentiality of personal health information and to ensure that the Commission for Health Improvement can access such information only in limited circumstances: first, where the information is disclosed to the Commission for Health Improvement in a form in which the identity of the individual concerned cannot be ascertained; secondly, where the individual has given his consent; thirdly,
666
where the individual cannot be traced; and, fourthly, where the Commission for Health Improvement is carrying out an investigation and considers that there is a serious risk to the health and safety of patients.
If one compares those with the powers of the national care standards commission, one will see that they are much more limited. Clause 29(4) and (5) of the Bill provide that medical records can be inspected only by a medical practitioner or a registered nurse and, even then, only with the consent of the person concerned.
Perhaps I may clarify one further point: Clause 29(1) allows the commission to require any information relating to the establishment or agency which it considers necessary or expedient for the exercise of its functions. However, I assure noble Lords that the powers in subsection (1) could certainly not be used to override the provisions in subsections (4) and (5) regarding the need to obtain consent in relation to medical records.
I hope that I have managed to reassure noble Lords that in relation to the Commission for Health Improvement access to medical records is more restricted under this Bill than it is under the Health Act. I should add that the amendment would also prevent the Government making regulations which would allow the commission to obtain information where disclosure of that information is prohibited by other legislation. This Bill contains no power which would allow the Government to make such regulations.
Therefore, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary. Clause 6 allows the Secretary of State to issue directions to the commission only in relation to the exercise of its functions. Therefore, I assure the House that the Government could not legitimately use that direction-making power to direct the commission to access information which is protected from disclosure by other legislation.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It seems to veer between "would not be used" (that is, a matter of practice) versus "could not be used" (that is, a matter of law). I am not entirely clear from the Minister's response whether he is saying that Clause 29(1) would not be used—that is, would be governed by subsections (4) and (5)—or whether he is saying that in law it would be unlawful for the commission to access that confidential information.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is the advice that I have received. It is my understanding that in law it could not be used in that way.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, that clarification is helpful. However, I believe that we should look at the Minister's words in Hansard and consider them. This is an important issue and the legal technicalities involved in Clause 29 clearly are of great importance. If the Minister is advised correctly that that confidential information cannot be used except in circumstances as set out in subsections (4) and (5),

667
I believe that that would be a satisfactory situation. However, if there is an element of discretion and it is a case of trusting to practice, I believe that that would not be satisfactory. It may well be that if that is so, we shall want to return to the matter at a later stage. In the mean time, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jonesmoved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
WELSH CARE STANDARDS COMMISSION
(" . There shall be a body corporate, to be known as the Welsh Care Standards Commission, which shall exercise in relation to Wales functions conferred on it by the Assembly in relation to services provided by persons registered under Part II of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel somewhat like someone at the front of a juggernaut. Faced with all the amendments which relate to Wales, Amendment No. 13 is small beer indeed compared with what I know that the Minister is due to put forward.
As a convinced devolutionist, far be it from me to expect the Minister to determine what will happen in Wales. However, I believe that a number of parties involved in this matter are seeking some reassurance from the Minister regarding whether or not a separate standards commission is to be set up in Wales and, if so, what its form will be.
I understand clearly that in his own amendment the Minister is attempting to place the powers of the National Assembly for Wales on the same footing as those for the Department of Health. I believe that in Amendment No. 13 the points at issue are: will there be a care standards commission for Wales and what does the Minister believe the practice will be? I believe that a statement from the Minister about his understanding of this point would give some reassurance, particularly to professional bodies which would be involved in implementing the commission. I beg to move.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for this new clause which seeks to establish a Welsh care standards commission. As the Bill stands, the registration authority in Wales is to be the National Assembly, which is, of course, a corporate body. Presumably, the Assembly has considered whether it needs a care standards commission and has decided that it does not. Therefore, the question arises as to how Part II of the Bill will be implemented.
I know from conversations with the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that further provisions are to be added to the Bill at a later stage relating to the establishment of a children's commissioner for Wales. I quite understand why those amendments will not be available to your Lordships; namely, that they are the outcome of, or the follow-up to, the publication of the Waterhouse report.
668
I hope that we shall have a proper account of the Assembly's deliberations on this particular issue of the care standards commission and that the Minister does not wash his hands of it, as some of his colleagues have been inclined to do as regards other Bills in so far as they relate to Wales. After all, this Parliament is still the primary legislative power and we have a responsibility to ensure that the Assembly, which is not a year old, has the necessary powers to act in the legislation that we provide.
As I understand it, the Assembly must implement Schedule 1, but apart from a reference in paragraph 1 of that schedule to the Welsh council to be established under Clause 51 to deal with social care workers, I can find no cross-reference to Part I, apart from in Clause 8, which refers specifically to charging and training. Therefore, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has done us a service in proposing this new clause.
I press the Minister to tell us whether all this means that the care council for Wales or the Assembly is to take on the responsibilities associated with registration. It is not at all clear. I should be extremely concerned if the Assembly had not yet decided that particular issue. There is certainly a visible vacuum in the Bill in relation to Wales.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is very interesting to have a debate on the situation in Wales. My understanding from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is that his amendment is tabled as a probing amendment rather than seeking to constrain the powers of the Welsh Assembly, which I should find to be somewhat at odds with the Liberal Democrat position.
Primary legislation affecting Wales is, of course, the responsibility of the Westminster Parliament; and so the Bill makes specific provision for Wales as well as for England. Indeed, as my forthcoming amendments on Welsh matters will demonstrate, it is taking all of us a little time to work through all the implications of how that operates. The amendments which I shall move are intended to give Wales the tailored provision necessary to those new devolved circumstances.
First, in specific answer to the questions which have been raised, I should say that as a result of the devolution settlement and under the terms of the Government of Wales Act 1998, it is for the National Assembly for Wales to decide how it should organise and fulfil duties such as those to be conferred on it by this Bill.
The National Assembly made the decision that in relation to regulating Part II services, it wishes to undertake those functions itself rather than through a separate care standards commission. It made that decision following a wide-ranging consultation exercise carried out last summer in which two main options were canvassed. The first option was that proposed in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones; namely, that there should be an independent statutory body to take on the regulatory

669
task, similar to the proposal adopted already for England. The second option was for the Assembly to take on those functions itself.
The responses to that consultation gave a two to one majority in favour of the proposal that the Assembly itself should take on the regulatory functions. The National Assembly's all-party Health and Social Services Committee strongly recommended a single all-Wales regulatory body to be set up as part of the Assembly rather than as an independent body.
Following the consultation process and the committee's recommendation, the proposal was agreed by the then First Secretary and it was as a result of that decision that the provisions in the Bill were drafted as they were.
The approach that the Assembly wishes to take provides a different approach for Wales in terms of structures and operational matters but it is entirely consistent with England in terms of the principle, scope and robustness of the regulation. It will be for the National Assembly to make regulations under the terms of the Government of Wales Act to define the detailed arrangements for fulfilling the new regulatory duties. That may involve establishing an executive agency of the Assembly; or the Assembly may prefer to have the regulatory responsibilities carried out within the existing departmental structure. Those decisions are for the Assembly to take.
The current Position is that the National Assembly has taken a decision on its preferred approach in that area. The Bill sets out the overall framework for the new regulatory system and the approach in Wales, therefore, is wholly consistent with that of England. But it must be left to the Welsh Assembly to make the decisions in relation to detailed matters and how the functions are to be delivered.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is the Minister in a position to give us an assurance that the provisions in Clauses 5 and 8 are adequate for the Assembly to perform and carry out its functions as the Minister has stated?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is certainly my understanding that the construction of the Bill, subject to further amendments which I am shortly to move, will allow the Welsh Assembly to carry out its responsibilities but in the way it so decides.
I refer also to the noble Lord's remarks in relation to the discussions within the Welsh Assembly about the establishment of a children's commissioner. My understanding is that the Assembly's Health and Social Services Committee will be exploring the details of these proposals. They are to be discussed further on 5th April. Following those discussions, an amendment may be tabled to the Bill in another place.
I turn now to the other amendments in the group which all relate to changes to provide for the National Assembly for Wales to have parallel powers to those provided in the Bill for England.
670
Perhaps I may make one further comment about the reasons for amendments being made at this time. It is worth reflecting that the Assembly was established only in July and that, clearly, a great deal of consideration has had to be given to how it would wish to operate the arrangements set out in the Bill. That has delayed the drafting of amendments. I regret that they are being brought before the House at this fairly late stage.
I deal first with the amendments to Clause 9. These are to give the National Assembly the same powers in relation to inquiries as the clause gives to the Secretary of State for England.
Amendment No. 58 in Clause 51 confers both an English and Welsh name on the care council for Wales, an approach taken also in the Government of Wales Act.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord the Minister might be able to pronounce that for us: Amendment No. 58.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords: I should have known that was coming! I will try: Cyngor Gofal Cymru. I do not think my pronunciation is very good, but that is the best I can do and I stand to be corrected.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, the Minister is quite right in saying that it is Cyngor Gofal Cymru.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord is very kind to me there. Turning to Amendment No. 107, Clause 69 concerns inspection powers for the Assembly for daycare and childminding services. They will ensure that the Assembly has equivalent inspection powers to those of Ofsted in England, but necessarily modified to the circumstances of direct administration by the Assembly. In relation to the protection of vulnerable adults list, it has already been agreed between the Department of Health and the National Assembly for Wales that the list should operate as a single scheme covering both England and Wales. Part VI therefore confers powers on the Secretary of State on an England and Wales basis.
Amendment No. 110 in Clause 70 provides that regulations under Clauses 70 and 78 shall he made by the Secretary of State but that the National Assembly shall be consulted before any regulations are made. There are a number of amendments to Clause 97. As a result of the devolution settlement, the Government of Wales Act provides for receipts to the Assembly to be paid into its own budgets rather than into the Treasury's Consolidated Fund, where this has been specified by primary legislation.
Amendment No. 152 puts these procedures into effect in respect of fees collected under the provisions of the Bill. Amendment No. 153 is needed to deal with pre-devolution legislation being amended after devolution, and ensures that the references to the statute are always up to date. Amendment No. 156 splits Clause 97 into two clauses to create a separate clause to deal specifically with these Welsh details.

671
Finally, I turn to amendments to the schedules. Most are very minor and simply ensure that the provisions apply equally to Wales and to England. However, one or two are worthy of specific comment. Amendments Nos. 159 and 210 make changes to reflect the position following devolution in respect of Welsh public records and the Welsh Administration Ombudsman. Amendment No. 205 to Schedule 3 concerns the tribunal established under the Protection of Children Act 1999. As your Lordships will be aware, this is a tribunal which will hear all appeals against decisions made under this Bill. It will be established on an England and Wales basis. The Secretary alone will have regulation-making powers in respect of the tribunal. Very importantly, the amendment ensures that the Assembly should be consulted before such amendments are made. I hope that those explanations have been helpful to the House.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister not only for his explanation of government amendments but also for his reply to Amendment No. 13. I put it forward in a spirit of inquiry, rather than seeking to impose on the Welsh Assembly what might be considered to be an English imposition. I am grateful for his explanation of where the Assembly has got to in its deliberations and how he envisages the Assembly governing care standards in Wales. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [General duties of the Commission]:
Lord Clement-Jonesmoved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 3, at end insert ("including standards of clinical care provided in those services").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment provides for account to be taken of the clinical care provided in care homes as well as the nursing and personal care. It must be recognised that clinical care is being delivered increasingly in care homes. The commission's remit appears through the course of the Bill to address the structure of personal care provision rather than standards and health care. Surely one of the main objectives of the care standards legislation must be to establish the standards of clinical care in all settings. Certainly a number of professional bodies are unsure about whether the Bill's provisions, in their current state, will actually achieve this. It is essential that this duty of quality extends to clinical as well as nursing and personal care.
There is an increasing trend for nursing homes to be used to treat NHS patients. For example, when a hip is replaced in an NHS hospital as part of the treatment episode, the patient may well be discharged from an NHS hospital to a private nursing home for rehabilitation. Certainly "winter pressure moneys" around the country are being used to purchase space in care facilities in order to release beds in the acute sector.
Certainly one of the recommendations from the national beds enquiry is that at least two out of every 10 days spent by people aged over 65 in acute hospitals
672
could be better provided for in alternative facilities such as intermediate care beds. A number of issues arise from the debate about the balance between acute and intermediate beds. For example, will those intermediate beds be sited in nursing homes? Will they be covered by the Care Standards Bill's regulatory procedures and how will the provision of clinical care in those homes be inspected?
It may be that when the Minister speaks on Amendment No. 28, which provides for regulations on the "promotion and protection of the health of persons" in various establishments he will be able to satisfy the points that I have raised on this amendment. There are concerns that there should be an emphasis on healthcare provision in care homes and other settings. Perhaps the Minister could explain whether his Amendment No. 28, for instance, means that regulations will be introduced to ensure that standards of clinical care will be inspected where appropriate. Perhaps he will also explain at the same time what procedures will be in place to assess the clinical care delivered to individuals transferred to care homes from hospitals as part of their treatment episode. There are a number of issues regarding clinical care in those social care settings, and I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in all that he has said. It may be that the Minister will tell us that standards of clinical care are to be understood as falling within the general definitions contained in Clause 7. I hope that he does. At the very least, though, there must be ambiguity on this issue in the light of the exclusions to Part II services set out in Clause 7(2).
As the noble Lord said, increasingly both residential homes and nursing homes find themselves looking after high-dependency patients, many of whom require clinical treatment. It cannot make sense to draw a distinction between clinical treatment on the one hand and personal and nursing care on the other. Both aspects of care have equal importance. Indeed, if clinical care were somehow left out of the assessment it would be very difficult to see how the promotion and protection of health of people in care homes—which I am delighted to see included in the Government's Amendment No. 28—could be judged in a meaningful way by the inspecting body. If standards of clinical care are to form part of the assessment, then I think we need to seek an assurance from the Minister that the inspection teams will be as multi-disciplinary as clearly they need to be to ensure that all relevant standards are being met.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this is a very important debate. We believe that the regulation-making powers in Clause 21 are sufficiently wide to enable the quality of clinical care to be regulated in relation to those homes where it is appropriate for that to be done.
I think we need to reflect that the definition of a care home embraces residential homes and nursing homes. We also need to consider each of those separately in

673
relation to this amendment, because although clinical care may be delivered in residential homes this would be carried out by general practitioners and the local NHS community nut sing services. In those circumstances it would not be appropriate to make the residential home responsible for the quality of this care.
It is different with regard to nursing homes, because they themselves deliver clinical care. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that arrangements must be in place to supervise and monitor clinical practice in nursing homes in order to ensure that the clinical care provided is of an appropriate quality. I have no doubt whatever that arrangements for overseeing the quality of clinical care should apply in nursing homes as well as in private hospitals. I take the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, regarding the need for multi-disciplinary teams. That is extremely important.
As I said, we believe that the powers in Clause 21 are already sufficiently wide to ensure that such procedures are put in place in nursing homes. However, I assure noble Lords that I shall take away the issue and consider it further to ascertain whether there is any doubt about our powers being strong enough to cover concerns in that regard. If so, we should look to table an amendment in another place.
5 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, will the Minister include consideration of the position of community psychiatric nurses and psychiatrists, whose work increasingly takes place in community settings; perhaps in nursing homes as well as in people's own domiciliary accommodation? Will he see whether the line about which he has just told the House can be drawn to cover such work and not leave a gap or have an untidy overlap? That area is changing extremely quickly.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I shall of course consider that matter. I do not see any reason why there should be any difference in terms of the line that I tried to draw.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. It is not simply a question of the powers in the Bill; it is clearly a matter of the practice intended by the commission. The Minister's reply has been extremely helpful. I take the distinction—which the noble Lord. Lord Jenkin, teased out somewhat further—between nursing homes and residential homes. We simply want to ensure that there is a seamless inspection of quality and regulation of quality as between acute and intermediate care. Intermediate care is coming increasingly under the spotlight as a result of the long-awaited, and now delivered, national beds inquiry. I shall consider the Minister's reply carefully. We look forward to his deliberations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jonesmoved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 25, at end insert—
("(8) "Excepted services" means the provision of services referred to in subsections (7)(a) and (b).
(9) The Commission shall have the general duty of securing improvements in the quality of excepted services in independent hospitals (as defined in section 2) and shall carry out this duty through the contracting of inspections with the Commission for Health Improvement ("CHI") established by the Health Act 1999.
(10) For the purposes of subsection (9) above the Commission shall ensure that the relevant independent hospital pays the full economic costs of any inspection.
(11) The standards applied by CHI on any such inspection shall be those which it applies in any comparable inspection of a health service hospital.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the question of standards of regulation and of inspection in the independent healthcare sector is a long-running issue. We debated the issue not only in Committee but also on the Health Bill last year. It is rather like the Peninsular War: we fight a regular spring campaign after being behind the lines for winter. I hope that it will not take quite as long as that to achieve victory in this case.
The history of the issue is quite simple. After the Health Bill went through, the Government consulted on the regulation of the independent acute healthcare sector. The outcome of that consultation, however unsatisfactory, is now reflected in the Care Standards Bill. The Bill itself gives no assurance that a duty of quality identical to or even similar to that required for the NHS is required for the independent healthcare sector; nor is there any provision for regulation by the same body—the Commission for Health Improvement—responsible for healthcare inspections in the NHS.
The pattern of provision of private or independent healthcare is complex. It is provided in three main ways: first, healthcare is provided in NHS private beds and paid for privately; secondly, healthcare is provided in independent acute hospitals and paid for by the NHS; thirdly, healthcare is provided in independent acute hospitals and paid for privately.
In Committee, the Minister confirmed—as does the document Developing the Way Forward recently published by the Government—that inspections in the first two cases will be the responsibility of CHI: the Commission for Health Improvement. Yet in the last case it seems that a wholly different set of standards and methods of inspection will apply. Certainly, the Commission for Health Improvement will not be directly involved. It is as important for patients to know how well doctors are performing in their private practice as anywhere else and to know that the highest possible standards are being followed in private hospitals. If one asked ordinary people in the street whether they believed that there should be separate and different standards in private healthcare and in the NHS, they would be horrified. I am sure that most people believe that it is the Government's duty to ensure that standards are common across the board.

675
At Committee stage, a similar amendment commanded widespread support both in and outside the House. On the Health Bill, the House convincingly passed a similar amendment. Regrettably, both the present Secretary of State and his predecessor set their faces against it. After our debates last year, the Secretary of State decided, despite the consultation process, to set up a completely separate method of registration and inspection to regulate the independent sector. There may well indeed have been some differences between Ministers. On 17th June last year, when we debated the then Health Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said in relation to the consultation document entitled Regulating Private and Voluntary Health Care, that,
"the consultation document does, however, acknowledge that a regulator might wish to contract with another body, such as the commission for health improvement … in order to help carry out local inspections. That is an issue on which we explicitly invite views".—[Official Report, 17/6/99; col. 459.]
Yet it now appears that the Government have firmly made up their minds against any form of contracting to CHI on purely ideological grounds.
As I emphasised in our debates last year, on these Benches we have no particular axe to grind for private health. However, we believe that every patient should have the right to common minimum standards of quality care and safety, irrespective of the sector in which they are treated. My noble friend Lady Nicholson has particular reason to believe strongly in the absolute need for that. In Committee, the Minister recited as a mantra the difference between the regulation of the independent sector and the management of the NHS. The amendment does not cut across that. Registration remains with the care standards commission. It is inspection which will be carried out by the Commission for Health Improvement. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the care standards commission contracts the carrying out of inspections in independent hospitals to the Commission for Health Improvement.
In Committee, the Minister made some helpful comments on the issue. He recognised that in the inspection of the independent sector there were skills and expertise possessed by the Commission for Health Improvement which would be of importance to the commission in running its own inspection system. Yet he did not go so far as to acknowledge the benefits of a single inspection system. Developing the Way Forward similarly nods in the direction of CHI but fails to go the last mile. The amendment would enable CHI to monitor and ensure the quality of the services provided in both healthcare sectors and to identify and promote best practice wherever it may be found. Common standards between the NHS and the independent healthcare sector could then be ensured. CHI would be in a position to use the expertise gained from inspecting NHS services and facilities and the same limited pool of expertise could be used in the independent healthcare sector.
676
The amendment makes it quite clear that the relevant independent hospital will pay the full economic cost of any such inspection. No one is suggesting that the taxpayer should pay for CHI to inspect private healthcare. We have made no bones that the Bill as a whole is extremely welcome. It will provide common consistent regulation across the social care sector, irrespective of whether it is publicly or privately provided. But no such provision is being made for the healthcare sector. Ministers proclaim the virtues of a mixed economy in social care but somehow they will not admit the fact that we have also, albeit on a limited scale, a mixed economy in healthcare. After all, it was only recently that the Prime Minister acknowledged the contribution made by the independent sector.
There are over 200 hospitals in the private sector, comprising approximately 10,000 beds. It makes no sense at all to exclude some 800,000 treatments per year carried out in private hospitals and work carried out by more than 17,000 doctors, most of whom work also in the NHS. Very few consultants practise only in the private sector. The NHS itself spent some £450 million in the independent sector last year, mainly on elective surgery. Independent healthcare sectors should be regulated overall by the national institution best suited to do the job and to do it well. That institution is the Commission for Health Improvement and that is what the amendment is designed to achieve. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I left the debate in Committee in a state of bewilderment. I simply could not understand why the Government had set their face against what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has so clearly described. I hope that two recent events may convince Ministers that the amendment should be accepted and that the independent sector of hospitals should be subject to the inspection regime of CHI.
The two events to which I refer seem to have happened more or less together, but are unconnected. The first was a conversion on the road to Damascus over the river. The Prime Minister was confronted by a group of consultants who said that they would be able to do much more to get their waiting times down if they were free to treat more of their patients in beds in independent hospitals. I gather the Prime Minister said, "Whoever told you that you can't?", to which the reply was, "Your Secretary of State, Prime Minister". Indeed, successive Secretaries of State have tried to make it clear that for obviously ideological reasons that was not acceptable. The Prime Minister, to his credit, said, "That's barmy"; I paraphrase. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out, many NHS patients are treated in private hospitals and a great many more could be, particularly at a time when NHS beds are under acute pressure, as they were in January and February.
The second event to which I refer is that in the Budget the Chancellor gave us these wonderful figures of the proportion of the national product to be devoted to healthcare, matched by considerable

677
additional finance. What he did not say, but which subsequently transpired, is that the figures he gave include what is spent in the private sector. One now recognises what has long been apparent to a great many people. We have a variety of healthcare systems. The suggestion that somehow the National Health Service lives in an isolated cocoon and that somewhere there is a completely different system treating different people bears no relation to the truth.
There is bound to be more interaction and a higher and higher proportion of healthcare which will be paid for and delivered under the independent sector. One will find more and more people comparing standards and making their choices on the basis of looking and seeing what they can obtain in the different sectors. For the sectors to be subject to an entirely different inspection procedure seems in these circumstances—I use the word which I used in Committee—bizarre. I cannot help feeling that the Government have got themselves hooked in an ideological time warp of saying, "It has to be different because it's the NHS".
Before the last election, when I was chairman of a trust, we made no bones about it; we regularly had patients treated in private hospitals. That was the most effective way to deploy our resources, particularly at times of peak demand. That is now happening more and more. Now that the Prime Minister has discovered that many people thought they were not able to do that, it will happen more.
We need to recognise that we have moved on, even from the date of Committee stage, and are now in a new world. It is now accepted that the figures of total spending on health cover both the private and public sectors. There will be more and more movement between the sectors and we really must have a common inspection system.
I understand the point made by the Minister about inspecting an independent hospital and the management of a health service. However, when talking about standards of care, clinical standards and standards of management, and so forth, there is everything to be said for having a common standard enforced by a single regulatory agency.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, there will be no argument in your Lordships' House that what is needed is a tough and effective system for regulating private hospitals The setting up by the Government of a national care standards commission will, for the first time, ensure that that is what we shall have.
I cannot see how the aim of a tough, simple and effective system would be met by the proposal to contract out inspections to CHI. It seems to me that confusion would result, when what is needed, as everybody agrees, is a simple and effective system; leave alone the question of whether CHI—there are a variety of pronunciations for the Commission for Health Improvement in your Lordships' House—has the requisite skills and powers. It seems to me that patients and their families who use the private healthcare system are united in wanting regulation of private hospitals. However, they are also united in wanting the simplest possible system.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, there is little for me to say on the amendment which has not already been said most persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin. This may have been a mantra rehearsed many times in your Lordships' House over the past year or more but it bears repeating. What we want to see, and what patients nowadays expect, is consistency in clinical standards across the public and private healthcare sectors and consistency in enforcement.
The distinction which the Government seek to draw between the NHS and the private sector is that the NHS is a managed service and the private sector a regulated service, and the two must therefore be subject to different regimes. In one sense I understand the point made by the Minister. The Government do not manage the private sector in the way that the NT-IS is managed. However, inspection and enforcement are regulatory activities. The Commission for Health Improvement is a regulator. For evidence of that we need look no further than the advertisement for senior staff posts in CHI which appeared in the Health Service Journal on 20th January. The heading states:
"We will be a developmental, facilitative and regulatory independent body".
Why should it not be CHI that spreads good practice across both healthcare sectors? It is perfectly placed as a regulator so to do.
The practicalities of any other course need to be borne in mind. We know that CHI will, in any event, have responsibility for regulating the care of NHS patients in private hospitals. Are we to suppose that CHI inspectors will be told, when they arrive in a certain ward, "You are responsible for beds 1, 3, 5 and 7 but not beds 2, 4, 6 and 8"? The idea is laughable. In those circumstances, CHI will assess the clinical and care standards in the ward as a whole and, indeed, in the entire hospital. This is a matter in which the Government's position to date has defied reason and common sense; the implied subtext being that if it is not done within the NHS, it is not proper healthcare. I hope that we shall hear something from the Minister today to indicate that a change of heart is possible.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment and ask for clarification. I did not understand the argument put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. She stated that she did not believe CHI to be the appropriate body to carry out inspections in the independent sector. Is she saying that inspections should be carried out by one body in both the private and national health sectors; or is she saying that neither sector should be regulated, or both? The argument put forward by my noble friends and in the amendment is based not so much on who carries out the inspection, although that is the wording of the amendment, as on the uniformity of using one regulatory body for both private and NHS hospitals. That is the essence of what we want. The detail of

679
which body that would be is of secondary importance. It is the principle of a single regulator that is important.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 15, to which I have added my name. I also support all that has been said by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Furthermore, I concur fully with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding.
This amendment is very important. If passed, it will ensure that the standards of private clinical care match up to those of the National Health Service. Furthermore, it will provide that acceptable levels of professional training and practice will be tested and proved by the same mechanism as that put in place by the Government for the National Health Service. This would enable patients at last to see, assess, monitor and report back, so that actual improvements can be achieved and published against known and agreed standards. The standards would be the same as those established for the National Health Service. In that way, the National Health Service would effectively provide the benchmark—the hallmark—and quality stamp, and the private sector would need to follow suit.
That will be very different from the situation as it is now. Private hospitals today are seriously outclassed by the NHS. Only in waiting times does private healthcare win. In virtually every other health activity measurable by known indicators, the private sector rarely does better than the NHS and frequently offers lower value service at far higher costs—sometimes at rip-off costs, imposed under the name of "charity".
When one looks at the private sector, the problems are obvious: the lack of anaesthetists; insufficient trained staff at all levels; the lack of basic drugs required to be made available for classic procedures and the size of IT units. Often those are far too small and the anaesthetists may be elsewhere. Has the Minister asked why private hospitals are built close to NHS hospitals? That is done so that National Health Service IT units can be used when private IT units fail. Further, NHS units are used and are not reimbursed, so that private patients bump NHS patients off the critical list.
Of course, surgeons working in the private sector are NHS surgeons operating after hours, or retired surgeons, who may rapidly become out of date with the advances in medical care. Furthermore, there is a lack of aftercare. Private rooms can mean that blood pressure checks are not made sufficiently often, with fatal consequences. I have a folder full of reports about miserable incidents of this kind. However, perhaps the extremely high turnover of theatre nurses and IT staff in many private hospitals says it all.
As regards complaints, it is very difficult to complain. Private hospitals may themselves have set up their own complaints procedures, but they do not need to be initiated unless private hospitals wish that to happen. I have been told of instances where patients have been treated with fatal consequences, whose
680
relatives have sought to instigate known complaints procedures within private hospitals, but the private hospitals have refused. It is an unhappy situation.
Not all private hospitals are like this. There is, for example, an outstanding hospital in Scotland with perhaps the best facilities of all; BUPA hospitals are not-for-profit institutions and have an enviable track record. However, the standards are so erratic that patients and families simply cannot tell, when they enter a private hospital, what kind of treatment they will receive. On websites one can find promotions for private hospitals offering trained staff throughout their wards and in all their facilities. But when one arrives, that proves not to be so. Alas, in healthcare, when one finds out, it is frequently too late.
Patients are vulnerable. When we are sick, we are dependent on good professionals. In good faith, we buy or receive a certain standard and quality of service from others. In the private sector, we cannot be sure that we will receive it.
Nevertheless, the National Health Service needs the private sector. On 1st March the Prime Minister declared that he was going to use the private sector extensively. He declared that over the past three years, some 20,000 operations had been carried out on NHS patients in private institutions. It is possible that another 200,000 operations could be carried out in this way. That would represent one operation in every 30.
The Bill before us offers only a fragile reliance on hard-pressed NHS staff to check out standards in the private health sector. The Government's paper states that NHS patients will be protected because the National Health Service will check out the private sector. However, unless the same regulatory body—a body that is well accustomed to checking on the NHS—is used for the private sector, who is going to undertake that chore? It does not even happen now when NHS patients go into the private sector. Of course, contracts are drawn up with the private hospitals, but the NHS simply does not have the time to monitor them. So staff in the private sector, whether good, bad or indifferent, are not quality checked in the same way as those working in the NHS. I believe that that checking task rightly belongs to the Commission for Health Improvement.
Why does the Minister choose not to go down this path? This amendment offers the Government another chance to do so. The original Green Paper at least proposed a separate private health commissioner. Alas, the Bill has discarded that excellent opportunity in favour of regulations—still to be discussed, and to be discussed within the private sector. All that is left is a promise to consult. Although the Government promise further consultation "with the private and voluntary healthcare sector" over the next 12 months, it is clear that the resultant regulations will be for the Government to impose, and not for Parliament.
Nor is the Government offering to consult with patient groups, community health councils, Action for Victims of Medical Accidents, the Consumers' Association, APROP and the Patients Association. All of those should be included in such consultation because the regulations will be of critical importance.

681
Perhaps the final straw for me and for others is that the Government's paper also acknowledges that it will,
"not be feasible for NSSC inspectors to be involved in all aspects of clinical detail of all the services that need to be regulated".
Surely these are the very areas that cry out for regulation so that private hospitals can offer the same quality as is ensured by the NHS clinical audit. That is fundamental to the success of any regulatory system.
"The present Government have a laissez faire attitude towards the private sector".
I have quoted from a statement made by a King's Fund Fellow in an article headed,
"Private Healthcare: Modernisation Stops Here".
This sits ill with the Prime Minister's inclusion of funds spent in the private sector when making Budget health forecast claims. It does not match up the promise made by the Prime Minister to use the private sector to fulfil his intention to shorten waiting lists for NHS treatment. Of what use to a patient is a bed in luxury surroundings if early death is the result?
This amendment will offer greater patient safety by ensuring that the same standards of protection apply in the private sector as in the National Health Service. I beg the Minister to think again.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps I may say at the beginning of my response that I have reflected carefully on the comments made both today and in Committee. I should like to assure all noble Lords that I take neither an ideological nor a bizarre approach to this matter. There are genuine reasons why it is sensible to provide that the regulation of the private healthcare sector should be undertaken using different arrangements from those that provide the effective management of the National Health Service which faces enormous challenges in the modernisation of its services—something that we all want to see. I believe that it is wrong to insist that the national care standards commission must use the Commission for Health Improvement to undertake work on its behalf in the regulation of the private health sector.
However, I equally accept the need for close collaboration between those two bodies. We want to see them working in a sensible and collaborative way and I very much take the point that has been made on the need for consistency of approach by both organisations.
I start by responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, who raised a number of important issues concerning the current regulation of the private healthcare sector. There is no doubt that, while arrangements are in place for the regulation of that sector in the Registered Homes Act, there has been an inconsistency of approach and in some parts of the country a lack of sufficient expertise.
I want to assure the noble Baroness and the House that we take the regulation of private and voluntary healthcare seriously. We estimate that over 1,500 providers of independent healthcare will be regulated by the national care standards commission across a wide area of services and providers. They will include
682
private acute hospitals, private doctors, abortion clinics, hospices, and clinics where powerful lasers are being used. Of course our fundamental concern is to see that appropriate safeguards and quality assurance systems are in place for the patients who receive services from those kinds of healthcare provider.
In ensuring those safeguards and that quality of care, we do not intend to reinvent the wheel; we aim to have regard to existing good practice. We will take account of the standards that the NHS currently applies. We will have regard to quality assurance programmes that already exist and to which many private and voluntary healthcare providers already subscribe.
The regulations and standards will be developed through consultation, including with the independent healthcare sector, but also with the kind of organisations that the noble Baroness mentioned. We want to see the widest possible consultation in developing the standards and regulations necessary. It will be a thorough process which we envisage will take place from this spring for a 12-month period. Subject to the outcome of that consultation process, we envisage that there will be a number of general standards across the broad range of private and voluntary healthcare and then specific standards for specific areas of service to be regulated. In doing that, we intend to produce regulations and standards that are appropriate, clear and the implementation of which can be effectively monitored.
The relationship between the Commission for Health Improvement and the national care standards commission has been debated in this House on a number of occasions. As I have already intimated, the proposal in the amendment is that CHI should be involved in the regulation of independent healthcare and those are familiar arguments. But the Government remain of the view that CHI's principal role has to be about helping to modernise and improve the quality of NHS services. It was brought into existence solely with that important task in mind. It does not have responsibility for the regulation of private healthcare.
Having said that, we recognise that there is a need for CHI and the national care standards commission to liaise and co-ordinate on common areas of interest; for example, as noble Lords have already mentioned, where NHS patients are receiving treatment in private hospitals. The scoping paper that we produced recently on the voluntary and private healthcare aspects of the Care Standards Bill made that point. However, it may be helpful for me to say a little more about our thinking in this area.
CHI is a key part of our agenda for modernising the NHS. It is independent of the NHS. It was established to strengthen external oversight of NHS activity, to improve quality and to provide reassurance to the public that the NHS is fulfilling its responsibilities for quality. It has a key role in providing robust external scrutiny of clinical governance arrangements put in place by NHS bodies to assure and develop high quality services.

683
CHI will look at services provided to NHS patients. Where an NHS organisation has subcontracted with the independent sector to provide care, the NHS organisation will retain responsibility for the quality of care provided to those patients. It therefore follows that CHI will assess how arrangements to assure quality in the NHS organisation are carried through where care is provided in the independent sector. That will usually be through the contract between the two organisations concerned—the NHS organisation and the private sector organisation.
CHI also has powers to require persons to provide information it needs in conducting its reviews and investigations, subject, of course, to the restrictions under the Act to protect personal, confidential information which we have already discussed. Where an NHS trust has pay-bed facilities, it will retain the overall responsibility to put in place robust systems to assure the quality of care.
CHI's interest is in clinical governance systems in NHS bodies; in the impact and implementation of guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence; and in the NHS national strategic frameworks. I am sure that your Lordships can see that, although in some respects it will have common interests with the care standards commission, there are many more differences than similarities in the roles and responsibilities of the two organisations.
In contrast with CHI, the national care standards commission will be purpose built to include in its responsibilities the regulation and inspection of non-NHS healthcare providers. It will regulate those services by reference to regulations and standards which will be drawn up in consultation with the independent healthcare sector and other organisations. It will undertake inspections of each regulated body at least once a year. It may apply sanctions if the regulations and standards are not complied with. It will not be concerned with the NHS. It will have a completely different role and focus from the Commission for Health Improvement.
It is fair to say, therefore, that CHI and the national care standards commission have separate and distinct roles designed to fulfil their separate and distinct responsibilities. But—here I come to the reassurances I should like to give to the House tonight—they should not and will not operate in isolation from each other. For example, I would expect them to liase on their respective activities which involve private and voluntary healthcare when CHI is planning a review of clinical governance arrangements in an NHS trust that has a significant contract with an independent healthcare provider; for example, a mental health hospital. In those circumstances, the national care standards commission should be informed of that review because of its responsibilities as a regulator of the mental health hospital. Such liaison will be necessary not least to ensure that the timetable of CHI reviews and the national care standards commission are co-ordinated in so far as they concern independent healthcare—a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
684
The second important way in which CHI and the national care standards commission will collaborate is of particular relevance to the amendments. There will be a sharing of expertise between CHI and the national care standards commission. CHI will draw on a pool of around 500 experts to assist in its reviews, many of whom will be seconded from the NHS for short periods. The national care standards commission will be able to have access to that same expertise in order to obtain specialist advice as and when appropriate in its inspections. As noble Lords may recall from Committee stage, the Bill provides for staff to be seconded from CHI to the commission and vice versa.
To complete the picture of collaboration between the two bodies, a third key area concerns information sharing. It is important that information about the independent healthcare aspects of CHI reviews and the care standards commission inspections are exchanged and, subject to the duty of confidence and/or statutory disclosure, we expect the two commissions to share as much relevant information as possible.
I hope that that demonstrates that the Government are keen for the commission and CHI to co-operate effectively. To help facilitate that further, and in answer to the specific point made tonight in relation to the contracting of services, we shall introduce in the Commons an amendment which enables the two bodies to sub-contract work to one another in respect of their interest in independent healthcare. I hope that that will go some considerable way to reassuring noble Lords that, while we consider that it is absolutely right that there are separate functions for both CHI and the national care standards commission, we will expect them to collaborate; to be informed by their respective work; and to enable there to be a consistency of approach. On that basis I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, the more he spoke, the more I felt the virtue of the amendment. It seems to me that there is a great deal of circular thinking in what the Government have to say. I do not deny that the Minister went to great pains and took a good deal of trouble over his response to the amendment. But the more he spoke about secondment, collaboration and information sharing—indeed, he even offered to bring forward an amendment about enabling subcontracting—the more I thought, "Let's make it simple; let the Commission for Health Improvement inspect both sectors".
Moreover, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, the entire purpose of the amendment is to simplify the system. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, put it extremely well when he asked, "What happens in beds 2, 4 and 8, while beds 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 get a different regime?" That seems to me to highlight the absurdity of the current situation, whether you play it with secondment, collaboration or joint training. Quite honestly, the word of the day, "bizarre", which was uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, sums up the position that the Government

685
have reached. They have given further and further ground in terms of being willing to accept some of the arguments, but the argument that they are not accepting is that the Commission for Health Improvement is the body to regulate both sectors.
Last night, I looked at the website for the Commission for Health Improvement. It is full of the very great and the very good. Indeed, looking at its objectives on that website, it seems to me that CHI would be entirely able to carry out—and, indeed, would do so extremely competently— the duties that we seek to impose on it. I have every confidence in that respect—and that seems to be a great deal more than the Government are expressing. I could go on at greater length, but I shall not do so. We believe this to be a most important matter. It is one that affects the lives and the health of those in independent healthcare. It is an extraordinary element of illogicality that the Government propose to take forward. Therefore, in those circumstances, I propose to seek the opinion of the House.
5.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 162; Not-Contents, 132.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Denham, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Dholakia, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Arran, E.

Dundee, E.

Astor, V.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Avebury, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Barker, B.

Elton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Emerton, B.

Bellwin, L.

Ezra, L.

Belstead, L.

Falkland, V.

Bledisloe, V.

Feldman, L.

Boardman, L.

Ferrers, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Flather, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Fookes, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Burnham, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Butterworth, L.

Geddes, L.

Byford, B.

Geraint, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Glentoran, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Goodhart, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Greenway, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hamwee, B.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Hanham, B

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Clement-Jones, L. [Teller]

Hayhoe, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Courtown, E.

Higgins, L.

Cox, B.

Hogg, B.

Crathorne, L.

Holderness, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Hooper, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Howe, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Deedes, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

686

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Razzall, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Reay, L.

Jopling, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Kimball, L.

Rennard, L

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Renton, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Russell, E.

Ludford, B.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Luke, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

McConnell, L.

Sandberg, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Seccombe, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Sharman, L.

McNally, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Maddock, B.

Sharples, B.

Marlesford, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Skelmersdalc, L.

Methuen, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Stewartby, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Strathclyde, L

Monro of Langholm, L.

Swinfen, L.

Montrose, D.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Tebbit, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Newby, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Northbrook, L.

Tope, L.

Northesk, E.

Tordoff, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Trefgarne, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Trumpington, B.

Onslow, E.

Tugendhat, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Vinson, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Vivian, L.

Patten, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Walpole, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Weatherill, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Wigoder, L.

Prior, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Quinton, L.

Wright of Richmond, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Amos, B.

Dubs, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Eatwell, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Elder, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Bach, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Barnett, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Blackstone, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Borrie, L.

Gale, B.

Bragg, L.

Gavron, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Gilbert, L.

Brookman, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Burlison, L.

Goudie, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Christopher, L.

Gregson, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Crawley, B.

Harrison, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Haskel, L.

David, B.

Hayman, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Desai, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Dixon, L.

Hoyle, L.

Donoughue, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

687

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Peston, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Pitkeathley, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Islwyn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Puttnam, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Rea,L.

Jeger, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L

Richard, L.

Judd, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Sawyer, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Serota, B.

Levy, L.

Sewel, L.

Lipsey, L.

Shepherd, L.

Lockwood, B.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Simon, V.

Longford, E.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McCarthy, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Strabolgi, L.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Thornton, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Uddin, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Varley, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Warner, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Whitaker, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Whitty, L.

Nicol, B.

Wilkins, B.

Orme, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Paul, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.52 p.m.
Baroness Davidmoved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
MONITORING AND PROMOTION OF FOSTERING ARRANGEMENTS
(" . The Commission shall have the general duty of monitoring and promoting local authorities' duties under Part IX of the Children Act 1989 (private arrangements for fostering children).").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 16 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 22, with which it is grouped. Amendment No. 22 is the more important amendment and I shall speak to it first. It concerns regulating private foster care.
I moved this amendment in Committee and I received support from all sides of the Chamber. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, supported it on the previous occasion. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has attached his name to Amendment No. 22. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, is not present. As an ex-inspector of social services his support was extremely valuable. However, owing to his other commitments, he cannot be present.
688
Children who are privately fostered deserve the same kinds of protection as other children who live away from home. They are just as vulnerable, and their numbers significantly exceed the number of children living in community homes. A large proportion of privately fostered children are from minority ethnic communities: a failure to safeguard these children could be construed as "institutional racism".
The Children Act 1989 requires persons who intend to foster a child privately under the age of 16 for more than 28 days to notify their local authority. Local authorities are required to safeguard the welfare of privately fostered children but they do not have to approve or register private foster carers. That is what the amendment seeks to address. This is an anomaly. Local authorities have a duty to approve and register childminders and other day care providers, yet these children return to their families each day.
The current system is not working. Local authorities have not consistently advertised the duty of private foster carers to notify them. A 1993 Social Services Inspectorate report concluded,
"potentially vulnerable children were being placed in the care of strangers, without any checks being undertaken as to their suitability to care for children".
Even if local authorities were being notified of all private fostering arrangements, their current responsibilities towards such children would still be lacking.
Sir William Utting, in his comprehensive review of safeguards for children living away from home, concluded that current legislation is not protecting children. His report stated:
"Private fostering is clearly an area where children are not being safeguarded properly, indeed an unknown number are likely to be seriously at risk … all children living away from home should be safeguarded and those who are privately fostered should be no exception".
We all have great respect for Sir William Utting; his words should be noted by the Government.
This amendment would require prospective private foster carers to register with the national care commission. They would undergo an assessment of their suitability to look after children, and the care they offer would be periodically monitored. The national commission would liaise with local authorities, notifying them of all children in their area who are privately fostered and sending them copies of their assessment reports. These reports would highlight whether additional safeguards needed to be put in place for individual children.
These children would not be "looked after"; that is, in care, and this provision would still allow parents to make their own arrangements. However, if passed, these amendments will ensure that all private foster carers are assessed in relation to their suitability to care for children, and it will set in place a system for local authorities to receive formal notifications of any concerns in relation to individual children.

689
In Committee the Minister said in reply to this amendment,
"we consider that the current regulations concerning private fostering are adeguate to as long as they are enforced. I believe that concentration and focus should be placed on the terms of enforcement … Therefore, we are planning a publicity campaign … targeted to affect the most vulnerable groups of children".—[Official Report, 10/1/2000; col. 516.]
I said that I was extremely disappointed with that response and that at I would probably return to the matter on Report, as I am doing. However, as a result of what the Minister said about enforcement, I have tabled Amendment No. 16, which I hope will strengthen the enforcement. Amendment No. 16 states:
"The Commission shall have the general duty of monitoring and promoting local authorities' duties under Part IX of the Children Act 1989 (private arrangements for fostering children)".
It seems to me that if the Government are concerned about enforcement, it makes sense to place the national commission under a duty to encourage this; otherwise, private fostering is left entirely outside the remit of the commission, with the likely consequence that it will become an even lower priority for local authorities.
This is an important amendment. After all the child abuse and other such scandals that have occurred, it seems to me that we are leaving a great gap in the provision for looking after children if we do not include the amendment on the face of the Bill. I hope that the Minister has had second thoughts about the matter since the Committee stage. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I continue where the noble Baroness, Lady David, left off. I certainly hope that the Minister will have second thoughts about the matter. The noble Baroness made an extremely persuasive case. One does not have to pray in aid just the 1993 Social Services Inspectorate report, or indeed that of Sir William Utting, which were utterly clear, but simply the practice as it exists at the moment. Even the Minister in a sense admitted that the current situation was not satisfactory. Therefore I urge him to take on board the wise words of the noble Baroness and have second thoughts about the matter.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I, too, support everything that the noble Baroness has said. I believe that her approach to priliate fostering is absolutely sound. We have a curious situation with a Bill that includes childminding where a child returns to his own home each day, but omits placements of children made privately by parents or guardians.
As the noble Baroness said, many of the children placed privately may be from the ethnic minorities. Their parents may have come to this country to study and they may net visit them frequently. The situation of those children is less safeguarded than that of children in the care of local authorities or being looked after by local authorities. Indeed, their placement may not have been as carefully planned as that of children in care. The noble Baroness has an extremely powerful case and I support her.
6 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have taken the opportunity to look again at this matter. I remain convinced that the current legislative framework is rigorous enough to ensure that the position of children privately fostered under the circumstances contained in the Children Act would be adequately safeguarded if local authorities carried out their duties effectively. The issue before us is how to ensure that local authorities carry out their responsibilities.
Turning first to Amendment No. 22, I can confirm that we do not intend that the national care standards commission should be responsible for registering private foster carers. That would suggest that they were in the same category as care homes or other services regulated by the commission. It is worth reflecting that private fostering is very much a domestic, family-based activity. It would not be appropriate for it to be regulated by a national commission, whose main concern lies with larger organisations and businesses.
I understand my noble friend's reference to the scant oversight of private fostering and the need for much closer scrutiny of it. I agree with her. I agree that greater action is needed to safeguard children who are in private foster families.
As I intimated, Part IX of the Children Act sets out stringent requirements for local authorities to satisfy themselves of the safety and adequacy of individual private foster care arrangements. The law requires private foster carers to notify local authorities when they foster a child privately. The local authorities are then under a duty to visit the child in the private foster home and to check on his or her welfare. These visits should then take place every six weeks. That is a great deal more frequently than, for instance, an inspection of a children's home. It is not the law that is the weakness but the question of making sure that happens.
This brings me to my noble friend's other amendment, the spirit of which I sympathise with rather more. Amendment No. 16 would require the national care standards commission to monitor the performance of local authorities and to check on how well they comply with their duties under the Children Act with regard to private fostering. This is the rig ht approach. However, I believe that the task of overseeing local authorities and ensuring that they carry out their statutory duties is one for the Social Services Inspectorate rather than the national care standards commission. The Social Services Inspectorate is the Government's inspectorate dedicated to assessing how well local authorities are delivering their social services responsibilities, including how well they are carrying out their responsibilities for safeguarding children, wherever they are.
In the light of the concerns raised by my noble friend, I can confirm that we intend to carry out a range of actions. First, as I have said, we are concerned

691
that the regulation of private fostering is little known; it is a much neglected and little understood issue. I make no apology for saying that we plan a national publicity campaign to promote awareness of the regulations and, particularly, to make private foster carers aware that they are obliged by law to notify all private fostering arrangements to local authorities. Secondly, we will build on that by issuing revised guidance to local authorities to remind them of their responsibilities for regulating private fostering and to ensure that they all adequately enforce the regulatory regime to which I have referred.
We will follow up that by ensuring that the Social Services Inspectorate checks that action is being taken. There will be a Social Services Inspectorate inspection of local authorities' enforcement of the private fostering regulations to make sure that we know what is happening. Depending on the outcome, we will take further action as necessary. I do not need to remind the House that the Government have extensive powers over local authorities, particularly following last year's Local Government Act which introduced the best value regime. Where Ministers are advised by the Social Services Inspectorate that any particular authority is failing in its duties, they have a range of levers and sanctions at their disposal. In extreme cases, that could include removing responsibility from the authority in question and asking another authority to carry out that particular function instead.
I hope that I have reassured my noble friend that we take the point of the need to ensure that private fostering arrangements are appropriately regulated. We believe that the current legislation allows that. The challenge is to ensure that local authorities carry out their responsibilities effectively. Through the mechanisms I have suggested—including publicity, including guidance and including the follow-up inspections by the Social Services Inspectorate—we will be able to do that.
Baroness David: My Lords, do I understand that the Minister will not put anything on the face of the Bill to ensure that local authorities do their duty?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. I believe that the Children Act 1989 contains sufficient powers for local authorities to undertake the task. I want to ensure that local authorities carry out their responsibilities.
Baroness David: My Lords, I confess I am disappointed by the Minister's response. It seems to me to be slightly complacent. However, he obviously intends to do a bit more about getting local authorities to do their duty. So, rather reluctantly, I will read again what he said and consider whether I can accept it, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jonesmoved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
COMPLAINTS IN RESPECT OF INDEPENDENT HOSPITALS
(" .—(1) The Commission shall institute procedures by which dissatisfaction with the dealing of complaints by independent hospitals may be expressed.
(2) In the event that the Commission is satisfied that a complaint is upheld it shall be entitled to take account of such complaint in exercising any of its duties under this Act.
(3) In the event that the Commission is satisfied that a complaint has not been properly dealt with by an agency or establishment it shall refer the matter to the Health Ombudsman.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is with some disappointment that I speak to this group of amendments. As the Minister will have noticed, they are identical to the amendments tabled at Committee stage. They are a mixed bag of various ways in which an independent complaints system could be assured for patients in independent healthcare.
There is considerable concern among both management bodies, such as the NHS Confederation, and professional bodies, such as the BMA, that there is no proposal currently before the House for the setting-up of an independent body to hear complaints, or to compel independent healthcare establishments to arrange for an independent system of hearing complaints. Discussions are going forward with a wide range of interested parties to secure that there should be such a body agreed between all the players in private healthcare.
I had anticipated that at this stage the Minister would bring forward an amendment designed to provide such an independent element. Indeed, his colleague, the Minister responsible for this area, Gisela Stuart, said:
"Under the new arrangements, all private hospitals must have proper complaints procedures in place. They must make it clear to patients what to do if something goes wrong. And we will introduce arrangements for independent investigations where patients are not satisfied with how their complaint was handled".
So I look forward to what the Minister has to say on this subject, while holding any fire that we may wish to pour on him, so to speak. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord is disappointed. I hope to reassure him that we take complaints very seriously and that within the framework of the Bill we can deal with them to his satisfaction.
I begin by confirming that it is definitely the Government's intention to make regulations under Clause 21(3)(j) requiring all registered providers to put in place an internal procedure for dealing with complaints about their services. The regulations will include key elements of how that procedure should operate; for example, that all complaints must be logged, investigated within a certain timescale, and that the outcome of the complaint should be recorded. The commission will ensure, through inspection, that these procedures are operating effectively and to the satisfaction of complainants. Service users will be

693
asked whether they are aware of the procedure; whether they have made use of it and, if so, whether they were satisfied with the outcome. We hope the majority of complaints will be satisfactorily dealt with in that way.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I recognise that there will be cases where the complainant remains dissatisfied. Indeed, there may be occasions where the service user does not want to use the internal complaints procedure, perhaps because there is no member of staff whom it is felt could be entrusted to report the circumstances of the complaint. In those cases we intend that the complainant be able to take their complaint to the commission itself.
The commission will have power to investigate complaints as an integral part of its regulatory functions and we will ensure that it is properly resourced to do so. In investigating complaints, the commission will be able to use its powers of entry and inspection as set out in Clauses 29 and 30. If it finds the complaint is justified it will be able to use its enforcement powers to ensure that remedial action is taken by the providers. As noble Lords will know, ultimately that could lead to prosecution or to the initiation of cancellation procedures against the provider. Where it has concerns about the professional competence of an individual, the commission can refer that person to the appropriate professional body; for example, the UKCC or the General Medical Council.
We envisage that these procedures will also be available to patients who receive independent healthcare regulated by the commission. It will have powers to investigate any matter relating to a breach of the regulatior or standard applying to the service. That means that the commission will be able to deal with all complaints including looking at whether there has been a failure in the clinical assurance systems that independent hostels have in place under Clause 21(3)(k). Where the issue is of an individual's clinical competence, as I have said, the commission will be able to refer such cases, as appropriate, to the relevant professional regulatory body. In our view that will provide complainants about independent healthcare with the assurance that remedial action will be taken to resolve matters with which they are concerned.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 40 propose that the health service commissioner should be involved in this procedure. As I believe I explained at Committee, we believe that the commission is the appropriate body to investigate complaints where a person is unhappy with how a registered establishment handled their complaint. I do not see a role there for the health service commissioner. The national care standards commission itself is independent of the providers and the commissioners of service. It has the enforcement powers to make sure that matters are put right where it finds that the complaint is justified. On that basis I hope that I have satisfied noble Lords in that respect.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, and with the leave of the House, perhaps I may ask him a question. Recently a Question
694
was asked in your Lordships' House as regards the problem of female circumcision. Can the Minister say how the complaints procedure will take place should the matter occur in a private hospital? It might concern a member of staff who is the only person, apart from the interested parties, who knew that the procedure was taking place. Would they go to the police or through the procedure which the Minister has just explained?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I would strongly recommend that the member of staff goes to the police.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I remain slightly confused by the Minister's response. I find it very helpful that he described the width of the powers that the national care standards commission will have. Indeed, he has developed quite helpfully some of the points set out in paragraph 24 of the paper Developing the Way Forward. Clearly, in a sense he has given an assurance that the commission will have overarching power and will not be limited in a sense by any doctrine of the exhaustion of remedies or whatever it may be. An individual can go straight to the commission which will have quite strong powers except as regards individual clinical competence. It is entirely appropriate that that matter should be dealt with by the professional bodies.
However, I am unclear as regards the situation where homes applying for registration have a particular form of internal complaints system, but no element of independence associated with it. I wonder whether a home will be registered in those circumstances and whether there will be any criteria by which the commission will judge the complaints system. I am particularly concerned because of the efforts being made by professional management bodies and others to construct a genuinely independent complaints system that will be available for the benefit of those care homes. It seems to me that we need some pushing from the Minister in order to secure a common system.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as I believe I have said already, the point here is that we shall make regulations under Clause 21(3)(j) requiring providers to put in place an internal procedure for dealing with complaints. Clearly, the regulations that we lay will be subject to consultation. As regards the terms of the procedures that we expect an establishment to operate, they will be very clearly set out. When the commission visits and undertakes its regulation, it will then be able to monitor whether individual establishments are operating the procedures effectively. What I cannot do at this stage is to go into the detail of what may be contained in the regulations.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I fully understand what the Minister is saying in this respect. However, he did not utter the magic word "independent". He talked about an internal system of investigation. The nub of the point is that there is being constructed a very helpful system for independent complaints by doctors,

695
managers, patients groups and insurers which could be rolled out across the whole independent sector if the regulations required that they did so. But if they require that there should simply be an internal complaints system and not an independent one, there will be a different situation. I believe that consultation should take place over what kind of independent system is being adopted and not simply what kind of internal system. If the Minister does not wish to say anything further at this stage, I shall withdraw the amendment. Clearly, further discussion should take place between now and Third Reading because further assurances are required.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am very happy to take part in further discussion. I am at one with the noble Lord in wanting a rigorous complaints procedure which can be monitored effectively by the national care standards commission. There is no disagreement there at all. My reluctance is to go into the actual details of what may be contained in such a regulation.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Some lowering of the veil is required before Third Reading in order to prevent any further amendments being brought forward. Clearly, this is a matter of considerable importance. I suspect that there is a difference in concept lurking behind the consultation intention. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
STANDARD ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES FOR CARE HOMES
("—(1) The Commission shall have the duty to define a standard assessment procedure and a standard set of criteria to be employed by local authorities in assessing the care needs of any person being considered for admission to a care home.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations require local authorities to implement the procedure and criteria referred to in subsection (1).").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we come now to an issue that I raised with the Minister in Committee but which, as the weeks go by, is becoming ever more significant for the care homes sector as a whole. It is important for noble Lords to understand what is going on at the moment. Very large parts of the care homes sector are in crisis for broadly two reasons. The first is that unless one has a business with no borrowing or a very low ratio of debt to equity, one's business is likely to be unviable at current local authority fee rates.
The second reason is the Bill and all that ensues from it, including Fit for the Future. The prospect of minimum standards is casting a pall of uncertainty across the industry. The net result of both these phenomena is that the flow of capital into the market has, for all practical purposes, dried up. That means that any attempt by a care home to borrow money to
696
carry out necessary improvements, perhaps to meet some of the anticipated minimum standards, is likely to be doomed to failure. The banks are simply not lending. In fact, they are trying to withdraw from the sector altogether. That in turn means that many care home owners are trapped. They cannot borrow against their main asset, the home; nor can they sell the home because it is no longer possible to value it as a going concern when there is uncertainty over whether it will meet the forthcoming minimum standards. Therefore, many care home owners find themselves with negative equity, which creates the trap to which I have referred. The only alternative to carrying on is bankruptcy.
Once the minimum standards have been set, we shall at least be able to say that an important element of the uncertainty has been lifted. But we shall still be left with the seemingly intractable problem of inadequate remuneration from local authorities. For those noble Lords who may imagine that this is simply the usual gripe from people who feel vaguely hard done by, let me make it clear what we are talking about. Many local authorities in the face of a very tight financial climate consciously attempt to restrict the flow into care homes of patients for whose costs they will be held responsible. The policy of keeping people in their own homes for as long as possible—a worthy aim in itself—is being stretched far beyond reasonable bounds, with the result that when individuals eventually reach a care home, their degree of need—or "acuity" as it is known—is such as to make them, all too often, high dependency cases.
Many of those entering care homes today would, a few years ago, have been sent straight to a nursing home. If we seek evidence of this, beyond that which we hear anecdotally from care home owners, we need only look as far as the statistics which show the average length of stay in residential homes. The average residential stay is no longer measured in years, it is down to about nine months.
Care homes are being asked to look after people with a high level of need for personal care and often nursing care, but are not being remunerated by local authorities for the cost of that care. They are not being paid for it because the assessment process—the process by which social services assesses an individual's level of need—is being fudged. A fee is set which bears no relation to the cost of providing the care. Whereas in normal circumstances a care home would be able to absorb some of the overhead by averaging out staff costs over all its residents, some of whom might need less care than others, they cannot do this if the only clients they are getting from local authorities are the high dependency ones, and not a mix of clients.
At the moment, the system lacks a transparent way of linking fee rates with the inputs needed to serve the needs of residents and of defining those inputs, preferably in advance, in a manner that is fair to all. I am sorry to say that many local authorities out there are abusing their dominant position by threatening care home owners with sanctions unless they agree to accept clients at the rates they are told will be paid.

697
That is, of course, tantamount to blackmail. The care home owner knows that unless he goes along with it, referrals to the home will cease overnight. That is the climate of fear in which many home owners around the country find themselves living. It is not acceptable and something has to be done to stop it.
What can be done? Broadly, there are two avenues that the Government should pursue. First, they should increase substantially the funding streams available from NHS trusts to recognise the cost of nursing care for high dependency residents in care homes. I am not going to draw the Minister on this point today, important though the issue is, because I know that he will not be able to anticipate the response of the Government to the Sutherland report and the Coughlan case, which we understand may be forthcoming this summer.
There is something else that can be done now. A standardised assessment procedure should be put in place which local authorities are obliged to follow, together with a standard set of criteria, so that throughout the country there is a means of ensuring that persons in equal need will be assessed similarly, regardless of the local authority that is doing the assessing. The degree of care need will be transparently defined, preferably not just by a committee of social workers, but by doctors as well. That in turn should ensure that there can be no fudge over the cost of care required for care home residents.
I am sorry to have spoken at some length. But I hope that the Minister will recognise the critical importance of the issues I have raised, and that my amendment reflects a genuine wish to see a level playing field operating throughout the country for the good of elderly people. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question. It is probably a stupid question. If the needs are assessed as nursing needs, should the people go to a nursing home? Should not the care homes refuse to take them?
Earl Howe: My Lords, under the rules of the House I do not believe that I am able to respond, so I shall not test the patience of the House. I think that my remarks covered that point.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, clearly it depends on the actual wording of the certification in relation to the specific home which has been registered. That will specify whether it has been registered for nursing care.
Perhaps I may say that I recognise the issues raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. As someone who used to speak at conferences of the Registered Nursing Homes Association, I understand some of the pressures which that sector has been under. Equally, I do not entirely recognise the gloomy picture which the noble Earl put forward. Department of Health statistics show that there is a steady rate of turnover in homes of around 4 to 5 per cent per annum, which suggests that people are able in circumstances to sell those homes. While some homes are closing, I understand that new ones are
698
opening, and that there is some evidence that banks are lending for new developments. I do not seek to underestimate the challenges that some homes will undoubtedly face in relation to the new regulatory requirements where improvements will have to be made. But in the medium to long term we shall see a sector in which quality and standards will rise and members of the public will ultimately receive a better service. Just as we must be concerned about the health of the sector as it is at the moment, we also have to bear in mind that the ultimate outcome will be a better service for the public.
I accept the point raised by the noble Earl that people who enter either residential care or nursing homes do so only when it is essential, and that there needs to be an assessment of needs. Those needs may be complex, as he has described in terms of high dependency, or more straight forward. Assessment is very important in terms of ensuring that members of the public who enter such homes receive the appropriate care, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has pointed out.
Current guidance on assessment, issued by the Department of Health as practice guidance in 1991, has clearly not led to as much consistency in assessment and service provision as is desirable. Indeed, people with similar needs living in different parts of the country, or sometimes even in the same authority, may get a very different assessment or service response. To a degree, variation in service is acceptable as local authorities should, within reason, determine their own priorities with due reference to local needs, traditions, service patterns and resources, but I have no hesitation in agreeing with the noble Earl that current levels of variation between authorities go beyond what we might reasonably expect.
In response to this problem, the Government announced their fair access to care services initiative in the White Paper Modernising Social Services. That will provide a detailed framework for assessment, including an appreciation of the risks associated with identified need. The fair access guidance will be issued for consultation in the spring and a final version for implementation is planned for the autumn. Unlike the 1991 practice guidance, it is intended to issue the fair access to care services guidance as policy guidance, which means that local authorities should, by and large, follow what it says.
The implementation of fair access to care will lead to greater consistency in the way in which needs are assessed and services determined. The Department of Health, through its performance assessment framework and the work of the Social Services Inspectorate regional offices, will monitor the implementation and impact of the fair access guidance to ensure that it has the desired effect.
While the national care standards commission might play a part in helping to monitor and comment on the impact of the guidance, it would not be for the commission to develop that guidance. It is set up for regulation and it is not appropriate to require it to take on additional tasks such as this. However, through the

699
fair access to care services and the regulation and minimum standards to be set, I believe that we will achieve a much greater uniformity of approach. I hope that that will reassure the noble Earl as to how this will operate in the future.
6.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I look forward greatly to having sight of the guidance to which he referred. This is extremely good news. I am glad that the Government share my perception that at the moment people with equal levels of need are being assessed differently and are being subject to different staffing ratios in care homes depending on the local authority they are in. That cannot be satisfactory.
If I am not misrepresenting them, the Government's view of the care homes sector is that there is currently an oversupply of places and, in particular, an oversupply of sub-standard places. Although the noble Lord did not say this in terms, I believe that their view is also that market forces will take care of this matter within a reasonable period of time. Market forces are fine provided that the market is allowed to operate. At the moment, the market cannot operate because fee rates are rigged, as I explained, eligibility criteria are fudged and local authorities ignore best value principles by favouring their own homes even though those are more expensive than private homes. On the other side of the equation, unviable care homes remain open for business as a consequence of the owners being trapped by negative equity. It is not as simple as saying that the market will contract in the face of oversupply, leaving only the sound operators at the end. Even those better operators, who have upgraded and spent a great deal of money on doing so, are under severe pressure at the moment.
I do not intend to go on. I believe that the Minister's reply was a helpful one. I look forward to seeing more of his department's thinking over the next few months. In thanking the Minister again, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Inquiries]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 5, line 37, leave out from ("begun,") to ("may") in line 38 and insert ("the person causing the inquiry to be held").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 20:
Page 6, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) Subsections (3) and (4) apply in relation to an inquiry under section 35 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 into any matter relevant to the exercise of the Assembly's registration functions as they apply in relation to an inquiry under this section.
( ) In this section "registration functions" means functions under this Act in connection with the registration of persons in respect of establishments and agencies.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 21:
Page 6, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) The report of the person who held the inquiry shall, unless the Minister who caused the inquiry to be held considers that it would be inappropriate to publish it, be published in a manner which that Minister considers appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, put down an amendment that would require the Secretary of State to publish the reports of inquiries held under Clause 9 of the Bill. He said that the findings of inquiries should be public documents as a matter of good practice. I have considered these arguments carefully and I believe that there is merit in them.
The Government are committed to the principles of public accountability and freedom of information. We accept that it is good practice for reports commissioned by Ministers to be published. We believe that the public have a right to be kept informed about the services that are provided or purchased through public funds. I am therefore pleased to bring this amendment before your Lordships today. It will require the Government to publish the reports of inquiries held into any of the regulated services, or into the way the commission has carried out its functions, unless there is a good reason not do so. In other words, the onus will be on the Government to publish inquiry reports and the clear expectation is that they would normally publish those reports except in exceptional circumstances. The kind of exceptional circumstances that we envisage are, for example, where the publication of the report might prejudice ongoing criminal investigations or proceedings. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Requirement to register]:
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Grant or refusal of registration]:
Lord Rixmoved Amendment No. 23:
Page 6, line 42, leave out ("12)") and insert ("(1A)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my recollection of Latin unseens in long-distant school days is that the second attempt was sometimes further from acceptability than the first. Certainly, it was with me. However, nil desperandum. My amendment is a variant on the one I tried a little half-heartedly at Committee stage, and owes something to a conversation with the Minister—although I have no promise of acceptance.
It seems to me natural logic that the body charged with granting or withholding registration should equip itself with all the accessible information before making up its mind. That information includes what interested parties have to say; and they will of course say nothing unless they are offered the opportunity to comment. Sometimes that information will encourage the registration authority to make further inquiries, or to refuse a registration. Sometimes it will prompt more careful monitoring after registration has been granted. Whatever the outcome, consultation on a selective basis offers better protection for vulnerable service users; and that is what I seek with my Amendments Nos. 23 and 24, which I believe avoid the NIMBY-type

701
reactions feared by the Minister or, again recalling my Latin, if your Lordships prefer a classical substitute for NIMBY, and remembering my rusty Ovid of long ago: Procul Omen Abesto!—"far from us the omen"—does sound a little more dignified than "not in my back yard". I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord might prefer another line of Ovid: Odi profanum vulgus et arceo—I hate the vulgar crowd and I keep them at a distance!
Earl Howe: My Lords, with the leave of the House, that was Horace and not Ovid.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, appears to adopt the very reasonable concept that those who are concerned with these services should be consulted. I shall not follow the classical quotations—I have zero knowledge of them—which is perhaps just as well seeing how easy it is to fall into a trap. The basic concept of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, appears to be sound, and I shall listen with interest to the response of the Minister.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I was made to give up Latin after one year. Like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I was rather lost by the previous exchange.
Essentially, these amendments would require the commission to consult relevant local bodies before granting an application for registration. I have difficulty in accepting the amendments. First, there is a practical problem. It may be easy enough to find out about local branches of well-known national bodies, such as Mencap, Age Concern or Scope, but there are plenty of small local self-help groups and action groups which would not be affiliated to a national body. The commission could not be expected to know about all of them. If we accepted the amendment, a local group might well seek to mount a challenge against a decision by the commission on the basis that it had not been consulted; nor is it clear what "local" means in these circumstances.
I understand that one of the main concerns of the noble Lord in moving the amendment is the requirement that the applicant must be a fit person, which is very important. However, in arriving at that decision the commission will be able to take account only of hard evidence, such as a criminal record or a listing under the Protection of Children Act. A local body may have concerns about a person; for example, it may be aware of rumours and unsubstantiated allegations. However, I do not believe that in those circumstances it would be appropriate for the commission to refuse registration on the strength of such unsubstantiated allegations. The commission would have to proceed on the basis of proper evidence. Although I am sympathetic to the amendments, I do not believe that it is right to accept them.
Lord Rix: My Lords, obviously I am disappointed, but the response is not unexpected. I am aware that the Minister has doubts about the practicality of the amendment. On the other hand, perhaps he will take the matter away and think about it between now and next Tuesday when the Bill receives its Third Reading. It may be possible to find wording which at least allows further filtering for the purposes of a person's suitability before registration is granted. I recognise that rumour, bad-mouthing and all manner of unpleasant things may be said about people in local communities. However, often there is no smoke without fire. I have in mind a number of people whom I would not consider to be suitable persons although I cannot pin anything on them, whether it be a criminal record or whatever. One just knows that they are not suitable persons to receive registration. If the Minister is prepared to give further consideration to the amendment and to deal with the matter either on the face of the Bill or in regulations, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I accept the invitation to look at it again. However, I cannot hold out much hope. While we shall make regulations in relation to determining the fitness of a person to work at an establishment, or for the purposes of carrying on or managing such an establishment, there are real difficulties in dealing with matters such as criminal records, listings under the Protection of Children Act, and the protection of vulnerable adults.
Lord Rix: My Lords, knowing that the Minister will look at this again, and no doubt write to me with his conclusions, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Urgent procedure for cancellation etc.]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 25:
Page 10, line 27, leave Out ("if the registration authority thinks appropriate,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 25 was tabled at Committee stage. I confess that when I was asked to justify the qualification,
"if the registration authority thinks appropriate",
in relation to a health authority, I was hard put to find any. Therefore, I am happy to table this amendment today. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I simply register my thanks to the Minister for tabling this amendment which clearly meets the point made in Committee. I am sure that the NHS Confederation and others will be duly grateful to the Minister.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for the obvious thought that he has devoted to this matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 21 [Regulation of establishments and agencies]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 26:
Page 11, line 9, at beginning insert—
("(A1) Regulations may impose in relation to establishments and agencies any requirements which the appropriate Minister thinks fit for the purposes of this Part and may in particular make any provision such as is mentioned in subsection (1), (3) or (4).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee there was a lengthy debate about the regulation-making powers under Clause 20 (now Clause 21) of the Bill. Noble Lords then raised a number of valuable points, and I am pleased to table this group of amendments today in response to them. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, welcomed the power to make regulations to secure the welfare of persons cared for, but he urged the Government to define more clearly what they meant by "welfare". He was concerned that the clause might not extend to the promotion of health and the protection of health. We have taken that on board and included a specific reference to those aspects of welfare in Amendment No. 28.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, argued that there was a need for clearer prescription by way of regulations regarding acceptable behaviour management for adults as well as children,
"so that assault is no longer legitimised in the name of restraint".—[Official Report, 13/1/00; col. 791.]
I believe that that is absolutely right. There is a need for such regulations, and Amendment No. 28 will allow us to make them. I hope that in due course the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will be willing to work with us on the detail of the regulations.
Having been prompted by your Lordships to consider these issues further, we believe that it is important to ensure that the powers to make regulations to secure welfare should extend to persons cared for by all the various establishments and agencies regulated under Part II, not just care homes, children's homes and residential family centres, as at present. Accordingly, we have amended Clause 21(1)(e) and hope that it commends itself to noble Lords.
We believe that these amendments demonstrate the necessity to ensure that the regulation-making powers are sufficiently comprehensive. The effect of Amendment No. 26 is, therefore, to broaden the scope of the powers in Clause 21(1) to make it clear that the list of possible regulations is not intended to be exhaustive. Similar introductory words are already included at the beginning of subsection (3). Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 make similar provision in relation to Clause 45, which provides the power to make regulations about the way in which local authorities carry out their fostering functions. Finally, Amendments Nos. 30 and 35 to 39 are all consequential amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, my name is added to Amendment No. 28 which is in this group. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has spoken to
704
it. I apologise for arriving a little late. I thought that Amendment No. 25 was being debated. I feel very strongly about Amendment No. 28. I am glad that the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Rix, have also added their names to the amendment. I tabled the amendment as a result of a letter that I received from a Mrs Wright who lives in Cambridge. I hope that the Minister is listening; he is now.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I was confused. My noble friend refers to Amendment No. 28, but I believe that she is speaking to Amendment No. 29.
Baroness David: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister: I speak to Amendment No. 29. I received a moving letter from a Mrs Wright who lives in Cambridge. She had a child who suffered from meningitis at the age of 18 months. As a result the child was disabled and doubly incontinent and required total care, which her mother gave her for 10 years or more. She was then put into a home which proved totally unsuitable. The mother writes:
"It was clear that there was a fundamental problem from the outset. The senior social worker who selected the four children for the newly opened facility, had placed together an incompatible group. Two young people were wheelchair bound and unable to communicate, one other was ambulant and a little unpredictable, while the fourth had autistic-type problems, was hyperactive and prone to sudden violent and destructive behaviour. Both I and the parents of the other wheelchair bound child tried by every means available to have the situation sorted out. We failed, Eventually my daughter was bitten by the autistic child twice, even though staff were present in the room at the time. Neither they, nor the child himself should, in my view be held liable.
"There appears to be no clear reference to this problem in the Bill. I have discovered that client to client abuse is endemic in all systems where the most vulnerable are cared for unless they are in one to one (or more) care. I was a parent governor of a local special school where it also occurred. It affects all age groups. It affects day centres, sadly again, not covered by this Bill".
I understand that from today day centres will be covered eventually.
I want an amendment to the Bill which shows that there is some concern about peer to peer abuse, not only for children but also elderly people who can be very nasty to each other. The lady who wrote the letter suggests an amendment which I have altered slightly. It would help and give comfort to all those people who have suffered, as she did, from feeling so frustrated and in despair. I hope that the Minister can do something about the situation.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness. Lady David, having also received correspondence from Mrs Wright outlining her direct family experience of poor care standards. It was, indeed, a horrifying and saddening letter.
One cannot fairly implicate people with emotional and behavioural difficulties for their attitudes and actions towards their peers, and one cannot guard against every eventuality. But one can expect establishments to put in place clear strategies to minimise client to client abuse, and one can expect

705
establishments to follow clear and professional procedures should abusive situations arise. I hope that the Minister will be able to address this matter through regulations and guidance.
Perhaps I may take the opportunity to thank the Minister for Amendment No. 28 and for tidying up the regulation-making powers in relation to the control and restraint of adults, and the control, restraint and discipline of children. We have what we asked for, and that is always —nearly always—a pleasant experience. But I am old-fashioned enough to acknowledge the word "discipline" in relation to children, and experienced enough of the horrors which result when adults are treated like children to welcome the fact that discipline is not mentioned in relation to adults.
Mencap and I will be delighted to co-operate with the Minister in the drafting of the regulations.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 29 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David. With their great experience in these matters, the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lori Rix, have made an important case for an addition to the powers under this section. At the same time, I wish also to thank the Minister for the extensions he has made in terms of the definition of welfare and other aspects, in particular meeting the aims of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in Committee. That is helpful.
I realise that it is easy to keep extending the provisions of the subsection. However, practical experience as demonstrated by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, indicates that we should consider seriously some measure such as that provided in the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, having listened to the story told by the noble Baroness, Lady David, perhaps I may ask a question. Should not the wishes of parents be taken into consideration; and should social workers play God? It is a serious situation. The wishes of the parents should be considered. I should be grateful if the Minister will respond. Social workers have made so many mistakes lately, as reported in the press this week.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I express support from these Benches for Amendment No. 29. It highlights an issue of deep concern. I am sure that the situation of the lady, Mrs Wright, to whom the noble Baroness referred is one of many. I hope that something can be done to address these issues and that the Minister will be sympathetic.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, first, perhaps I may answer the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. Yes, where appropriate the views of parents must be listened to. On her general point about social workers, yes, social workers do make mistakes, but before we rush to condemn the whole social work profession we should also acknowledge that many do a very good job under very difficult, trying circumstances. It is important to acknowledge that. Of course we want to
706
drive up quality in the profession. That is why the Bill is so important. The general social care council will be crucial in ensuring a more rigorous professional approach to the profession, and will improve public confidence in the profession.
I am glad to acknowledge all the points made by noble Lords about a less publicised aspect of abuse but none the less a disturbing one. The phenomenon which I understand is called peer abuse is, I am afraid, not uncommon. Nor is it confined to establishments where people with a history of violent behaviour are cared for, although the risks may be greater in such settings. Both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, have drawn attention to specific cases raised with them.
All of us would have to sympathise very much with the concerns of that mother as to how her child could have been mistreated by another child in the home without something being done to prevent it or deal with it. I assure my noble friend that we are very much aware of the issue and are committed to ensuring that the regulatory system recognises and is able to tackle this aspect of abuse. We intend to address the issue through regulations. We shall require care homes, children's homes and residential family centres to have proper procedures in place to guard against peer abuse. It will be necessary for them to ensure that all staff are made aware of individuals with physically or verbally abusive behaviour. It will be important that staff take all appropriate steps to prevent harm to other service users, ensuring that service users are not put at risk of harm for whatever reason. That will be a central tenet of the commission's regulatory activity.
We have not yet started work on the content of the regulations. We shall want to draw on good practice where it already exists. For example, I am aware that some schools have already produced excellent protocols for dealing with bullying and that in the education field enormous advances in containing bullying have taken place in the past few years. We may well be able to draw on that progress. But, of course, as with all our regulations we shall consult widely with service users and we should welcome contributions to the debate from noble Lords.
On my noble friend's proposed amendment, the Bill as drafted already allows for such regulations to be made. Clause 21(1)(d) provides powers to make regulations to secure the welfare of service users. It is the Government's intention that this power will be used to safeguard service users from abuse, whether it is perpetrated by staff or by other service users.
I am most grateful to my noble friend for raising this issue. I hope that the assurance that I have given will allow her to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask whether any kind of complaints procedure will be available for parents if they cannot get their complaints acknowledged or anything done about them.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. I believe that that is covered by wider work within the whole social care field. We are strongly committed to having a robust complaints procedure.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 27 and 28:
Page 11, line 16, leave out from ("in") to end of line 17 and insert ("an establishment or provided with services by an establishment, an independent medical agency or a domiciliary care agency;").
Page 11, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations under paragraph (d) of subsection (1) may, in particular, make provision—

(a) as to the promotion and protection of the health of persons such as are mentioned in that paragraph;

(b) as to the control and restraint of adults accommodated in, or provided with services by, an establishment;

(c) as to the control, restraint and discipline of children accommodated in, or provided with services by, an establishment.

( ) Regulations under paragraph (e) of subsection (1) may, in particular, make provision—

(a) as to the promotion and protection of the health of children such as are mentioned in that paragraph;

(b) as to the control, restraint and discipline of such children.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 30 to 32:
Page 11, line 35, leave out ("also").
Page 12, line 21, leave out ("or independent clinic") and insert (", independent clinic or independent medical agency").
Page 12, line 23, leave out ("the establishment") and insert ("or for the purposes of the establishment or (as the case may be) for the purposes of the agency").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Barkermoved Amendment No. 33:
Page 12, line 24, at end insert—
("(1) make provision requiring the person who carries on, or manages, an independent hospital or independent clinic to ensure procedures, agreed with the medical practitioners working in that establishment, are in place to implement clinical governance in respect of that establishment").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose behind this amendment is to return to the question that we raised in relation to Amendment No. 14; that is, to establish that clinical governance is observed in the independent healthcare sector. We talked earlier about the fact that the lines between residential and social care are becoming increasingly blurred. We have spoken previously on these Benches about the growing incidence of clinical care that occurs in non-clinical settings. We return to that matter here.
708
There is one particular reason why I rise to move the amendment at this stage. Increasing numbers of elderly people who are mentally frail are living either at home or in residential homes. Increasingly, they require clinical care which is not given in a clinical setting. The purpose of this amendment, which is promoted by the BMA, is to ensure that a responsibility exists for maintaining standards of clinical governance in those settings.
One effect of Modernising Social Services is that a great many more independent care providers supply services to people who are highly dependent and who need clinical services to be delivered to them in those settings rather than in hospitals. Therefore, we are making yet another attempt to ensure that equality of clinical governance exists in the different settings in which people receive care. Having given a favourable response to Amendment No. 14, I hope that the Minister will be able to do so on this occasion. I bee to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there is no doubt that this is an important matter. I believe that if one evaluated the current regulatory system, one would come to the conclusion that one of its main weaknesses is that the Registered Homes Act 1984 concentrated too much on facilities and equipment and never really got to grips with issues relating to healthcare quality. I believe that officers who attempted to inspect and operate the regulatory system did their best to ensure that they covered clinical areas. However, it was never satisfactory because of the way that that Act was written.
I believe that Clause 21(3)(k) is very important in that respect. It provides for regulations to be made requiring independent healthcare providers to have arrangements in place to ensure that the services they provide are of appropriate quality and meet appropriate standards. In developing those regulations and standards, regard will be had to various quality assurance programmes and initiatives which are in place or are planned. Those include the implementation of clinical governance in the NHS, the Supporting Doctors, Protecting Patients White Paper, the GMC's work on revalidation of doctors, and the work of NICE and of CHI.
Much of that work is to be developed over the next 12 months through consultation. However, we envisage that the type of clinical accountability system that healthcare providers must have in place will need to comply with quality assurance requirements, which include arrangements for the audit and review of clinical practice, the identification and management of clinical risk, and the keeping of clinical records. It is our intention that those measures will help to ensure that appropriate safeguards and quality of care are provided for patients.
I turn to Amendment No. 33, which proposes that regulations are made to put in place clinical governance through the regulatory system. I have no arguments at all with the sentiment of that. Indeed, as I have said before, and as one sees if one looks at the

709
recent scoping paper, the most serious criticism of the current regulatory system is its lack of scrutiny of clinical quality. This Bill will change that.
The regulations and standards that I have mentioned will yet out clear requirements for private and voluntary healthcare providers to have in place systems for ensuring full accountability for clinical services and qualities. That is very important. We shall require the registered persons to have satisfactory procedures in place for auditing the quality of healthcare delivered in their hospital or clinic and for spotting potential problems and dealing with them appropriately. I believe that a past problem has been that a person who runs a private hospital has, in effect, been able to say, "You can't talk to me about the quality of care. Your contract was with the consultant. All I do is rent out the facilities". Clearly, that is unacceptable. I can assure noble Lords that we shall require full and proper accountability for the services provided.
My own thought regarding the noble Baroness's amendment is that it is unnecessary because essentially it is a reworking of the current Clause 21(3)(k). The reason why we have not used the term "clinical governance", as the noble Baroness has done, is simply that we did not want to create unhelpful confusion regarding the clinical governance system in the NHS. However, I hope that the noble Baroness will be assured that we want to ensure, as much as she does, that clinical standards are of the highest order.
Lord Jenkin of Boding: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him a question. He said something that I found very strange: that one of the weaknesses of the Registered Homes Act was that it concentrated on physical facilities and not on the quality of care. Does he recognise that precisely the same criticism can be addressed at the consultation paper Fit for the Future? under the heading "Modernising social services", and does he recollect that I pointed out in Committee that exactly the same fault existed there? That was drawn to my attention by the Registered Nursing Home Association, which rather liked what I said.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords, I certainly recollect that. I believe that at the time I said that we had taken very careful note of the comments that came back to us in relation to the consultation. As we come to prepare further drafts of the regulations and the national minimum standards, we shall be very careful to take on board those points. I believe that it is important that, while some of the debate about Fit for the Future? concerned room sizes—room sizes are one factor in all this—it is clearly important that the overall outcome relates to the quality of care.
Lord Jenkin of Boding: My Lords, the Registered Nursing Home Association wrote:
"Our Vice President, Derek Whittaker, was a member of the Steering Group set up by the CPA. With some 20 years involvement as an owner of a nursing home he had a lot of
710
experience to offer as a practitioner, but repeatedly found himself frustrated by the failure of the group to he prepared to listen to any alternative view".
He had been constantly trying to say that it was the quality of care that mattered, not the number of plugs in the wall, and he was not listened to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I know Mr Whittaker and I have great respect for his views. All I was saying was that the Government have taken very careful note of the comments that have come back as a result of the Fit for the Future? consultation. While physical standards are important—and it is worth making the point that previous governments have also required standards in relation to room sizes —I very much accept the point that, at the end of the day, it is quality which counts. Our endeavour, through the regulations and the national minimum standards, will be to ensure that that comes through in the regulatory process.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I take a great deal of heart from the Minister's response. I believe that he shares our concern about the emphasis being on quality of care rather than physical standards.
However, I return to a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in relation to one of his earlier amendments. People who are now being cared for in residential and nursing homes are of a greater degree of frailty than ever before. Care providers realise that for many older people, particularly those who are mentally frail, moving them from the establishment in which they live is seriously disadvantageous to their health. Therefore, increasingly, clinical treatment will be given in those establishments.
However, I take heart from what the Minister said. I shall not press the amendment at this stage. However, I suggest to the Minister that as clinical governance becomes, perhaps, the guiding force in the provision of local services, we may well find that work on the ground is ahead of the Government and that clinical governance will be applied more widely. However, I take on board the points that the Minister made and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 35 to 39:
Page 12, line 25, leave out ("also").
Page 12, line 26, leave out paragraph (a).
Page 12, line 30, leave out ("such") and insert ("children's").
Page 12, line 38, leave out ("such") and insert ("children's").
Page 12, line 39, leave out ("subsections (1) and (3)") and insert ("this section").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Clause 22 [National minimum standards]:
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 41:
Page 12, line 47, at end insert—
("( ) In preparing or amending the standards set out in the statements, the appropriate minister shall consult any person whom he considers it appropriate to consult.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we move to a pair of issues which I raised in Committee and about which I feel increasingly exercised relating to the setting of minimum standards; namely, the case for consultation and for parliamentary scrutiny.
In moving Amendment No. 41, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 42. Since our debates in Committee, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge in the sense that the consultation exercise on Fit for the Future?has now been concluded and the Government have had a considerable further period in which to reflect on their approach to minimum standards for care homes.
I do not wish to confine my remarks purely to care homes because the ramifications of the amendments run much wider. But care homes are a good place to start.
When speaking to an earlier amendment, I mentioned the huge pall of uncertainty that has descended on the care homes sector in the wake of Fit for the Future?. In a sense, some of that uncertainty was an inevitable price to pay for any honest attempt—and I accept that this is an honest attempt by the Government—to raise standards in care homes. What has been unfortunate with this particular exercise, with the greatest respect to those responsible for the CPA proposals, is that what emerged from it, taken as a whole, was neither practicable nor balanced. As I said previously, the suggested CPA standards were too numerous and, in some cases, were over-prescriptive. Others, such as the staffing ratios, were ill thought through.
The signals emanating from the Department of Health in recent weeks have suggested that those concerns have been fully taken on board and that what will emerge—it is hoped, quite soon—will be something a good deal more manageable and considered. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us on that if he is in a position to do so.
But, at the end of the day, there are lessons to be learnt. One is that the whole process of setting minimum standards may have a profoundly destabilising effect on an industry. The Government's view appears to be that given a transition period of a few years, most care homes willing to upgrade will be able to do so. A transition period of five years has been talked about, albeit unofficially.
But it is no good talking of a five-year period of grace when the reality is that lending institutions and providers of capital will not contemplate lending further money to the bulk of the sector, at least until existing debt—typically long-term money of 10 to 20 years' duration—has been repaid.
712
Furthermore, lending institutions need good security. While some flexibility in enforcing minimum standards may be good in certain circumstances, there is another side to that coin. How is a bank supposed to know whether a care home represents good security if there is continuing uncertainty over whether or not it meets the standards? The way Clause 22 is framed means that such uncertainty is bound to occur. What kind of a standard is it that is neither a regulation nor mandatory but which, in some as yet undefined way, must be taken into account? Will the Minister comment on that?
All the minimum standards which issue from this Bill, not only those that relate to care homes but those for boarding schools, independent hospitals, agencies and so on, will be of the most profound significance for those sectors of the care and healthcare industries. The biggest single question that arises from them will be the question of who pays. So far, we have not had much reassurance on that question from the Government.
I am concerned about the ethics of a Bill which imposes new requirements on individuals and businesses, requirements which have the potential to put those people out of business, a Bill which contains no provision to contribute to the costs of meeting those requirements and which allows for the requirements to be imposed by a Minister at the stroke of a pen without any reference to Parliament.
To a layman, there would seem to be human rights implications here but we are assured by the Government that that is not the case. However, at the very least, Parliament should be afforded the opportunity, if it so chooses, to debate each set of minimum standards. It is simply not adequate for the Minister to say, as he did in Committee, that parliamentary scrutiny of the minimum standards is unnecessary when the regulations on which they are based will already have been laid before Parliament.
In my respectful submission, that is no substitute for Parliament being able to sanction the detail and to ratify measures which, as I have explained, will be of the deepest significance for the registered services in question.
The Bill makes no provision for consultation. I do not regard that as acceptable. If the Government intend to consult anyway, as any reasonable government would, why do they not put that on the face of the Bill? The amendment is framed in such a way as to give the Secretary of State discretion to consult only a limited circle of organisations in the event of changes of a very minor nature being proposed. I hope that the Minister will take on board the concerns that I have expressed. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I want to indicate agreement with the spirit of these amendments particularly since, unlike similar amendments in Committee, they go to the process rather than to the content of the regulations. The process is the key here.
In relation to the Fit for the Future? draft standards, which I support, I do not believe that it is at all subversive to believe that the process by which they are

713
put into practice should be absolutely clear and put forward in the way that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested.
There are major implications, and certainly I have had a degree of correspondence since Committee stage. They concern access to care homes, availability, costs incurred by such homes, and indeed the local employment which is provided by such care homes. All these matters are raised by the nature of the standards themselves. It is therefore absolutely key that there should be a proper consultation process. It seems to me that a process such as that described by the noble Earl is certainly one way forward. I hope that the Minister, even if he cannot accept this particular modus operandi, will consider something rather stronger than the provisions in the Bill at present.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, perhaps I may put a question to the Minister. In an earlier amendment, my noble friend on the Front Bench spelt out what is clearly a very serious situation facing the owners of many of these care homes. I shall not weary the House by repeating what he said, because he has referred to the subject again on this amendment.
On the earlier amendment, the Minister said that he did not think that the picture was as black as it had been painted. I think that he owes it to the House to give us some evidence of that. The question I want to ask is: is he satisfied that those who are making this complaint—I am sure that complaints are being addressed to his department and not only to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches— are giving accurate figures of the financial position which they face? I ask that question because some years ago, as a constituency MP, I found myself caught up in a dispute over the amounts that the local authorities were paying for residents in private care homes and what the care home owners were saying that it cost them to provide those services.
The complaint rather fell to the ground when, one after another, the home owners said, "We are not disclosing our figures" and I said to them, "Well, it is no good coming to weep on my shoulder. Unless I have the figures I carrot pursue the claim either with the local authority or with the Secretary of State". I came away with the impression that I was not being told the whole story and that in fact they were doing rather better than they were prepared to admit. They may have found that their margins were under pressure, and that was why they were complaining.
So the question I ask is: given the seriousness of today's situation, which seems to me to be of a completely different order of magnitude, is the Minister now satisfied that the correct figures are being disclosed and, if they are not, should not the department be actively pursuing the matter so that the Government can be satisfied that their rather more optimistic noises—more optimistic than have come from this side of the House—may well be justified?
When the Minister responded earlier, he quoted figures of the number of homes that are being bought and sold. 'With the greatest respect, I am not sure that
714
that meets the case. If people are having to sell in substantial numbers, they may find somebody, some new person, who says, "I can make a go of this and I will take it on" whereas the truth of the matter may be that at the end of the transaction he may be in exactly the same position as his predecessor. The Minister did not laugh this off, but one can underestimate the seriousness of what appears to be affecting this sector at the moment. The real worry is that if the number of beds decline at a time when the population is ageing and its needs are growing, that has very serious implications indeed.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly did not intend to underestimate the challenges and problems, financial or otherwise, that are faced by a number of care homes; indeed not. I know the problems that they face and I accept that, in addition, they will have to prepare to meet new requirements under this Bill. Clearly that presents some major problems, but I was trying to give a balanced picture of the market in care homes.
We might argue about whether turnover is a sign of people being forced to sell up or a sign of some buoyancy in some parts of the market. However, I understand that banks have been lending to companies to develop new homes. Part of what we are seeing at the moment is a restructuring of the care home market, with some of the smaller individually-owned homes finding themselves in great difficulties, whereas some of the companies which are developing chains of homes, so to speak, seem to be able to survive, prosper and cope with the regulatory conditions. However, I will dig further into this situation to see whether I can provide the noble Lord with some more information as to our own understanding of how the market stands at the moment.
It is relevant to that issue that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has raised this afternoon the issue of the impact of the regulatory system (in terms of cost) to the care homes. I repeat the assurance that I gave in Committee: that, as the noble Earl suggested, the implications of those increased costs would be taken into account during the Comprehensive Spending Review.
Perhaps at this stage I might also respond to the points made about Fit for the Future? My honourable friend Mr John Hutton has already indicated that the staffing ratios set out in Fit for the Future? will not be adopted. He has also given reassurances that reasonable time-scales will be set for homes to meet the final standards that will be required through the new regulatory pattern. I hope that this indicates that we understand the challenges that care homes will face under this new regulatory regime, but again I have to emphasise that we are engaged in driving up quality for many thousands of people in such homes. We need to take a balanced approach.
I turn now to the specific intent of the amendments. A set of national minimum standards will be needed for every type of service to be regulated or inspected by the national care standards commission. Work is already proceeding on developing those standards, as

715
your Lordships will be well aware. I said in Committee that the Government are committed to consulting on all these sets of standards, and consultation will take place at ordered stages during the development of those standards. There will be consultations with key stakeholders, including the service users themselves, on the formulation of the standards. Once the draft is completed, we shall publish it and carry out a comprehensive consultation exercise, as we have done in relation to Fit for the Future? It is inconceivable that we would publish a set of national minimum standards without consulting about them first. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, but I appreciate that it might be important for a visible indication to be made in this area. I am prepared to look again at this matter with the aim of tabling an amendment at Third Reading.
The noble Earl has also tabled an amendment that would require the national minimum standards to be laid before Parliament before they are published and to be subject to the negative resolution procedure. I have again listened carefully to the noble Earl's arguments, but I cannot agree that they are necessary, as I explained in Committee. The standards are based on the regulations made under Clause 21. They illustrate and amplify those regulations, but it is the regulations themselves which set the framework and which will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that the noble Earl will be prepared to withdraw this amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to all the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and I should like to thank the Minister for what he has said on my amendment relating to consultation. I fully accept that it is inconceivable for this Government and, indeed, any future government that I can imagine, not to consult on such a matter. On the other hand, as the Minister will know, the undertaking of any one government is not binding on future governments and it does no harm to put such a provision on the face of the Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for offering to consider the matter.
I am afraid that I have more difficulty with his comments on my other amendment relating to parliamentary scrutiny. As I understand it, the regulations that will receive parliamentary scrutiny will be extremely broad brush. They will not contain anything like the kind of detail proposed in Fit for the Future? When those regulations are laid, no one will object to the concept of minimum standards. The principle of minimum standards is one on which all of us here are keen. It is what lies within; it is the devil in the detail. I am not convinced by the Minister's remarks. I should like to consider the matter further between now and Third Reading. Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to see me privately on the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In doing so, I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.32 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Bank of England: Intervention in Foreign Exchange Markets
7.31 p.m.
Lord Blackwellrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what policy criteria they would apply before directing the Bank of England to intervene in foreign exchange markets, and what are the criteria and the budget provision under which the Bank of England may use its discretionary power to intervene in foreign exchange markets.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking time to respond to the debate at a time when I know that he is busy on other matters going through the House. I thank other noble Lords for joining me in the debate.
The Government's foreign exchange policy is a critical area of economic management; one which does not always receive as much attention as other areas of economic policy which come more frequently before both Houses. However, a number of matters have led to the exchange rate policy being brought to the forefront of attention recently, which makes it appropriate to debate the policy in this way. The first is the pressure on the Government which has arisen from what is referred to as the "strong pound" or the "strength of the pound". I believe that it might more properly be referred to as the "weakness of the euro". The pressure from the strong pound has led to a number of questions in this House where noble Lords have called on the Government to intervene in the foreign exchange markets to try to adjust the pound's exchange rate.
The Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee during February had a discussion on the exchange rate objectives and on the possibility of intervention. We are approaching a period when the Government, having declared their intention of moving Britain into the euro, may well be faced with pressures to try to intervene to manage the exchange rate in the period up to the pound's proposed entry.
My objective in raising the Question is to invite the Government to make an on the record statement of how they now view their powers to intervene in foreign exchange markets and, if possible, to receive some reassurance from the Minister of the circumstances in which they would not intervene; the limits to intervention.

717
The Government's powers to intervene in foreign exchange markets are extremely wide. They are set out in a letter from the Chancellor to the Governor of the Bank of England in May 1997. They fall into two parts. First, the Government themselves may intervene. The letter states,
"If the Government so instructs, the Bank, acting as its agent, will intervene in foreign exchange markets by buying or selling the Government's foreign exchange reserves. All such intervention will be automatically sterilised".
Not only can the Government direct the Bank of England to intervene thus, but the Bank of England in the same letter is given discretion to intervene on its own account:
"The Bank will have its own separate pool of foreign exchange reserves which it may use at its discretion to intervene in support of its monetary policy objective".
There is no definition in that letter or in other material that I have been able to find which clarifies the objectives by which the Government, or indeed, the Bank of England, may decide whether or not to intervene. For example, the Bank of England's website states of the foreign exchange reserves,
"These may be used, subject to policy objectives, to attempt to influence the exchange rate in case of need".
The terms, "subject to policy objectives" and "in case of need" present a fairly broad canvas. I am not happy in a situation where the open powers to intervene in foreign exchange markets of both the Government and the Bank of England are set without clarity of the objectives and some limit to set the accountability with which they are used.
My own view, which I hope would find wide agreement in the House, is that history shows that intervention by governments to try to determine the exchange rate as a policy objective is not only doomed to failure, but is likely to be hugely damaging as well as expensive. That is true whether or not the intervention is sterilised. There are two reasons why I believe that intervention is not at all a viable policy and why the Government should, if possible, repudiate intervention as a policy which they might adopt. One reason is theoretical, the other practical.
The theoretical reason is simply that within any economic system there are only a limited number of variables which the Government can try to determine independently. If the Government have a policy of controlling interest rates and monetary policy domestically and a policy of controlling fiscal policy, I do not believe that they can independently attempt to control the exchange rate as well. The exchange rate becomes a dependent variable. Any attempt to try to control the exchange rate will simply result in pressures building up which will burst out in some other direction in due course, whether it be in inflation or unemployment.
The practical reason for disavowing intervention is the size of our foreign exchange reserves relative to the floods of money going through the foreign exchange markets every day. In practical terms it is simply not possible for the Government to spend enough to make a major adjustment to the exchange rate which is sustainable. Experience suggests that whenever
718
governments intervene, they tend to increase the amount of money normally flowing betting against them.
Despite those reasons for being cautious about intervention, governments have not been prevented from intervening on quite a large scale in recent history. Many noble Lords will remember the period during the 1980s, for example, when a policy of trying to set the exchange rate between the pound and the Deutschmark at around three Deutschmarks was followed. A number of people would suggest that that policy was partly responsible for some of the inflation which followed.
Similarly, in the period after the government joined the Exchange Rate Mechanism, the attempt to sustain the pound in the Exchange Rate Mechanism led to a period of intervention in the early 1990s which again was expensive and costly without any sustained benefit. In those and other situations, it is possible for governments to spend vast amounts of the nation's wealth for little effect. One of my concerns nowadays is that it may well be possible for governments to intervene in foreign exchange markets without it being readily apparent how much intervention is taking place in the accounts published simply by using forward contracts and intervention. Therefore, it is difficult to control the accountability of getting into situations where vast amounts of money are put at risk.
As we approach a period when the stated intention of the Government is to take the pound into the euro—a new fixed rate exchange regime by another name —I should like to ensure that the same temptations to intervene do not reappear. It would be attractive to think of the equivalent of a balanced budget amendment; for example, a Bill which stated that the Government and the Bank of England are simply not empowered to intervene beyond a certain limit over a period of time. However, we have no such law on the statute book at present. As I have said, the powers to intervene are open-ended and clear.
Given that the Government have those powers at present, I should like to ask the Minister to set out as clearly as he can the circumstances in which the Government believe it would be proper to consider intervention, and, directly or by inference, those in which he is prepared to declare that the Government would not consider intervention appropriate or proper.
I invite the Minister specifically to confirm that the Government would rule out the use of intervention to create what I would regard as a false convergence between the pound and the euro by trying to track the pound to the euro in any run-up to a policy decision on whether or not Britain will join the euro. There must be temptations for the Government, if pursuing a pro-euro policy in the years ahead, to see intervention as a tool. I should like the Government to declare, if possible, that they do not regard intervention to create false convergence as an appropriate use of those powers.

719
Finally, under the letter from the Chancellor which I read to your Lordships, the Bank of England has discretion to intervene on its own account. I should like more clarity about the circumstances in which the Bank of England might use those powers to intervene over and beyond day-to-day technical issues of managing foreign payments and our obligations to the IMF, and so forth. What amount of money will the Bank of England be able to spend on its own account to intervene in foreign exchange markets without reference and authority from the Government?
I believe those are important issues of policy but also of governance and accountability as to how the powers are used. It is fairly unusual for the Government to have such wide powers and for so little attention to be focused on the objectives around them and accountability for the use of such powers. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, for tabling this Unstarred Question. It is an important but difficult question. That is shown by the small number of participants, but perhaps I may say that only the select can talk on such subjects.
I am relieved by the way in which the noble Lord put his argument. I was somewhat worried that we might have a lobby for the manufacturing industry trying to get the pound down. I always dread that kind of debate. However, all I can do is to agree with the noble Lord, in many ways, and expand on my perspective on the problem.
I agreed with the noble Lord when he said that of the three main objectives of government policy—that is, inflation, employment and exchange rate stability—we can at most control two. That is what I call a "missing equation" problem. If we are in a fixed exchange rate regime, as the euroland is, inflation can be controlled but employment cannot be. Employment and the failure to control it is the variable which is taking all the strain of euroland.
There have been many experiments in the UK on this question. Our obsession with the foreign exchange position blighted economic policy through the sixties, seventies and eighties. I am glad that, following our exit from the exchange rate mechanism, we have decided that what really matters is to establish a credible regime for fiscal and monetary policy and then let the exchange rate do what it wants to do. Of the three objectives of government policy, the exchange rate is the least controllable by a national government, especially in today's markets, where, as the noble Lord stated, private investors can throw a wall of money at the Government if they try to lean against the wind. It is no use throwing good money after bad and putting your nose out of joint.
It is particularly interesting to note that my right honourable friend the Chancellor strengthened the credibility of monetary policy by his decision to give independence to the Bank of England as regards the
720
rate of interest. He has also established a credible fiscal regime by his code of fiscal stability. Those two provisions having been put in place, it is but logical that the exchange rate should be allowed to find its own level. The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, may not say this but perhaps I may remind him that the person who forecast that the pound would be the strongest currency in Europe was none other than John Major, a couple of years after our exit from the ERM. At that time, everybody fell about laughing. Either he was lucky in his forecast or he was clever. However, it is true that our exit from the ERM taught us many lessons. One such lesson was that, if the UK is to have a credible economic policy, it cannot rely on external constraints and straitjackets. It has to internalise fiscal and monetary discipline, learn the lessons and set up institutions which are credible in the eyes of the world.
I do not mind saying that I fully supported our entry into the exchange rate mechanism. At that time I did so because I could not believe that any Chancellor of the Exchequer could be trusted to run a stable fiscal regime. At that stage I became an Ayatollah of balanced budgets. I decided that because we could not trust a UK chancellor, we had to put him in a straitjacket. As it turned out, for various reasons the ERM did not succeed. However, for the record, I have to say that it succeeded in lowering inflationary expectations in this country in the most drastic way possible—something which all through the 1980s we could not do. We had high unemployment yet still high wage settlements. We persisted with the high rate of inflation. The ERM experience, painful though it was, and perhaps because it was painful, knocked inflationary expectations on the head and we were then able to recover.
The secret of a good policy outcome today is partly that globalisation has reduced the rate of growth of manufacturing prices worldwide. We are therefore not importing inflation. Secondly, a stable fiscal and monetary regime is driving inflation down and inflationary expectations are in step with inflationary experience.
So far, so good. That immediately raises a question posed by the noble Lord: are there any conditions under which the Bank of England should intervene? The answer is "no". Should we nudge our currency towards Europe? I do not know what my noble friend will say from the Dispatch Box but I would say "no". These matters are no longer invisible; they are transparent and the markets will find out. Then they will punish one for messing around with the foreign exchange rate.
I also believe that the policy and financial conditions that have been laid down say, more or less, that it is the convergence of the cycle that matters a great deal. I do not think there is a desirable exchange rate which we ought to aim for on entry into the euro. This may sound somewhat heartless, but I have been saying that for the past year in meetings of the Peston committee. The high level of sterling has nothing to do with the balance of trade and so forth. Rather, it is the UK's good position as an attractor of foreign direct

721
investment that has made the pound so strong. Short-term interest rates are high and there is some small influence from those rates. However, what really makes sterling strong is that the UK has become a very good attractor of foreign direct investment.
In the globalised context of today's markets, it is capital movements which are the major determinant of exchange rates, rather than trade deficits. Nevertheless, an obsession with trade deficits persists in many quarters, but I believe that that thinking is completely out of date. We now have an exchange rate that is effectively produced by movements of capital and, in that context, it makes no sense for people to say, "The Government should do something to bring down the pound". That is a silly way to approach the issue, for two reasons.
First, if we consider the pound/dollar exchange rate, it is clear that the pound is not particularly high. The pound has stayed at more or less 1.60 dollars for a long time. Indeed, it is a little weaker at the moment, down to 1.57 dollars. Secondly, it is only the pound/euro exchange rate where the pound looks so expensive. That has happened because the euro started at a ridiculously high level and was not neutralised by the European Central Bank, which was formed six months before the euro was launched. That mistake meant that the euro began too high and then declined to some 18 to 20 per cent below its starting level. However, that is the ECB's mess.
United Kingdom policy should declare itself free from the old habits of trying to steer the pound here, there or anywhere else. I believe that the Government have given a clear signal, in the absence of any reference to exchange rates in the Budget speech, that the UK Government are not going to intervene in those rates. That, I believe, is the correct policy.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I agree with both my noble friend Lord Desai and the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell. This is indeed a very important subject, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, for tabling this Question, because it has given me an opportunity to say that I hope that the Government will not be persuaded by noble Lords to intervene in the foreign exchange markets. If they do, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, has said; namely, that the law of unexpected results will operate with a vengeance. That has been our experience in the past. I believe that is because we do not really understand the reasons why the foreign exchange markets fix a rate. As my noble friend Lord Desai has reminded us, the ERM experience should provide enough evidence of that.
Because we hardly understand the causes of the so-called strong pound, who knows what the effect of intervention will be? Perhaps the pound is not all that strong. Some say that it is the euro that is weak and that the rate of sterling against the dollar and the yen is competitive. But what is competitive? My noble friend Lord Currie, in his book on European monetary union, reminds us that in 1966 there were 11 deutschmarks to the pound, but by 1996 the rate
722
was 2.3 deutschmarks to the pound. That represents an average depreciation of 5 per cent a year. Did this mean that our goods were 5 per cent more competitive each year? Obviously they were not.
So what is it that fixes the exchange rate of sterling? Is it interest rates? Certainly interest rates are an important factor, but, as my noble friend Lord Desai has reminded us, it is not a straightforward issue. Rates are much the same here as they are in the United States, but they are much higher than in Europe or Japan. For that reason, the relationship is uncertain.
However, interest rates are now the responsibility of the Monetary Policy Committee, which is an independent body. The committee's obligation is to keep inflation down to the Government's target of 2.5 per cent. If the exchange rate were to fall and inflation rise, the committee would be obliged to increase interest rates, which would probably affect the exchange rate and bring it back to where we started.
Perhaps the foreign exchange markets regard our management of the economy as sound enough to warrant a healthy exchange rate. Is it that the foreign exchange markets believe that the old days of boom and bust in Britain are over and that a more stable economy merits a higher exchange rate? I agree with my noble friend Lord Desai: perhaps we have convinced the foreign exchange market that devaluation is no longer a fiscal tool available to the Government. If this analysis is correct, it is not economics that we need to manipulate the exchange rate, it is market psychology. The exchange rate is probably a combination of all of these factors— political, economic, psychological—and they are constantly changing. That is why we really do not understand what is going on and what are the causes.
Even if we did understand, how would we intervene? The noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, made the point that sterling is a popular currency for short-term speculation. He reminded us that the world's annual trade in sterling is turned over every few days on the foreign exchange markets. We would need very deep pockets to make an impact on that.
Some say the commitment to join the euro at a given exchange rate is the answer. However, I am not sure about this. It seems to me that the reasons for joining the euro are surely much wider than merely lowering the current rate of exchange. Certainly the deficit on goods traded with the European Union rose from £4 billion in 1997 to £6.2 billion in 1999, but that is nothing compared with our deficit with the rest of the world. That deficit had gone up from £7.9 billion in 1997 to £20.4 billion in 1999.
I say no. The decision to join the euro has to be made in the interests of the economy as a whole. That interest is to benefit from the stability of being part of a big currency block. In short, I think it is the Government's task to inform the market, but not to control it.

723
Now, I am afraid that I shall irritate my noble friend Lord Desai because I should like to say a few words about manufacturing. That is because I happen to think that talk of managing the exchange rate is a cynical diversion from the real task; namely, the task of modernising industry and encouraging it to be more competitive. What the Government can do is to encourage modernisation and competitiveness. They can set a good example. They can apply the old-fashioned stick and carrot; they can use exhortation and encouragement to make the economy more competitive.
I think that the Government are having a good shot at this. They are setting an example by encouraging the public sector to be more efficient and effective. They are improving our infrastructure. They are using the Internet in their relationship with industry. They have passed the Competition Bill and regulations directed towards competition. There are many carrots in the numerous schemes to assist and encourage the introduction of new technology, better management, innovation and training. In the medium and long term, that is the way to build a healthy economy: get productivity up rather than get the exchange rate down. That is because devaluation hardly works, even in the short term.
During the 1970s and 1980s—the heyday of devaluation—I worked in the textile industry. I can clearly remember that within hours of devaluation being announced, the telex machines would start chattering with messages from our overseas customers demanding price reductions equivalent to the devaluation, even on orders where the price had already been agreed. I usually met regular customers part way, otherwise they would just take discounts off repeat orders or the next season's order. The benefits were very short term and the whole exercise did nothing to increase our competitiveness. Indeed, it focused attention on price, rather than on price together with quality, design, delivery, service and innovation—which is how businesses thrive. Our Italian competitors actually learnt that lesson very well. As a result, Italy still remains the second largest exporter of fabric in the world after China.
Of course, the exchange rate is part of the competitiveness equation. But achieving competitiveness through managing the exchange rate is a diversion from the real task of achieving competitiveness through the management of business and economy. I urge the Government not to do it.
8 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, for initiating this debate. I am slightly depressed in one sense in that I have to agree with a large measure of his broad conclusion. I was hoping that we would have some root-and-branch supporters of old-style intervention in the debate. Unless the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, is about to spring a surprise, I suspect that we shall not.
724
I agree with the theoretical proposition that it is impossible to control inflation, employment and the exchange rate all at the same time. It is rather like a partially filled balloon; when we try to push one part down, the balloon inflates in another. However, it is possible—here I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai—to increase the levels of employment with a set exchange rate and a set inflation target by supply-side measures. The Lisbon Summit looked at ways in which, other things being equal, we could still improve levels of employment simply by improving skills levels and the workings of the labour market.
I disagree slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, also when he says that there is one fundamental reason why the exchange rate is at a specific level. He mentioned the attractiveness of the UK as a haven for inward investment. But one of the things that struck me in one of our first meetings of the Monetary Policy Select Committee was the Governor of the Bank of England admitting that he could not explain why sterling was so high at that point. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that there is no consensus as to why, at any one point, an exchange rate is at a specific level. I have a lot of sympathy with the Keynesian view that animal spirits have a lot to do with the way that markets work and that they are, by definition, difficult to pin down.
But the one thing with which I suspect most people in this country, if not everybody in this House, will agree is that the effect of the current exchange rate is that the manufacturing sector is really hurting. Although Rover has had the headlines recently—one can argue about the extent to which Rover was affected by the exchange rate—all the evidence I have heard from my colleagues in another place in relation to manufacturing plant in their constituencies, whether in the far south-west, the Midlands or the north, suggests that the manufacturing sector is suffering greatly from the current rate of exchange. We saw today another big closure announced in Liverpool in the manufacture of boots and I suggest that the exchange rate was at work there.
Assuming that we agree that old-style intervention does not work, and that for the manufacturing sector an exchange rate somewhat lower than the current one is desirable, what can we do about it? The Government's policy, both to deal with the short-term manufacturing problem and as we look towards joining the euro, is what might be called reverse Micawberism; that is, not hoping that something turns up, but hoping that something turns down, and that the exchange rate will turn down of its own volition.
There are some reasons for optimism on that score. The growth rate of the American economy cannot carry on at its current level year after year. At some stage there will be a reversal and at that point the European economy will look stronger by comparison, though I suspect that sterling will suffer in the crossfire. However, economists have been predicting that kind of shock for some considerable time, some of them in apocalyptic terms. It has not happened yet and

725
perhaps never will. Therefore, like Mr Micawber, I am not sure that the Government are wise to rely on it happening.
When looking to see what might be done, it may be remembered teat my noble friend Lord Taverne explained in this House on a number of occasions that there may be limited scope for sterilised interventions. I recommend to all noble Lords the research paper by Mr Bofinger, Options for the Exchange Rate Management of the ECB, which sets all that out in considerable detail. However, I have doubts as to how successful those interventions could be in the longer-term.
One thing that would have an immediate effect on the exchange rate, in the direction in which both the Government and manufacturing industry wish it to go, is an announcement that the Government intend to hold a referendum on joining the euro within a certain timescale in the next Parliament. Why should that have any effect on today's exchange rate? Because it gives certainty to the long-term position in respect of the movement of interest rates in this country. I am informed by colleagues in the City that the effect of such an announcement would mean that pension funds would greatly increase their holdings of long-dated French, German and other euro-zone bonds. That in turn would have the effect in the marketplace of bringing down the rate of sterling somewhat.
The problem we are faced with at the moment is that the lack of such a clear statement means that the Government are not credible when they talk in the changeover plan of working towards euro-zone membership. The truth is that in the City people do not believe the Government when they say that they have a bias towards joining early in the next Parliament. They believe that they will simply wait until after the next election, look at the polls, and take a view then; that there is no philosophical or practical commitment to that move. Therefore we are stuck with the high pound.
The answer to the question therefore of whether the Bank can intervene is "Yes, it can". But should it intervene? It almost certainly should not. I shall be interested in the Minister's suggestion of the circumstances in which they might consider intervening. I suspect the Minister will say that there are no intentions to intervene. What I should really like to hear is that the Government intend to set a timetable for a referendum to join the euro. But I hardly expect him to do that tonight.
8.8 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Blackwell for giving us the opportunity to debate this important matter, not least because we strolled through some of the ground at Question Time today.
It is one of the Chancellor's proudest claims that the Government's economic policies have ended the cycle of "boom and bust". A cursory glance at the overall figures for the economy could persuade the casual observer that the claim was justified. With due
726
apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, although I hope he will draw some comfort from my conclusions, there is another side to that coin. A number of sectoral interests—notably, manufacturing and agriculture—are in dire straits, substantially (but not exclusively) because of the strength of sterling.
As Sir Brian Moffat, chairman of Corus observed,
"Manufacturing industry in the UK is fighting for its very existence and will continue to do so. It is extremely efficient but the impact of the continued strengthening of the pound on its cost base is remorselessly undercutting its competitiveness".
Equally, while conceding that it is not as simple as the phrase implies, the "north/south divide" continues to be a running sore. As Nissan has observed:
"Should the present circumstances continue unchecked, the UK's manufacturing exporters, their export markets and our domestic markets, are at grave risk".
The company then added that its position in Sunderland "is particularly vulnerable".
Even Eddie George has conceded that,
"the worry is that it"—
that is, the strong pound—
"is producing real, sustained damage in some sectors of the economy".
In effect, the claim by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that "boom and bust" has been excised is credible only when it is applied to the economy as a whole. By definition, the economy is the sum total of its parts. To this extent, it is currently the product of the countervailing forces of a booming "new economy" set against a relative bust of the "old economy". This widening divergence—in effect, a form of internal boom and bust—is attributable in very great measure to the Government's failure to address the issue of the strength of the pound.
What all of this should tell us is that, in order to be prudent, government economic policy should be geared towards rather more than that which is expressed in the Minister's statement that:
"The best contribution that the Government can make to exchange rate stability, consistent with their objective of a stable and competitive pound over the medium term, is to maintain sound public finances and low inflation".—[Official Report, 1/3/00; col. 554.]
The Minister has used this Treasury mantra on more than one occasion. No doubt he will use it again tonight, as he did earlier today. He will also, no doubt, repeat yet another of the Treasury's mantras; namely,
"we do not underestimate the difficulties, particularly for manufacturing industry, of a strong pound".—[Official Report, 1/3/00; col. 555.]
But to what extent is it a consequence of the Government's economic policies that the pound's exchange rate with the euro is continuing to be, in the words of the Governor of the Bank of England, "unsustainable"? Moreover, in so far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have measures of control at his disposal, can the Government legitimately claim that they are managing the situation prudently?
The thrust of my noble friend's Question is to acknowledge that these difficulties exist and to inquire whether the Government believe that exchange rate

727
intervention would represent an appropriate mechanism with which to tackle them. On the basis of statements from the Government to date—perhaps the Minister could confirm this again tonight—the straightforward answer would be a categoric and unequivocal "No". In January, the Minister said:
"I thought that I had already sufficiently clearly rejected the option of using a policy of intervention, sterilised or unsterilised, in the exchange rate".—[Official Report, 27/1/00; col. 1665.]
Then, only last week, he added that,
"we do not fully understand what makes exchange rates tick. Attempts to deal with them by direct intervention are likely to be doomed to failure".—[0fficial Report, 21/3/00; col. 138.]
Increasingly, and, no doubt, arising in part from Eddie George's insistence that the MPC's ability to influence the pound,
"is not zero but is not very great either",
the argument is being advanced that the way past this conundrum is to extend the remit of the MPC. But it has to be said that the relationship between interest and exchange rates, as the Minister conceded, is far from being an exact science. More than this, in evidence to the Treasury Select Committee in the previous Session, the Governor of the Bank of England was adamant that,
"we do not believe that we can target the exchange rate consistently with targeting inflation".
As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the same forum,
"anybody who thinks that either dropping the inflation target to replace it by an exchange target or running inflation and exchange rate targets at the same time is the right way to achieve domestic stability or convergence is failing to learn the lessons of the 1980s".
All good and well.
Sentiment is in favour of a policy of benign neglect of exchange rates. For our part, we on these Benches support that and acknowledge the part that a strong pound plays in sustaining the overall strength of the economy. As far as concerns any central intervention, all recent evidence, not least the break-up of the ERM in 1993 or the Bank of Japan's attempts to weaken the yen last year, endorse that view.
However, this is not to say that the Government's hands are entirely hog-tied. There are a number of measures in the fiscal jam jar, not least appropriate co-ordination of fiscal and monetary policy, which, when deployed with foresight, can have the effect of producing a better balance between the "new" and "old" economies and, indeed, of rationalising the north/south divide. This really would be "prudence with a purpose". As Geoffrey Dicks at Greenwich NatWest observed yesterday in his evidence on last week's Budget:
"Fiscal policy has started working against monetary policy rather than with it".
There is a wider context to this debate to which my noble friend Lord Blackwell alluded. There are those who suspect that the Government might be tempted, at some unseen point on the horizon, to use intervention as a mechanism to deliver artificial currency convergence and thereby shoe-horn the UK
728
into the euro. In this context, Eddie George's comments on the matter leave no room for doubt. He said:
"I have made it crystal clear that if the Government wished us to lower the exchange rate for entry into Euro purposes, it would have to change our marching orders. We would not accept a situation where we were mandated by law to move in one direction and asked to move in another".
I trust that the Minister will confirm that this is wholly consistent with the Government's position. Having said that, I cannot resist making the point that, as observed by my noble friend Lady Hogg in the Financial Mail recently:
"Somewhat contradictorily, Ministers extol the virtues of a single currency while washing their hands of the pound's rise".
Until recently, sterling's strength was having a beneficial effect on Britain's economy in terms of containing inflation and, indeed, in terms of restructuring. However, current evidence—such as the fact that, for the first time in 20 years, hourly labour costs are now higher in Britain than in France—suggests that that period has now passed. To my mind, Anatole Kaletsky summarised the position well by saying that,
"in the absence of further remarkable productivity improvements, the strengthening of the pound may now be reaching the point at which it could do the British economy serious—and lasting—economic damage and trigger a balance of payments crisis".
In our view, noble Lords on all sides of the House quite rightly agree that intervention does not provide the solution to such problems. But the simple question remains: how, therefore, do the Government intend to address these problems?
8.17 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I propose to pay the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, the compliment of taking his questions literally. I do not propose to deliver a sermon on government economic policy and I do not propose to repeat the mantras; indeed, I do not need to do so, because the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, has done that for me. I have been saved from delivering a considerable part of my speech.
In his Question, the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, asks, first,
"what policy criteria [the Government] would apply before directing the Bank of England to intervene in foreign exchange markets;
secondly,
"what are the criteria";
and thirdly, what is the,
"budget provision under which the Bank of England may use its discretionary power to intervene in foreign exchange markets"?
The noble Lord prefaced his speech on those questions by quoting the directions to the Bank of England, which, as he rightly said, are couched in very wide terms. That is simply because the policies may change over time; indeed, no policies are expected to endure for ever and it may be necessary for changes to take place in the actual direction of policy which do not necessitate a dramatic change in directions to the Bank of England. The noble Lord is right to say that we must be a little more precise now about our views.

729
I propose to answer his questions by setting them in the context of the existing situation, and not to make forecasts for the long distant future.
Both the Bank of England and the Government hold reserves of foreign exchange. The Government reserves are held in the Exchange Equalisation Account (EEA), which is operated by the Bank as the Treasury's agent. In addition, the Bank manages its own pool of foreign exchange reserves which the MPC may use to intervene in support of its monetary policy objectives. Details of the EEA and Bank reserves are disclosed in the Treasury's monthly press notices entitled, UK Official Holdings of Foreign Currency and Gold, and in quarterly reports published jointly by the Bank and the Treasury. At the end of February UK government reserves totalled about £20,000 million while the Bank's reserves totalled about £5,000 million.
Therefore, the answer to the first question is that the major objective of the Government's macroeconomic policy framework is to deliver greater economic stability for the United Kingdom. It is clear that the Government would seek to intervene in foreign exchange markets only if they believed that such a move was consistent with their objective of delivering greater economic stability.
The noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Desai, asked me about the issue of what the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, called false convergence and what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, called a nudge towards the euro and asked whether there would be an additional condition under which we might be tempted to intervene in foreign exchange markets—in other words, if we thought that it would be advantageous to us in the move towards the euro. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to the same issue.
We would certainly not attempt to use foreign exchange intervention to achieve false convergence with the euro. The Government's policy on convergence and the conditions under which we would advocate entry into the euro are clear and have been repeated on many occasions. I certainly have no intention of either rewording or seeking to modify the statement of the Chancellor in October 1997 or the statement of the Prime Minister in February 1999. Therefore I think that we can put that issue firmly on one side.
I move on to the second and third questions of the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell. In practice, the sheer size of funds involved in currency markets severely limits the effectiveness of intervention. The Government's reserves amount to only a small fraction of the total size of the foreign exchange markets. Attempts to intervene are unlikely to have the desired effect in most cases—as I think all noble Lords have agreed—and could create uncertainty and instability in the market. In addition, they could raise doubts as to whether the Government were adopting a target for the exchange rate in addition to their inflation target, which is clearly not the case.
730
We should also note that any intervention made by the Government would be automatically sterilised; that is, offsetting changes would be made to the money supply. This is because unsterilised intervention is effectively equivalent to changing interest rates, and so it would act against the Monetary Policy Committee's responsibility to set interest rates to meet the Government's inflation target, damaging the credibility of the UK monetary policy framework. However, both theory and empirical evidence indicate that intervention is even less likely to be effective when it is sterilised, thereby further limiting the scope for government intervention. I think that reflects the theoretical and practical reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, set out in his speech.
As I said earlier, the Monetary Policy Committee may also use the Bank's reserves in support of its monetary policy objectives. That is the answer to the third question of the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell. This means that the Monetary Policy Committee would intervene only if it thought such a move would help it to maintain price stability and support the Government's growth and employment objectives. That is the answer to the second question of the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell. The MPC has considered the question of intervention on a number of occasions over the past three years and the minutes of its meetings provide a thorough account of the reasoning behind the decisions not to proceed with intervention. In particular, members of the MPC have also made the point that the size of reserves that the Bank commands is relatively small compared with the size of the market, limiting the effectiveness of intervention.
The issue of intervention was previously considered in detail at the February meeting of the MPC. The MPC again decided against intervention with some members arguing that,
"it was doubtful whether intervention would be effective as there was little evidence that the market consensus which sustained sterling at its current level was fragile".
It was also noted that a failed attempt to intervene would damage the MPC's credibility and that,
"to the extent that sterling's strength mainly reflected euro weakness, the MPC could do very little about it"
We went over that point at Question Time today.
Appearing before the Treasury Committee on 29th February, the Governor argued that intervention,
"would be ineffective and aggravate upward pressure on the pound".
It is clear that the scope for intervention is limited. The Government believe that artificial means of bringing down the value of sterling should be treated with considerable caution. I say "with considerable caution" as perhaps the understatement of the year! I am sorry to make my next point as the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, has already predicted that I would make it. I am grateful to him for that. Maintaining greater economic stability, based on low inflation aid sound public finances, is the best way to deliver

731
exchange rate stability consistent with the Government's objective of a stable and competitive pound over the medium term.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.32 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.25 to 8.32 p.m.]

Care Standards Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 29 [Inspections by persons authorised by registration authority]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 43:
Page 14, leave out lines 32 and 33.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 44, 45, 46, 54 and 55.
This group of amendments is intended to address points raised by noble Lords during the Committee stage about the inspection powers in Clauses 29 and 42 of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was concerned that the commission might not have the power to see records which are not held on the premises of the establishment or agency. He was also concerned that computer records might be held in an encrypted format and that the commission would not have the power to require copies in a readable form. I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing these points to our attention and I am tabling Amendments Nos. 43 and 45 to correct them. Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 make similar changes to Clause 42, which deals with inspections of local authority fostering and adoption services.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor, urged us to include a power for the commission to conduct its interviews with registered persons in private. Inspectors already have the power to interview members of staff in private and I agree with the noble Lords that this should be extended to cover managers and persons carrying on the establishment or agency. I have therefore brought forward Amendment No. 44.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, raised the issue of people who are incapable of giving their consent. He was anxious that medical practitioners and registered nurses should have the power to examine such persons in private and inspect their medical records. That is certainly our intention. We are grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out that the Bill as drafted may not allow for this as a person's consent is currently required before an examination or inspection of their
732
medical records can take place. This is potentially a significant loophole and I am therefore bringing forward Amendment No. 46 to close it. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these amendments and for removing the concerns that we expressed in Committee. They are very helpful amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 44 to 46:
Page 14, line 34, after ("interview") insert ("in private").
Page 14, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) The powers under subsection (3)(b) include—

(a) power to require the manager or the person carrying on the establishment or agency to produce any records, wherever kept, for inspection on the premises; and

(b) in relation to records which are kept by means of a computer, power to require the records to be produced in a form in which they are legible and can be taken away.").

Page 14, line 46, at end insert—
("The powers conferred by this subsection may be exercised in relation to a person who is incapable of giving consent without that person's consent.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 47:
Page 15, line 4, at end insert ("in a manner appropriate to the nature of the activity carried out on the premises").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, our debates in Committee on the subject of inspections covered some useful territory, not least the rules of conduct for such inspections and the way in which the very considerable powers of inspectors ought to be exercised.
My concerns today are connected but different. As the House is aware, the national care standards commission is to be responsible for regulating a very wide range of establishments and agencies. Even within a particular category of care—let us take private healthcare—we can think of a multiplicity of settings in which care is provided, ranging from a minor, non-invasive procedure in a consultant's private rooms to a complex surgical operation in a large acute private hospital.
If the regulation that emerges from the Bill is to be good regulation—in other words, regulation that carries with it a high degree of public confidence—it needs to take full account of modern healthcare. If it is to do that, its focus must be on process rather than on premises. It should be flexible enough to cope with the numerous levels of activity undertaken in private healthcare establishments. At the simplest level, if I can use that term, there are consultations, simple examinations and therapeutic advice. Those activities do not require the same level of inspection as premises used for invasive treatment.
So my questions to the Minister are simply these: will there be flexibility built into the system on the frequency of inspections to take account of the considerations I have outlined? How do the

733
Government envisage that the standards will be set on the intervals between visits and the kinds of things that inspectors will be looking for?
There is an issue here of cost-effectiveness. Time spent on regular and too vigorous inspections of premises where non-invasive treatments are practiced—for example, a doctor's consulting room—may well be at the expense of time better devoted to inspections elsewhere. Indeed, I should like to hear from the Minister what exactly the inspectors intend to inspect in a set of doctors' consulting rooms, and what regulatory burden will be placed upon doctors who rent private practice premises where no invasive procedures are carried out. I hope that we can take it as read that the composition of teams inspecting such premises will have the expertise appropriate to the task in hand and, if necessary, will be multi-disciplinary.
These issues of course apply as much to the other kinds of care encompassed by the Bill. To my way of thinking, the concept of minimum standards has a useful role to play in determining the extent to which inspectors' time should be taken up with a particular set of premises. Where there is real doubt about the implementation of minimum standards—in a care home, for example—the frequency and nature of inspections should be different from those which apply in cases where standards are patently and consistently excellent. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that my expectations are not misplaced.
Finally, I should like to pose a quite separate query to the Minister apropos Clause 29 as a whole. Can he say what will be the role of the Social Services Inspectorate once the Bill becomes law and is brought into effect? I am not clear to what extent the national care standards commission will usurp the role of the SSI in the future. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has argued his case very well. Unless there is good guidance, there is a capacity for wasting a vast amount of time to very little effect in a sort of bureaucratic paperchase. I hope that the Minister will he able to give us a very reassuring answer. Good inspection may very well make the situation much better for everyone, but, if it is merely a case of filling in forms and having a series of bureaucratic considerations taken into account—for instance and just to take an absurd example, whether one has a sterile capacity in a waiting room—or even the thought that that might occur, that might very well get in the way of good practice.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I could not agree more with the sentiments that have been expressed. The way in which the commission carries out its inspections must be appropriate to the type of service being inspected. The purpose of the inspection is to ensure that the establishment or agency is meeting the requirements of regulations under Section 21 and other relevant legislation. The commission will also need to take account of the national minimum standards in carrying out its inspections. But the commission cannot go beyond that. It can only act
734
within that framework. It cannot begin looking at matters which are not covered by the regulations or standards. That in itself will help to ensure that inspections are appropriate.
That leads us to a point about the inspection methodology, if I may use that expression, to be used by the commission. I agree entirely that it is essential that this should be both sensitive and tailored to the type of service being inspected. Perhaps I may give some examples. Interviews with service users would be a key feature of all inspections, but there will be some service users who may have communication difficulties. In these cases it will be essential that the inspectors who carry out the inspections are trained in the use of appropriate communication or that they take someone with them who is appropriately trained.
Similarly, lay inspectors have a valuable role to play in inspections and we would expect the commission to make use of them. But it is important to select as lay inspectors those with whom the service users can feel confident. There are many other ways in which inspections will be carried out in an appropriate manner. The time spent on inspection will need to vary according to the size of the service. Clearly it should not take as long to inspect a small home with four beds as a large one with 50 beds. The time of day at which the inspection is carried out should also depend on the service. There is no point in inspecting a children's home during the day in term time because the children will be away at school. I believe that there are examples under previous regimes of that having happened. It is no wonder that they never got to the bottom of problems in certain homes. We are well aware of the need for inspections to be carried out in an appropriate manner. It is essential for the commission to work effectively to make that happen.
I also understand that implicit in all this is the concern that the commission's inspectors should behave in an appropriate way and should not go beyond their powers or act in an unreasonable or heavy handed manner. If such behaviour occurs, then the provider of the service will have every right to complain to the commission. We will ensure that the commission has in place a proper procedure for dealing with complaints about its staff. If a complainant is not happy with the commission's response it will then have the right to take the complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, since the commission will be a non-departmental public body.
It is also very well worth saying that the national care standards commission will be required to follow the Better Regulation Task Force principles of good regulation. These include transparency. Regulation must be clear, simple and easily understood. As regards accountability, that means accountability to Ministers, Parliament, users and the public. For targeting, regulation should focus on the problem and minimise side effects. As regards consistency, national laws should be applied evenly and predictably. Finally, and in some ways most importantly, proportionality should link risk and protection to cost and burden.

735
As regards the issue of frequency of visits, which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised, that will be set in regulations. I very much agree with the noble Earl that that must be linked to the actual service so that there will be variations according to the particular type of service. As regards inspection by private doctors, my understanding is that that might cover staff qualifications, facilities for privacy, security of records and so forth. As I believe I said earlier to the noble Earl, I would certainly expect there to be multidisciplinary teams involved.
So far as concerns the role of the social services inspectorate, the dividing line is this. That inspectorate will inspect the performance of the local authorities in their social services function, while the commission will inspect the providers of services. Therefore, in that sense I do not believe that there will be an overlap.
I hope that the noble Earl will recognise that I accept the points he has raised and that I would expect the commission to act in accordance with the principles I have set out, particularly that of proportionality.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very helpful and full reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Clause 31 [Arrangements which may only be made with a registered person]:
Baroness Barkermoved Amendment No. 48:
Page 16, line 11, after ("authority") insert (", hospital, independent clinic").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I move this amendment with some reluctance if only because it comes before Amendment No. 49. Noble Lords will recall that at a previous stage of our discussions my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and I made the point very strongly that the requirement to use only a registered domiciliary care service should not be restricted solely to local authorities and the NHS. I believe that Amendment No. 49 in the name of the Minister is greatly preferable as a way of seeking to achieve what we want. Therefore, with some reluctance I formally move this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her warm welcome for what I am about to say. That does not happen too often. We had a very interesting discussion in Committee about the issue of domiciliary care agencies. I believe that the view of the Committee was that all such agencies should be regulated by the commission. At Committee stage I explained that the Government's intention was that in time all domiciliary care agencies would be required to register, but that for an initial period it would not be compulsory. However, for that period local authorities or NHS bodies would be required to place contracts only with registered providers. That is what Clause 31 provided.
736
In the light of our discussions in Committee we have considered those arguments and decided to extend regulation to all agencies. That will mean that there will no longer be a transitional stage. All domiciliary care agencies, whether providing services to local authorities or to individuals, will be required by law to register. The requirements in Clause 10 will apply, which mean that it will be an offence for any person to carry on or manage a domiciliary care agency without being registered. Since the full registration requirements will be applied to domiciliary care agencies, there is then no reason to have Clause 31.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, has conceded, I believe that in the light of my amendment there is no need for her to pursue her own. I am very pleased to have been able to make this change. I hope that it will be supported.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not know whether it is in order for me to speak after the Minister, but we are in a somewhat unusual situation with an amendment having been moved by the noble Baroness and a further amendment about to be moved by the Minister. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for addressing the issue that I raised in Committee. I am most grateful.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Earl Howe. What the Minister is about to do is highly welcome. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 49:
Leave out Clause 31.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 [Transfers of staff]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 50:
Leave out Clause 37, and insert the following new clause—
TRANSFERS OF STAFF UNDER PART II
(".—(1) The appropriate Minister may by order make a scheme for the transfer to the new employer of any eligible employee.
(2) In this section—
"eligible employee" means a person who is employed under a contract of employment with an old employer on work which would have continued but for the provisions of this Part;
"new employer" means the registration authority;
"old employer" means a local authority or a Health Authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments deals mainly with transfers of staff. Clause 37 allows the Government to transfer staff from local authorities and health authorities to the national care standards commission or, in Wales, the Assembly. The amendment to Clause 69 enables staff to be transferred from local authorities to the new arm of Ofsted or, in Wales, to the Assembly.

737
The CCETSW is a body with UK-wide responsibilities and staff working in all four countries. Therefore, we have to make separate provision to ensure that CCETSW's staff can be transferred to the councils being established in England and Wales under the Bill, and to the equivalent bodies when they are established in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Therefore, we are amending Clause 67 to provide for the transfer of CCETSW's staff across the UK by Order in Council.
The new clause to be inserted after Clause 92 ensures that all these staff transfers will reflect the TUPE principle that staff transferred will do so on their existing terms and conditions. It replaces and expands the provisions in the existing Clause 37, and applies to all staff transfers made under the Bill, not just those made under Clause 37, as at present.
The amendments to Schedule I are related. They give the commission, the GSCC and the care council for Wales, the power to pay pensions and compensation such as redundancy payments to their staff. This is implicit in the Bill as it stands, but we would prefer to have it spelt out in order to give staff the maximum reassurance and protection. The intention is that staff who transfer to these new bodies will remain in their existing pension scheme, either the local government pension scheme for staff transferring from local authorities and CCETSW, or the NHS pension scheme for staff transferring from health authorities.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to say more about these staff transfers because I am aware that they will affect the lives of a great many people who are naturally anxious to hear more about our plans.
In England, the national care standards commission will take over the regulation of social care services and private healthcare from local authorities and health authorities. We intend that all staff who are currently employed in the regulation of these services will transfer to the commission, be they heads of unit, inspectors or administrative staff. This is not a job-cutting exercise. We value the work of inspection unit staff, and we are keen to ensure that we retain their knowledge and expertise. Indeed, it is essential. I should like to give a further important reassurance, which is that all staff who transfer will do so on their existing terms and conditions.
Under Part IN" of the Bill, there will be a transfer of statutory functions from the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW) to the general social care council (GSCC). We intend that all England-based staff working in CCETSW who wish to transfer to the GSCC will be able to do so. Those staff who transfer to the GSCC will do so on their existing terns and conditions. This approach to transferring staff to the new council will assist the smooth transfer of the functions from the CCETSW to the GSCC and will establish the new council as an active body with suitably experienced staff to undertake the work.
738
Perhaps I may now turn to the amendment to Clause 69. My noble friend Lord Bach said in Committee:
"It is the Government's intention that local authority inspectors, managers and administrative staff will he given the opportunity to transfer to the new early years directorate, bringing with them their knowledge and experience".—[Official Report, 18/1/2000: co1.1027.]
That amendment makes this commitment a reality. It is essential that the best of the existing system is maintained in the new one. Again, Ofsted does not have hundreds of staff who are suddenly able to transfer from other activities in order to take on this new responsibility. The early years directorate will achieve greater success if many of those now doing the job opt to continue to do so. Transferring local authority staff can be reassured that they will transfer with their existing contractual terms and conditions. Ofsted will meet all its relevant statutory and legislative responsibilities in that regard. Transferring staff will be treated fairly and their statutory employment rights will not be infringed in any way. Pension rights will also be protected.
In Wales, the Bill provides for health authority and local authority staff, including those working with under-eights, to transfer to the new regulatory arm of the Assembly. It also provides for CCETSW staff in Wales to transfer to the care council for Wales. All of the reassurances I have given for England apply in the same terms to staff in Wales.
None of the important reforms in the Bill will be a success unless we continue to engage the knowledge, skills and experience of the staff currently undertaking this work. All the staff transfer arrangements will need to be worked out in detail and we, the Assembly and Ofsted will want to work closely with the relevant trade unions and representative bodies, as well as with local authorities and health authorities. However, I hope that I have said enough to reassure people at this stage. Obviously, we shall want to keep staff informed of progress as the plans are developed.
The Bill also contains provision for an Order in Council to be made to transfer CCETSW's functions. In addition to those amendments concerning the transfer of staff, we are putting forward several minor amendments to clarify our intentions with regard to the transfer of CCETSW's functions. As I have already stated, CCETSW is a body with UK responsibilities. So we have to be careful to provide for its abolition and for the smooth transfer of its functions to the successor bodies that will be established in the four countries of the UK. That will require some careful handling and will be achieved through agreement between the countries in drawing up schemes of transfer through Order in Council. I beg to move.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, in welcoming these amendments, I declare an interest as chair of the General Social Care Council Advisory Group. I am convinced that the proposed amendments will be of great importance to the staff, about whom we are talking. While on my feet, perhaps I may pay tribute to the openness with which the proposed changes have

739
been greeted by all the staff with whom I have had contact. The commitment to the changes which are being introduced is impressive. None the less, I know that they will be reassured by the assurances offered by the Government in these amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 40 [Power to extend the application of Part II]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 51:
Page 18, line 37, at end insert ("or by Health Authorities, Special Health Authorities, NHS trusts or Primary Care Trusts").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Weatherillmoved Amendment No. 52:
After Clause 40, insert the following new clause—
EXEMPTION OF CHRISTIAN SCIENCE HOUSES
(" —(1) The Secretary of State shall grant exemption from the operation of the provisions of this Part of this Act in respect of any establishment or agency which provides nursing or personal care and which he is satisfied is being, or will be, carried on or managed in accordance with the practice and principles of the body known as the Church of Christ, Scientist.
(2) It shall be a condition of any exemption granted under this section that the establishment or agency in question shall adopt and use the name of Christian Science house and the agency in question shall adopt and use the name of Christian Science visiting nurse service.
(3) An exemption granted under this section may at any time be withdrawn by the Secretary of State if it appears to him that the establishment in question is no longer being carried on or managed in accordance with the said practice and principles.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment perhaps I should declare a personal interest. Although "orthodoxy" is my doxi—and 1662 at that—my wife is a Christian Scientist, and during the 51 years of our happy marriage I have come to have a regard and a respect for Christian Science teaching and healing. Christian Scientists believe that healing is best achieved through prayer. Indeed, the weekly and monthly publications, Christian Science Journal and Christian Science Sentinel, contain in every issue accounts of contemporary healing through prayer from around the world. Many of them are difficult cases, previously abandoned by the medical profession as hopeless.
A Christian Scientist proactively adopts prayer in sickness and also in health as the most effective means of improving the human condition in all departments of life, without medical intervention. Of course, not every healing is instantaneous and there may be occasions when individuals may need the practical support and care of Christian Science nursing.
There are two Christian Science nursing homes, or houses, in the United Kingdom. I have visited one of them, Charton Manor in Kent, and have seen for myself the high level of facilities and the care of Christian Science trained nurses. Those who enter Charton Manor for Christian Science healing do so voluntarily. They do not have to remain if they subsequently decide that they need medical attention.
740
In more than 70 years of exemplary operation, there can be no suggestion that the conduct of Christian Science houses or of domicilary care by Christian Science trained nurses has warranted any increase in the level of government supervision or interference. Indeed, as the Minister well knows, they were specifically exempted from the Nursing Homes Act 1928 and, most recently, from the Registered Homes Act 1984.
I should like to thank the Minister and his officials for the meetings that we have had with them and with representatives of the Christian Science Church. I have been present at one or two of those meetings. I pay tribute to the Minister for his understanding attitude and for the verbal assurances that he has given us at those meetings. The purpose of my new clause is to give the Minister an opportunity to reaffirm those assurances.
Briefly stated, they are, first, that, having particular regard to the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 9 of the convention, the fundamental religious right of a Christian Scientist, however serious or acute their illness or injury may be, to choose a type of care which is entirely free from all medical diagnosis or intervention is acknowledged and will be preserved; secondly, that no regulations will be applied to Christian Science houses or Christian Science visiting nurse services which would have the effect of preventing Christian Science nursing services being provided in accordance with the practices and principles of the Church of Christ, Scientist, as they have traditionally been; thirdly, that those administering Christian Science establishments or agencies, or their staff members, will not be required to undergo any medical training, including training in first aid, identification or recording of symptoms, diagnosis, or physical therapy, or to attend any prescribed educational programme or in-service training pertaining to patient care, as opposed, for example, to building safety codes and other regulations of a similar kind; and, finally, that it is not the Government's intention that the powers contained in Clause 19 of the Bill shall be exercisable in respect of a Christian Science house or visiting nurse service, where the perceived violation of Clause 19 arises solely by virtue of the patient's intention to rely exclusively on Christian Science treatment for healing. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for allowing me to, I hope, reassure him in relation to the position of Christian Science houses. The effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to exempt Christian Science houses and nursing homes from the requirement to register with the commission. Perhaps I may say right at the start that the Government have no intention of preventing or discouraging people from being cared for in accordance with the principles and practices of the Church of Christ, Scientist. The Care Standards Bill will not mean that Christian Science houses or their visiting nurse services will have

741
to give medical treatment to their patients, or do anything else which would go against their religious principles.
I shall deal first with Christian Science establishments. Establishments which fall within the definition of a "care home" and are carried on or managed in accordance with the principles of the Church of Christ, Scientist, will have to register with the commission as a care home. But that does not mean that Christian Science houses would be compelled to comply with regulations or standards which would offend, or be incompatible with, the practices and beliefs of the Church of Christ, Scientist.
I recognise that the type of care and treatment provided by Christian Science houses is non-medical and based on healing through prayer. This is very clearly different from the kind of NHS-style care which other nursing homes provide. The Bill allows for care homes to register as providing different categories of care. The categories will be described in regulations. Applications to register with the commission as a care home will need to state the category of care that the care home intends to provide. It is in this way that the commission will differentiate, for example, between care homes which provide nursing care and those which provide only residential care. It is the Government's intention to provide in regulations for a category of "Christian Science home".
I would not expect many of the regulations or national minimum standards concerning care homes to cause the church any difficulties because I am aware of the very high standards which are apparent in those homes. However, it has to be accepted that there may be a few regulations and standards, such as those regarding the administration of medication, which would not be appropriate. The Department of Health will consult and work with the Church of Christ, Scientist, to ensure that regulation by the commission is compatible with the church's principles and practices.
On the issue of regulating Christian Science visiting nurse services, which the amendment would exempt from regulation, it has not been the intention that the commission would regulate nurses agencies and so, under the Bill, they would be exempted from the definition of a "domiciliary care agency" through regulations made under Clause 4(5).
While recognising that there are differences in the type of nursing provided, it is our view that Christian Science visiting nurse services are akin to nurses agencies. Our intent will be to ensure that they are also exempted from the definition of a "domiciliary care agency" and from the requirement to be regulated by the commission.
I have every sympathy with the intent behind the noble Lord's amendment. I hope that these assurances will satisfy his concerns.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I thank the Minister for what he has said and for reaffirming what he said to us in our private conversations. The Christian Science movement is in favour of the Bill itself but is concerned
742
that its own practices should not be interfered with in any way. Having been given those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Davidmoved Amendment No. 53:
Before Clause 41, insert the following new clause—
INDEPENDENT ADVOCACY SERVICES
(" . Local authorities shall secure that independent advocacy services are available to all children in their area who are placed under the provisions of Part II of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is the third amendment I have moved. The wording is slightly different from the amendment I moved at the Committee stage but the aim is just the same. It is to secure that independent advocacy services for children placed away from home should be available. This Bill has come into being as a result of an appalling series of scandals arising from the treatment of children living in institutions and other placements away from home. One important safeguard against the abuse of such children is to provide them with advocates who are entirely independent of the services the children receive and whose only function is to listen to the children and to promote their interests.
The need for independent advocacy has been confirmed by the official reports in this area—and there are a lot of them. For example, the Wagner report Residential Care: a positive choice proposed that children in all forms of residential care should have access to an independent advocate. The Scottish review Another Kind of Home recommended that children,
"should be able to call on someone to act as their advocate".
The report of the Warner inquiry Choosing with Care—as the noble Lord is in his place, perhaps he will support my amendment—said that children in children's homes should,
"have the support of their own advocates when pursuing serious complaints against staff".
The Utting report People Like Us recommended the use of independent representative services such as those provided by A Voice for the Child in Care.
The safeguard of independent advocacy has been recognised by the Government in their Quality Protects programme under which authorities are encouraged to provide independent advocacy services. But until such services are a statutory requirement children will be dependent on the good will and energy of individuals in the statutory and private sectors. This amendment ensures that the current patchy service of locally-based children's rights advocates and national advocacy services is transformed into comprehensive provision for all children who live away from home.
What happened at Committee stage? The Minister made some excellent remarks about advocacy and the "good work" that was already being done in this field. He said that members of the Committee had suggested that current provision was patchy. It is more than a suggestion: the Government are aware that less than half of local authorities in England and Wales fund

743
children's advocacy services. Otherwise, the Minister did not address the amendment except to criticise it on technical grounds. He said that,
"children living away from home",
covered too broad a group, including for example children on access visits to a separated parent.
Two responses can be made to that objection: first, that, surely, children of separated parents should be considered to have two homes; second, that if such children need the help of advocates the local authority should provide it, because in most cases they will be "children in need" within the terms of the Children Act. I have altered my amendment so that it reads,
"Local authorities shall secure that independent advocacy services are available to all children in their area who are placed under the provisions of Part II of this Act".
While that would not mean a comprehensive advocacy service for all children living away from home, it would benefit significant numbers of children who at present have no one to turn to for independent help and advocacy.
The amendment has been commended by many different children's associations and organisations. I hope that for once the Minister will give way and accept an amendment which is supported by so many people who speak with such authority. I also hope that my noble friend Lord Warner will speak in support of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, as I do not see the noble Lord, Lord Warner, rising to speak, at this stage I should like to support the amendment. I say nothing further, except that the drafting of this amendment may also be open to criticism. Part II does not appear to refer to the placing of children but deals with the registration of establishments, regulations and standards, national minimum standards, inspection and so on. However, that can easily be overcome by saying,
"who are placed with establishments registered under the provisions of Part II of this Act".
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I too support the amendment. One of the problems highlighted in the tragic cases arising in care homes is that children have not been believed. Children's voices need to be heard. Many children are traumatised and perhaps cannot speak for themselves. This amendment deals with the point, and I hope that the Minister will be helpful.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I cannot resist the blandishments of my noble friend Lady David. I also cannot avoid placing on record that I do not resile in any way from the recommendations in Choosing with Care. Having made those recommendations to the previous government, I can hardly be less forceful in urging them upon the present Government. I strongly support the idea of increasing the availability of advocacy in these circumstances. To some extent matters have moved on, in the sense that a good deal of work has gone into improving the access of children
744
in residential settings of one kind or another to external services which can put their point of view and investigate what is going on in these closed institutions.
I believe that there are problems with the terminology of the amendment. However, I encourage my noble friend to be as forthcoming as he can about the way in which the Government wish to pursue the extension of advocacy services in these circumstances. The need is very much there. There is always a danger that young people in those establishments cannot have their voice heard without the support and help of people from outside.
9.15 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, children in care are at a disadvantage. Advocacy is an important means of remedying that disadvantage. Their lower standard of education makes it more difficult for them to marshal their thoughts into an argument. It may be difficult for us who can read and write fluently to appreciate the difficulty they face. However, when helping a young man to write his curriculum vitae, one realises what an immensely powerful tool literacy is and the disadvantage that those who do not possess it suffer.
Furthermore, those in care are more emotionally dependent on their carers than are others. Recently a manager found a case beneath the bed of one of his girls. It was full of birthday cards and Christmas cards from her social care workers accumulated over several years. It was her treasured possession. It emphasises the dependence of such young people on their carers. That dependence makes it harder for them to express their wishes for fear of losing the carers' affection.
About 1 per cent of those children are unaccompanied asylum seekers who may be completely dependent on their carers. They are in a foreign culture. In a hostel I visited over several months was a young Afghan woman who spoke no English. It was difficult to find an Urdu-speaking interpreter of her dialect who could be available frequently enough to serve her needs. It was hard to move her to a new home. The homes found were not right for her. The Muslim parents explained that to live in a household with young men who were not her brothers would compromise a young Muslim woman. There are many difficulties, and on past record some local authorities, sadly, give the minimum attention to the special needs of these young people.
The Minister pointed out that Quality Protects places listening to the child as a priority. However, Quality Protects contains several priorities. It is a temporary arrangement. The Minister mentioned new guidelines. They can be overturned by a new government. Guidelines do not impose a duty on local authorities.
The amendment would be helpful. It would enable children in care forcefully to express their wishes. The service would not cost very much. A Voice for the Child in Care was mentioned earlier. It has arranged a comprehensive service in one county at a cost of

745
£100 per child per annum. That includes a fortnightly visit from an advocate. I warmly support the amendment. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I feel somewhat like tail-end Charlie. It is clear that the House feels that there is a problem and I hat advocacy in some form would be beneficial. From these Benches we support that aim. If the amendment is not right as drafted, I suggest strongly that the right amendment is tabled.
We are dealing with vulnerable people who do not have the normal support networks. They will often feel resentment towards authority and will be unable to handle authority in a non-confrontational way. They may suffer illiteracy problems. Such people later in life may appear again in the social services system, if not the prison system. If one allows those people to interact with society through the advocacy system, it will prevent a lot of trouble in later life. I strongly urge the Government to bring in some form of advocacy for these groups.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is clear that all noble Lords recognise the importance of advocacy. I certainly do, and hope to explain how the Government are taking forward a number of important strands in ensuring the development of advocacy services in this country. But because the Government are involved in taking forward work in a number of areas, we believe that it would be premature to legislate at this stage. Noble Lords should be under no misapprehension on that we very much recognise the importance of advocacy.
The Waterhouse report highlighted the need for looked-after children to have a means of having their voices heard. The report certainly provides many examples of where a child's plea for help fell on deaf ears, often with tragic consequences.
We believe that advocacy has a very important role to play in protecting the interests of looked-after children. It is a fast developing area and we are supporting a range of initiatives to encourage the development of high standards in this field. My noble friend Lady David has already referred to the principles of children's participation and listening to children which underpin the Quality Protects programme. That was a priority area for grant funding for local authorities in year 1 of the programme, with almost £5 million invested in listening to children. It will again he a priority in year 2. Indeed, in setting the stage for year 2 of the programme, we also wrote to local authorities in October last year stressing that particular attention should be given to the involvement of young people collectively and to enhancing their individual voices through the development of advocacy services.
The Government are committed to advancing the development of high quality advocacy services through the overall Quality Protects programme. I can confirm to the House that local authorities have now submitted their management action plans for year 2 of Quality Protects. Those are currently being carefully
746
assessed. On the basis of that assessment, we shall have a much better feel for the progress that is being made by individual authorities.
I believe that it is worth pointing out to noble Lords that the much stronger performance assessment framework that we now have in place in relation to social service authorities provides us, together with the Social Services Inspectorate, with the tools to ensure in the future a much greater consistency of approach than has ever been apparent in the past.
Through a grant to the National Youth Advocacy Service, the Department of Health is also funding the development of national standards for agencies which provide advocacy services for children and young people. We hope that the finalised standards will be published in June.
The Department of Health will issue shortly a draft consultation paper on the reform of the complaints procedure for looked-after children. We realise that the existing system is imperfect. As part of the consultation process we shall look carefully at whether the existing arrangements which involve an independent person should be replaced with the right to an advocate for looked-after children who wish to pursue a complaint.
Noble Lords who have followed the Children (Leaving Care) Bill will also be aware that the Government will introduce a complaints procedure for those children leaving care who do not receive the support and advice to which they are entitled. Of course, the role of the young person's adviser will be crucially important in this area. We hope that instances where the relationship breaks down between the young person and his adviser will be few and far between. However, where a young person does not receive the support to which he is entitled, we believe that it is right that there should be a complaints procedure. Accompanying guidance will make it clear to local authorities that they should make advocacy services available in those circumstances.
Although we have talked about the unevenness of provision by local authorities, I believe that it is worth making the point that many authorities are already providing an advocacy service. The provisions contained in the Children (Leaving Care) Bill are based on good practice in a number of local authorities.
I want to emphasise again the Government's commitment to developing high quality advocacy services. I believe that the range of measures that I have outlined demonstrate that commitment. I know that we all wish to see effective arrangements and mechanisms in place to ensure that high quality advocacy services are available.
In speaking to this amendment, I have used the word "developing" on a number of occasions. I believe that it reflects the situation in which we find ourselves. Independent advocacy services are still at the development stage, and the availability and quality of those services is not consistent across the country. As I said, some local authorities are much more advanced than others.

747
We want to see advocacy develop appropriately and to see high standards across the board. I believe that the actions that I have outlined will go far in ensuring that that happens. However, I would also say to my noble friend that, given the ongoing programme of work, I believe that it would be premature to legislate further in this area at this stage.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. It was not quite so good as having the amendment accepted but I do think, if he is listening, that his response was really quite good. I was also rather relieved to hear from my noble friend Lord Warner that there has been an advance since his report. I am grateful to the Minister for handing me the guidance to local authorities on developing children's rights and advocacy services which does show that quite a lot is being done.
So I shall be watching very carefully what advance is made and I shall be inquiring from everybody round about whether things are happening satisfactorily. But in the light of the Minister's response, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 [Inspection by registration authority of adoption and fostering services]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 54 and 55:
Page 19, leave out lines 22 and 23.
Page 19, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) The powers under subsection (2)(a) include—

(a) power to require the local authority to produce any records, wherever kept, for inspection on the premises; and

(b) in relation to records which are kept by means of a computer, power to require the records to be produced in a form in which they are legible and can be taken away.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 45 [Regulation of the exercise of relevant fostering facilities]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 56 and 57:
Page 21, line 17, at end insert ("about the exercise by local authorities of relevant fostering functions, and may in particular make provision").
Page 21, line 19, leave out ("relevant fostering") and insert ("such").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 51 [Care Councils]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 58 and 59:
Page 22, line 16, at end insert ("or Cyngor Gofal Cymru").
Page 22, line 35, leave out from ("Council") to end of line 37.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
748
Clause 52 [Interpretation]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 60:
Page 23, line 4, leave out ("is").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Clause 52, we are seeking to amend the classes of worker who can by regulation be defined as a "social care worker". It is a key element in our plans for the new councils that they will develop the standards by which social care workers will undertake their duties. It is vital that we make provision for the right staff to be defined as social care workers, thus requiring them to meet these standards. That is how we shall continue to offer service users, their carers and the general public the greater degree of protection they deserve.
As we discussed earlier, rather like healthcare, social care is undoubtedly not static. Services change over time to meet developing needs and the public's expectations. As that happens, we need to be able to define new groups of staff as social care workers so that their conduct and practice can be subject to the councils' standards through the codes of conduct and practice and so that they can then become eligible to be registered by the councils.
We are here adding to the sorts of workers who we can define as "social care workers" by regulations as follows: persons engaged in the provision of personal care services for any person; and persons engaged in the provision of relevant services within the meaning of section 40; that is, staff in services which become regulated by the commissions.
In Clause 53, we are introducing a further amendment to replace the term,
"persons engaged in relevant social work",
with, I hope, the more readily understood term "social worker". That change in itself leads to consequential amendments to other clauses in this part of the Bill.
Clause 57 changes the provisions for the councils to charge a fee for registering individual social care workers. We want to change the power so as not to tie the councils to an annual fee. The councils may well decide that an annual fee is the most appropriate but we do not want to tie them into it at this stage. For example, the UKCC, which regulates nurses, health visitors and midwives, charges a three-year fee. We are therefore proposing a periodic fee to give the councils flexibility in drawing up a scheme that will best suit the social care workforce.
The amendment to Clause 58 relates to the protection of title of "social worker". We want to prevent people using the title or wrongly claiming to be registered with any of the UK councils. We have introduced this amendment to avoid the situation where someone registered as a social worker with, for example, the Scottish council would commit an offence by calling himself a social worker in England if he is not so registered with the GSCC. We are very much alive to the need to avoid regulation putting unnecessary barriers in the way of movement across the UK of properly regulated social care workers. That is the reason for that change.

749
In relation to Clause 59, on the employers' code of practice, the amendment in Clause 59 provides for the council to draw up and promulgate a code of practice for employers in relation to social care workers. This amendment reflects our intention as set out in Modernising Social Services and corrects an omission in the original draft of the Bill.
Your Lordships will already have seen in the Bill provision for codes of practice and conduct for social care workers. The code of practice for employers complements those for the staff. For example, it will emphasise the need for employers to have robust recruitment practices in place so that unsuitable people do not enter the social care workforce in the first place.
The amendment to Clause 64 is designed to give the Secretary of State flexibility regarding to whom he can delegate his functions in this part of the Bill. When the Secretary of State thinks it is right to delegate one of his functions it is important that he has the power to delegate it to the person or body best able to carry out that function effectively and efficiently at that time. With this amendment we are seeking to give him the flexibility to choose the right person or organisation at a given moment in time in response to the developing and changing world of social care.
In Clause 65 we are introducing a minor amendment to clarify our intention that appeals against a decision of a council should relate to the decision it makes about the registration of individual social care workers. That concludes this group of minor and technical amendments to the GSCC provisions. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, on a point of clarification, perhaps I am being stupid but I do not fully understand the implications of Amendment No. 68, which is in this group to which the Minister has been speaking, as I understand it. Am I right in saying that this, with other amendments in the group, segregates from the job of social worker the job of social care worker?
This is an important issue, because at the moment the qualification for a social care worker, or someone who works in a residential home, is the same as the qualification for a social worker who works in a local authority. The reality of the case is that the part of the course relating to residential care is very much regarded as second class, and the social workers who work in residential homes ire regarded as second-class citizens. It is regarded as a less attractive job, and for that reason social workers are tempted to move away from residential work and into work with local authorities. In my view that is a tragedy, because the work in residential homes is of the greatest importance.
Can the noble Lord confirm, first, that social care workers are in future going to be people who work in residential homes? Secondly, will they have a separate and distinct qualification? Thirdly, will everything possible be done to raise their status in the profession?
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, before the Minister rises to his feet, I declare an interest as the
750
chair of the General Social Care Council Advisory Group. I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that the purpose of extending the categories in this way is precisely what I think concerns him in relation to raising the status and the way in which this kind of work is regarded. It is very important that we move it away from social work.
I am old enough to remember—perhaps I might suggest that the noble Lord is also—when we talked about a general social services council. We now talk about a general social care council, precisely to reflect the fact that we must have the widest possible categories of people who are working in this field, not only to reach the requisite standards but to raise its status in the eyes of the profession and also in order to provide reassurance to the public.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am not sure that I need to add very much to what has been said by my noble friend. It is clear, first of all, that this recognises the protection of the title of "social worker". That is important, because I think that pa-1 of the function of the changes being proposed is to raise the status, the professionalism and public confidence in fully qualified professional social workers.
I very much take the point raised by the noble Lord. This provision is also designed to embrace all those people working within the social care system. Although it will take time—because we are talking about half a million people who are employed within the "care industry", if I may use that term for the care service—the GSCC will play a vitally important role in relation to those care workers too in enhancing the training, support and development of people of whom we ask a great deal. We accept that they often have to work under pressure but without the support that is necessary.
Two lessons have always come home to me from reports of inquiries into such terrible events: first, the sheer horror of the abuse to residents; and, secondly—I take the point about residential care in particular—that there has always been a lack of support from the local authorities for people in that particular sector. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 61 to 67:
Page 23, line 5, leave out ("engaged") and insert ("engages").
Page 23, line 5, at end insert ("(referred to in this Part as a "social worker")").
Page 23, line 6, at beginning insert ("is").
Page 23, line 6, leave out ("at the premises") and insert ("for the purposes").
Page 23, line 8, at beginning insert ("is").
Page 23, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) a person engaged in the provision of personal care for any person;
( ) a person engaged in the provision of relevant services (within the meaning of section 40);").

751
Page 23, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) An establishment is a day centre if it provides nursing or personal care wholly or mainly for persons mentioned in section 3(2), but does not provide accommodation for them.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 53 [The register]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 68:
Page 23, line 24, leave out from ("of") to end of line 29 and insert—

("(a) social workers; and

(b) social care workers of any other description specified by the appropriate Minister by order.

(2) There shall be a separate part of the register for social workers and for each description of social care workers so specified.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 [Grant or refusal of registration]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 69:
Page 24, line 1, leave out from ("is") to second ("and") and insert ("physically and mentally fit to perform the whole or part of the work of persons registered in the part of the register to which his application relates;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee great strength of feeling was expressed against the wording of the health test for registration with the councils. I have reflected on the matter and I fully recognise that the words were wrong. They could be taken to be discriminatory, however unintentionally. I am sorry that that happened because it distracted from the general welcome that noble Lords gave to this section of the Bill.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, called for the health test to be withdrawn completely. We cannot do that. The driving force behind the councils is to achieve a greater degree of protection for service users, their carers and the general public. What we want to achieve with the health test is to prevent people registering with the councils whose health would make them unsafe to practise.
A health test for registration is a common feature of regulatory bodies. Social care is no different. We want to achieve higher standards for the public. To succeed in that, we must have a workforce capable of delivering the standards which we want to see and which will meet the increasing expectations of the public.
Our amendment proposes a different form of words for Clause 55. It requires an applicant for registration to be,
"physically and mentally fit to perform the whole or part of the work of persons registered in the part of the register to which his application relates".
We believe that that formula avoids the unintended discrimination of the existing provision and gives the councils one of the powers that they need to ensure that the social care workers whom they register are safe and competent to practise.
It will be for the councils to draw up detailed rules about registration. However, their rules will be subject to approval by Ministers. Our view is that the councils will not insist that every social care worker must be in
752
a state of health that would allow them to undertake the full range of possible duties. The health of some workers will mean that they cannot do so, but nevertheless they can make a valuable contribution and do so safely and competently.
I hope that the amendment will allay the concerns about discrimination raised in Committee and that it provides a reasonable test for registration to ensure that the council registers only those workers who are safe and competent to practise. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I rise to welcome the amendment. The words in the amendment are not the words that I would have chosen, but they are certainly a great improvement on what was there before. It may just be the case that my semantics should not get in the way of progress. I thank the Minister for listening and for going away and getting something done about the clause. I hope only that this happy relationship will continue.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly add that the members of the General Social Care Council Advisory Group will be extremely happy with this wording. I am extremely glad that the Government have taken account of the concerns raised hitherto in your Lordships' House.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I should like to re-echo those sentiments. The wording seems absolutely to the point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 70:
Page 24, line 6, leave out from ("registration") to end of line 7 and insert ("as a social worker").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56 [Removal etc. from register]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 71:
Page 24, line 27, after ("in") insert ("a part of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 57 [Rules about registration]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 72:
Page 25, line 4, leave out ("an annual") and insert ("a periodic").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 [Use of title "social worker" etc.]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 73 to 75:
Page 25, line 6, after ("person") insert ("who is not registered as a social worker in any relevant register").
Page 25, line 8, leave out from ("is") to ("he") in line 14 and insert ("so registered, or in any way holds himself out as so registered").

753
Page 25, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of subsection (1), a register is a relevant register if it is—

(a) maintained by a Council; or

(b) a prescribed register maintained under a provision of the law of Scotland or Northern Ireland which appears to the appropriate Minister to correspond to the provisions of this Part.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 59 [Coles of practice]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 76 to 78:
Page 25, line 20, at end insert ("; and
( ) standards of conduct and practice in relation to social care workers, being standards expected of persons employing or seeking to employ them").
Page 25, line 26, leave out from beginning to ("be") in line 27 and insert (" A code published by a Council shall").
Page 25, line 31, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) Local authorities making any decision about the conduct of any social care workers employed by them shall, if directed to do so by the Secretary of State, take into account any code published by the Council.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 61 [Qualifications gained outside a Council's area]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 79 to 85:
Page 26, line 27, leave out from ("registration") to first ("the") in line 28 and insert ("as a social worker in").
Page 26, line 34, leave out ("registration in that part of the register") and insert ("such registration").
Page 26, line 40, leave out ("registration in that part") and insert ("such registration").
Page 26, line 44, leave out from ("registration") to first ("the") in line 45 and insert ("as a social worker in").
Page 27, line 6, leave out ("registration in that part of the register") and insert ("such registration").
Page 27, line 12, leave out ("registration in that part") and insert ("such registration")
Page 27, line 18, leave out from ("registration") to first ("the") in line 19 and insert ("as a social worker in").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 64 [Functions of the appropriate Minister]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 86:
Page 28, line 42, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) Any functicns of the Secretary of State under this section—

(a) may be delegated by him to the English Council; or

(b) may be exer:ised by any person, or by employees of any person, authorised to do so by the Secretary of State.

(4A) For the purpose of determining—

(a) the terms and effect of an authorisation under subsection (4)(b); and

(b) the effect of so much of any contract made between the Secretary of State and the authorised person as relates to the exercise of the function,

Part II of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 shall have effect as if the authorisation were given by virtue of an order under section 69 of that Act; and in subsection (4)(b) "employee" has the same meaning as in that Part.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
754
Clause 65 [Appeals to the Tribunal]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 87 and 88:
Page 29, line 4, after ("Part") insert ("in respect of registration").
Page 29, leave out line 9.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 67 [Abolition of Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 89 and 90:
Page 29, line 26, at end insert ("under subsection (2A), or make any provision under subsection (2B), which She considers necessary or expedient in consequence of the functions of CCETSW referred to in subsection (1) ceasing, by virtue of that subsection, an Act of the Scottish Parliament or an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly, to be exercisable in relation to any part of the United Kingdom.
(2A) A scheme may provide—
( ) for the transfer to the new employer of any eligible employee;").
Page 29, line 33, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert—("(2B) The Order in Council may make—

(a) any supplementary, incidental or consequential provision,

(b) any transitory, transitional or saving provision,

including provision amending Schedule 3 to that Act or repealing that Schedule, section 10 of that Act and any reference in way enactment to CCETSW.
(2C) In this section—
"eligible employee" means a person who is employed under a contract of employment with the old employer;
"new employer" means—

(a) in relation to England or Wales, the Council;

(b) in relation to Scotland or Northern Ireland, any body established under a provision of the law of Scotland or (as the case may be) Northern Ireland which appears to Her Majesty to perform functions corresponding to those of a Council;

"old employer" means CCETSW;
"property" includes rights and interests of any description.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 69 [Amendment of Children Act 1989]:
Lord Bachmoved Amendment No. 91:
Page 32, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of subsection (4)(b) a person is not treated as working on the premises in question if—

(a) none of his work is done in the part of the premises in which children are looked after; or

(b) he does not work on the premises at times when children are looked after there.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 91, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 92 to 94 and Amendment No. 105, all of which seek to improve the provisions in Part V of the Bill, although I concede that they are minor amendments.
Under Part V, a daycare provider and his or her staff must be "suitable" to look after children. In addition, anyone else living or working on the premises must also be suitable to be around children.

755
In practice, that means that such people must be the subject of police checks to ensure that unsuitable people are not allowed access to young children. This is only proper if the children's wellbeing is to be adequately safeguarded.
However, there will be instances when it is neither desirable nor practical to carry out checks on every single person working in a building, especially where very many of them will never be in contact with the children being looked after.
Let us suppose, by way of example, that the Palace of Westminster operated a créche—perhaps it should—for the children of its employees, it would be sensible to run checks on those working in the cràche and on anyone else who might work in the area where the cràche is provided. However, it would not be practical to require every one of the thousands of people working within the Palace boundaries to be subjected to a police check on their past behaviour. Nor would it make sense to require checks on people working in the creche area long after the children have left.
The amendment also dovetails with the Home Office's proposed protection of children provisions in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill, which prevent unsuitable adults from working with children. It is for those reasons that the Government wish to define more clearly which employees should and should not face investigation before a provider may be registered for daycare provision.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 92 to 94. As it stands, Part V requires emergency protection orders to be obtained from the Protection of Children Act Tribunal. On reflection, the Government consider that such orders should be obtained from the magistrates' courts, as is the case under the present regulatory system. The safety of every child is paramount and we want to respond quickly to protect all children when there is a risk they might come to some harm. Magistrates are in the best position to meet that need, being able to make emergency protection orders at any time of the day or night. For example, a childminder or daycare provider could be involved in untoward activities involving children. That might be revealed at a time when it would not be convenient to convene a tribunal at such short notice. However, an application may be made over the phone to a magistrate to ensure that immediate action is taken to protect any child in the care of the childminder or daycare provider.
Obviously, the House will want to ensure that children are protected at all times. To do that, we must continue to be rigorous and alert to child protection matters, particularly when they must be dealt with urgently.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 105. The Chief Inspector of Schools will be required to remove from the register of early years child care inspectors people he considers unsuitable. Similarly, he may also refuse an application for inclusion on the register from a person he has reason to consider unsuitable.
756
Where a registered inspector or potential inspector is aggrieved by any such decision, he or she has a right of appeal against that decision. As drafted at present, Part V would require the appeal to be made to the Registered Nursery Education Inspectors Appeal Tribunal; a body which is convened only when an appeal is received and has no president or permanent members. Indeed, since its inception in 1996, it has heard only two appeals.
As there will be many more registered childcare inspectors than there are nursery education inspectors, it will be important to ensure that the tribunal which hears appeals has sufficient capacity to deal with any cases which are referred to it. For this reason, it is our intention that appeals by child care inspectors should be directed to the Protection of Children Act tribunal. This amendment secures that objective. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bachmoved Amendments Nos. 92 to 94:
Page 36, line 8, leave out ("the Tribunal") and insert ("a justice of the peace").
Page 36, line 14, leave out ("Tribunal") and insert ("justice").
Page 36, line 19, leave out ("Tribunal") and insert ("justice").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bachmoved Amendment No. 95:
Page 36, line 21, leave out ("date on which") and insert ("time when").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 95, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 96 to 104, 106, 188, 192, and 195 to 202. These 21 amendments comprise a series of minor technical and consequential amendments. They are designed to improve the clarity of existing Part V and Schedule 2 and to amend references to other legislation in Schedule 3 to the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 95 to 100 all relate to emergency order-making procedures and are designed to clarify and improve existing arrangements. I hope to move Amendment No. 95 as shortly as I can. The amendment will ensure that the order stipulates the precise time when emergency procedures will take effect, not just the date. It also means that orders cannot be applied retrospectively.
Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 are both designed to modernise the legislation by updating the language used in the original Children Act 1989. The amendments remove Latin and replace the phrase, "ex parte" with clear English, "without notice".
Amendments Nos. 98, 99 and 100 improve the clarity of the drafting and simplify the emergency order application procedure. The amendments confirm, first, that an emergency order must be made in writing, although an application may be made orally. Secondly, they make it clear that the registered person will receive an actual copy of the order, rather than,
"notice of the order and its terms".

757
Thirdly, they confirm that the registered person will receive a copy of (i) a written statement setting out the registration authority's reasons for the order (if one exists) application, and (ii) notice of any right of appeal to which the registered person is entitled.
I shall now move on to Amendment No. 101. Part of this amendment is required as a consequence of Amendments Nos. 92 to 94—the transfer of emergency order applications from the tribunal back to the magistrates' courts, which was agreed by the House a few minutes ago. This amendment removes now redundant appeal arrangements. These were originally put in place to ensure that the tribunal set up to make an emergency order would be constituted differently from the tribunal set up to hear an appeal against that order. None of this now applies, since the order will be made by the JP and the tribunal will hear the appeal.
Next I shall take the other part of Amendments No. 101 to 104 together. These relate to appeals against the registration authority—for example, as a result of registration cancellation or as a result of a magistrate's emergency order. Essentially, these amendments simplify and bring increased coherence to current drafting by merging existing provisions. The result will provide greater procedural clarity for the appellant and more consistency across the Bill.
Amendment No. 106 is again technical in nature. It corrects an inaccurate reference to the provisions dealing with inspections in the School Inspection Act 1996 so that it refers to the provisions dealing with report of the inspection.
Amendment No. 108 exempts residential family centres from regulation under Part XA. Residential family centres are social care settings to be regulated by the national care standards commission. However, there may be occasions when "day care" is taking place at the centre, bringing them—technically—within the Part XA regulatory framework. This amendment avoids imposing the burden of two regulatory systems on the provider by specifically exempting family centres from Part XA day care regulation.
Amendments Nos. 192 and 195 to 202 are consequential amendments to the Children Act 1989, the Education Act 1996, the Police Act 1997 and the Protection of Children Act 1999. In the main, those amendments simply add references to the new Part XA of the Children Act. I am sure the House will be delighted that I do not intend to go into the details of them this evening. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bachmoved Amendments Nos. 96 to 104:
Page 36, line 22, leave out ("ex parte") and insert ("without notice").
Page 36, line 23, leave out from ("parte") to end of line 24.
Page 36, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) An order under subsection (1) shall be made in writing.").
Page 36, leave out line 29 and insert—
("(a) a copy of the order;").
758
Page 36, line 30, leave out from first ("of") to end of line 31 and insert ("any written statement of the authority's reasons for making the application for the order which supported that application; and
(c) notice of any right of appeal conferred by section 79LA.").
Page 36, leave out lines 32 to 47.
Page 37, leave out lines 27 to 40.
Page 37, line 43, leave out ("this section") and insert ("section 79LA").
Page 37, line 44, at end insert—
('Appeals.
79LA.—(1) An appeal against—

(a) the taking of any step mentioned in section 79L(1): or

(b) an order under section 79K,

shall lie to the Tribunal.
(2) On an appeal, the Tribunal may—

(a) confirm the taking of the step or the making of the order or direct that it shall not have, or shall cease to have, effect; and

(b) impose, vary or cancel any condition.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to earlier. With the leave of the House I shall move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bachmoved Amendments Nos. 105 and 106:
Page 39, line 6, at end insert ("; and
(d) in paragraph 10(2), for the words from "to a tribunal" to the end there shall be substituted "to the Tribunal established under section 9 of the Protection of Children Act 1999"").
Page 39, line 41, leave out from ("report") to ("as") in line 42 and insert ("under subsection (2)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 107 and 108:
Page 39, line 44, at end insert—
("Inspection: Wales
General functions of the Assembly.
79QA. The Assembly may secure the provision of training for persons who provide or assist in providing child minding or day care.
Inspection: Wales.
79QB.—(1) The Assembly may by regulations make provision—

(a) for the inspection of the quality and standards of child minding provided in Wales by registered persons and of day care provided by registered persons on premises in Wales;

(b) for the publication of reports of the inspections in such manner as the Assembly considers appropriate.

(2) The regulations may provide for the inspections to be organised by—

(a) the Assembly; or

(b) the Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales, or any other person, under arrangements made with the Assembly.

(3) The regulations may provide for subsections (2) to (4) of section 42A of the School Inspections Act 1996 to apply with modifications in relation to the publication of reports under the regulations.").

759
Page 41, line 38, at end insert—
("(2A) The appropriate Minister may by order make a scheme for the transfer to the new employer of any eligible employee.
(2B) In subsection (2A)—
"eligible employee" means a person who is employed under a contract of employment with an old employer on work which would have continued but for the provisions of this section;
"new employer" means the registration authority (within the meaning of Part XA of the 1989 Act) and, in relation to Wales, includes the Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales;
"old employer" means a local authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall move Amendments Nos. 107 and 108 en bloc. They were spoken to earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 70 [Basic definitions]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 109 and 110:
Page 41, line 44, leave out ("This section applies") and insert ("Subsections (2) to (7) apply").
Page 42, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations for the purposes of this section or section 78 may only be made by the Secretary of State; and before making any regulations for the purposes of this section the Secretary of State shall consult the Assembly.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 72 [Persons who provide care for vulnerable adults: duty to refer]:
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 111:
Page 43, line 14, leave out (", or would have considered dismissing him.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we come now to another critical issue affecting the balance that has to be struck between the rights of vulnerable adults and the rights of care workers. In addition to Amendment No. 111, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 112, 115 and 116.
In Clauses 72 and 73, the Bill envisages a number of situations in which a referral of someone's name to the Secretary of State must occur. Some of those situations, if I may be permitted to summarise, are ones where the provider has reached a definite conclusion that the care worker is guilty of misconduct which harmed, or placed at risk of harm, a vulnerable adult.
The consequence of reaching that conclusion is that the worker is dismissed or moved to another posting that has nothing to do with looking after people. Should the worker have resigned or retired in the mean time, it is envisaged that the employer, on the strength of what he has heard, will be able to conclude that he would definitely have dismissed him if the worker had still been around.
In other words, we are dealing here with the clear-cut case. I do not have a problem with the requirement to refer in such circumstances. But the Bill also envisages other sets of circumstances where matters are nothing like so clear cut. The employer is required to refer someone who, since the incident took place, has retired or resigned and whom he would have "considered" dismissing on grounds of relevant
760
misconduct had the worker still been around. That provision requires the employer to jump a hurdle that is a great deal lower than the ones to which I referred a moment ago. He does not have to reach the conclusion that he would have definitely dismissed the person; only that he would have "considered" dismissing him.
First, we need to know what "considered" means in this context. It clearly ought not to mean "briefly contemplated". But assuming it means something stronger than that, what does the phrase imply? It implies that, at best, the provider is uncertain whether or not he would actually have dismissed the person had that individual still been around; in other words, the Bill is saying that even though there may be doubt in the provider's mind that the person harmed a vulnerable adult or placed such an adult at risk of harm in a manner sufficient to be classified as misconduct, there is nevertheless a duty on the provider to refer that person to the Secretary of State.
I am most uneasy—indeed, worried—about that provision. It does not seem at all right that a provisional listing could take place, with all that that means in terms of stigma, when an employer has not concluded that a person was worthy of dismissal for what he did. For that reason, why should we not require the employer at least to come forward and state that he would have dismissed the person had he been able to do so? I simply ask the Minister whether the right balance has been struck in this respect. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I should like to identify myself and my noble friends completely with what the noble Earl has just said. We are talking about an important phrase in an important section of the Bill; indeed, I do not think that I can add anything more than that.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I rise to express another point of view. I do so as a former director of social services and as someone who has had to deal with his own share of disturbing cases where one has to adjudicate on claims of abuse by staff against children and vulnerable adults. In all these very difficult disciplinary matters, the case against the accused, so to speak, has to be proved to a civil standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities, before a person can be dismissed. It takes time to put these cases through the disciplinary process. Sometimes the accused person actually resigns very quickly, before the disciplinary case can be mounted. The case is not then pursued.
Under the new arrangements, such cases should be notified to the Department of Health. I sympathise with the noble Earl's arguments, but, as I understand his amendment, employers would effectively be prevented from notifying these people to the Department of Health, unless they have actually taken the case through the disciplinary process—or to a point where they can be confident on the balance of probabilities that they would have dismissed the person. There are many cases where it is highly likely that the employer would have dismissed the person, but where the case did not proceed through the

761
disciplinary process because the bird had flown the coop. Those are precisely the kind of cases that should be placed on the list. Therefore, in all these cases we have to consider where the balance of doubt should rest. I suggest that it must rest in favour of the vulnerable people, not the member of staff.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, often teases me about the use of the word "balance". However, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested, getting the balance right is crucially important in these debates. I certainly share the desire to avoid creating the kind of situation where an employer is under an obligation to refer a person to the list in circumstances where dismissal is not a practical option. But the noble Earl's amendment would seriously restrict the type of case that could be referred to the list; and, indeed, it could create a serious loophole.
The amendments before us really cover the types of cases where an allegation has come to light that satisfies the criteria. However, before the employer has had the opportunity to complete his investigation, the individual either resigns or retires. Although the employer should undertake all investigations open to him, it may not be possible to conclude his enquiries. In circumstances where the employer has only been able to obtain one side of the story, it is difficult for him to conclude that he would have dismissed the individual. He could only conclude that he would have "considered dismissing" the individual. It is not a matter of the employer briefly contemplating dismissal, as suggested by the noble Earl; indeed, dismissal would have to be a serious option. In such circumstances, the tests that are applied to other cases referred to the Department of Health would still be applied. If there is insufficient evidence in the information sent by the employer to the Department of Health to justify provisional listing, obviously the person concerned could not be listed.
The problem here is that excluding such classes of case from the legislation would leave a serious loophole, which may enable an abuser to leave his employment as soon as an allegation was made and before the employer had had an opportunity to complete the investigation. Such a person could fly the coop and be free to take up employment where he or she could once more put vulnerable adults at risk. For that reason I do not think that it is possible to accept the amendment.
10 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, it would be extremely helpful if he could give us some idea of the time lapse before such a person—against whom a suspicion had been aroused which was then notified to the Secretary of State under this clause—would be able to prove his innocence, as it were. How long would he remain on the list? Obviously there will be a great variety of cases, but are we talking about weeks, months or a year or more?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it clearly could be months in the sense that if the person was
762
referred to the Department of Health and if it was considered that that person met the criteria for provisional listing—either on the information the employer provides in the first instance, or after the department's officials considering the matter have sought further information—that person would be provisionally listed. There then follows a process whereby permanent listing is considered and where the Secretary of State invites observations from the worker, if he can be found, and from the provider. When the Secretary of State has considered that information, he would determine whether that person should be permanently excluded. I would hope that that process would be undertaken within a fairly short time, certainly within a matter of months.
Earl Howe: My Lords, this has been a helpful exchange although I have to say that I am left feeling as uneasy as I did when I first rose to speak. I understand completely that there are situations where, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Warner, put it, the bird has flown the coop and it is necessary for the employer to reach a judgment about the conduct of that person in his or her absence. The point I sought to make is that it seems inherently unsatisfactory that a referral could be made where there is doubt about a person's guilt or innocence. Why not require the employer to reach a definite conclusion; in other words, require him to conclude on the available evidence, even if the evidence is one-sided, that he would have dismissed the individual?
I realise that provisional listing is not at all the same thing as having one's name confirmed on the list and that the tests for having one's name confirmed on the list are set out in subsections (5) to (8). I note that one of those tests is that the Secretary of State must first be of the opinion,
"that the provider reasonably considered the worker to be guilty of"
relevant misconduct. I am not sure how compatible that wording is with the words that my amendments have highlighted, but it implies that the employer must not then be in doubt about the person's guilt or innocence. I do not know whether I have read too much into that wording but that is how it appears to me.
Nevertheless, I shall read carefully what the Minister has said and, indeed, what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has said with all his years of experience, as I greatly respect his views. Between now and Third Reading I shall consider the matter further. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
Lord Phillips of Sudburymoved Amendment No. 113:
Page 43, line 39, at end insert ("if it appears to him that, unless such a provisional listing is made, there is a risk that any person will suffer significant harm.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not this evening repeat many of the statements that I made in earlier debates on this crucial section because I

763
apprehend that nearly everyone in the Chamber suffered my earlier effusions. None the less, I shall, if I may, make some detailed analysis of what we are contending with.
As will be well known to the Minister and to the House, we on these Benches consider that the blacklisting procedure laid down in the Bill—which is a precise copy of the one contained in the Protection of Children Act 1999—is seriously defective and apt to lead to serious injustice. That, we maintain, is not simply a matter as between the ex-employer and ex-employee; it is not merely, if one can use that word, a matter of protection of vulnerable adults; it is much more a question of how the whole of this blacklisting procedure will or will not broadly underpin the purposes of the Bill, to which all of us subscribe. As I have made clear in the past, it is our view that the set of procedures in Clause 72 leans over so far in favour of protection that in the long run it will undermine that very purpose.
Let me start by drawing the attention of the House to what must be proven in order for a provisional listing to take place, and then for a permanent listing to take place. That is the nub of all this. First, if one looks at Clause 72, one finds that the Secretary of State, through a civil servant, will have to consider the question of a provisional listing behind closed doors, without any reference at all to the person complained against, if I can use that phrase. It will be useful to talk about the "complainee", and the "complainer", being the ex-employer.
Then, under the terms of subsection (4), the Secretary of State will have to make a decision on the basis of the information submitted by the complainer—that is to say, the civil servant will. He cannot go any further; he cannot go back to the complainer; he certainly cannot go to the complainee. He must reach a decision which will have an instant and cataclysmic effect on the reputation and livelihood of the worker concerned. He or she will be instantly debarred from any further employment within his or her industry, if I can use that word. It may be someone who has spent 10 years gaining qualifications and experience; none the less, this procedure will debar him or her instantly.
We then come to the permanent listing criteria. When permanently listing, must the civil servant have been "satisfied beyond reasonable" doubt that the worker concerned had been guilty of misconduct and was no longer suitable to work with vulnerable people? No. Must the civil servant at least have been "satisfied" that the worker must be disbarred? Not even that. He need only be "of the opinion". Opinion as to what? That it is in the public interest that the worker should be disbarred? No. Is it an opinion that the ex-employer has fairly found the worker guilty of misconduct? Is it that test? Not even that. The test to be applied in deciding whether or not to permanently list is whether, at the time of the dismissal, the employer reasonably considered the worker guilty of misconduct—I emphasise "at the time of the dismissal"—so that, if new facts emerge during the
764
course of this extremely truncated inquiry which cast severe doubt on the facts as they appeared to be to the employer at the time of the dismissal, those are irrelevant. He can only look at what was reasonably considered at the time of dismissal.
As regards the case where the employer subsequently hears of information which might—had the employer known about it, but which may not be fact—have led him or her to have considered dismissing the employee, the test is based on, first, the opinion of the Minister; and, secondly, on the conjecture of the former employer as to the risk of misconduct—not actual misconduct—which does not have to have been in the course of the employment; does not have to have involved physical harm; does not have to have been abusive and does not have to have been intentional.
We say that of course the law must be swift to protect vulnerable people. We have too many instances in our own times of severe misconduct on the part of those in whom great trust is reposed as regards looking after children and vulnerable old people. But what perplexes us is why this extremely flimsy framework of protection should be satisfactory to the Government in this Bill, particularly as in the selfsame Bill a procedure is laid down as regards childminders in Clause 69 which, if passed, will see Part XA incorporated into the Children Act 1989.
There we see a set of procedures where there is no debarring of a childminder under Clause 69 without, first, an open court application to an independent justice of the peace where he or she will be able to cross-question the applicant in open court and where the applicant will not be, as may be the case here, a disgruntled former employer, but is, and has to be, an independent professional; namely, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools or the National Assembly of Wales, where, by dint of the registration procedure, he or she will have a great deal of knowledge of the childminder concerned and will have had inspections which would have added to that knowledge and where the test that the magistrate must apply before giving professional or emergency relief to the applicant is that the child is "likely to suffer significant harm" unless the application is granted.
The amendment that I recommend this evening is different from the one that I put forward with my colleagues in the past. It does not say that in the case of provisional listing the civil servant has to find that there is "likely" to be significant harm. I have conceded that in an effort to go towards meeting the Government in this matter. I have not included that test of likelihood, but merely that there is a risk that any person will suffer "significant harm" unless the provisional order is given. We believe that to incorporate the same phrase "significant harm" in circumstances where there is no open court hearing and no independent judge or professional applicant is the very least that this House should agree to in order to provide a minimal framework of protection for, in this case, vulnerable carers. The point is that we are all vulnerable to an unjust procedure. We believe that this procedure is just that.

765
I suggest that the House looks with the greatest possible care at what the Government are trying to do through this Bill. In leaning over backwards, as we would say, to protect the vulnerable, the Government are abandoning some of the age-old common-sense criteria of fairness which have stood us in good stead not merely for decades but for centuries.
The Bill invites us to form the view that in protecting vulnerable adults to the hilt we must accept that a price may have to be paid, and we must accept too that that price may be—and we would say is bound to be—unfairness to workers. There are two assumptions which underlie this approach. First, that the civil servants involved will work fairly according to the extra statutory guidelines which the Government say that they will bring forward, and that this will make sure that all is well, and that anyway there will be a right of appeal to the Tribunal, after of course conviction for misconduct by the civil servants working in private, never seeing either party.
Secondly—and this is a favoured tabloid cry—I suspect there is an undercurrent of belief that innocent workers will have nothing to fear in all this. My answer to the first proposition, which is the bias in favour of the vulnerable, is that two grievous wrongs can never make a right. Whatever means we employ to deal with intolerable abuse of children and adults, it can never be right to do justice by them at the expense of justice to carers. For in the face of injustice, as I have said, we are all vulnerable. Furthermore, a society which takes short cuts with justice, for however worthy an end, undermines irreparably our own long-term health and vigour, on which of course the fate of the vulnerable particularly depends.
As for the adequacy of the blacklist procedures, it ill becomes the Government—the government which after all has been the author of the Human Rights Act —to plead the bureaucratic case, as I would put, that all will be well because the civil service will be fair. Civil servants are not gods. The burden placed on them by Clause 72 would need for them to be gods if they were to work it satisfactorily and fairly.
I must confess that I have not been able to find any parallel with the paucity of just protections that the Bill is providing in Clause 72. My objection has nothing to do with the ability or fairness of the civil servants who will operate Clause 72, it is simply that the process it provides is guaranteed to obstruct fairness.
Therefore, I conclude by saying that there are many variegated circumstances to which Clause 72 will apply. For example, it is a more open field than prevails in relation to schools. We are dealing here with thousands of small private homes and domiciliary care of all kinds, including charities, voluntary agencies. This is not like List 99 or the Consultancy Service Index, which is based upon highly and professionally regulated employment circumstances.
Perhaps I may just point out that the disincentive which I believe the Clause 72 blacklist will in time create against carers going into the field of care for adults is a real one. Today I met with the chief
766
executive of the Scouts Association, who told me that the impact of the Protection of Children Act last summer is already being felt within the Scout movement. They have over 100,000 young people waiting to get into cubs and scouts troops who cannot engage in those extremely beneficial activities because there are no leaders to lead them. They say that one of the major causes of the lack of men and women coming forward to undertake those roles is the extreme jeopardy they feel. One element of that is, as I say, this Clause 72 procedure.
The other point is that the cost of Clause 72, as and when the new list is up and running, is likely to be utterly extortionate. I also refer to the opinion of Professor Jowell, to which I referred in a previous debate, in which, as one of the most distinguished administrative lawyers in the land, he opined that Clause 72 is offensive to basic human rights as laid down in administrative law.
For all those reasons and many more I urge the Government as strongly as I can to review this matter and come back to us at the next stage. I am grateful to the Minister for his patience in putting up with my advocacy between this debate and the previous one and indeed for that of his civil servants. But I do not apologise for pursuing this matter with a degree of intensity because I believe that a great deal hangs upon it—more than may currently appear to the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I speak with rather more emotion than I am wont to do in your Lordships' debates. I have been moved to do so by the use of the words "serious injustice" and "instant and cataclysmic effect" by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. As he was speaking, I was thinking of my years as a social worker in Manchester's Moss Side and in Basildon in Essex. I think very much of the vulnerable adults and children who themselves have had serious injustice meted out to them and whose lives have suffered an "instant and cataclysmic effect" because we were not able to bring such measures into play in order to protect them. Only last year I was contacted by the solicitor of a young man whom I supervised 35 years ago. He was trying to bring a case because his life had been seriously affected by the abuse he had suffered in a home. We all knew that he was suffering abuse but we had no means of bringing the abuser to book.
We all know that abusers currently evade the systems. We know that they abuse in one place and then go on to abuse in another because there is no follow-up system. It is essential that we have proper watertight systems to ensure that people do not escape checks. I am sorry to say it, but I believe that the amendment would seriously weaken our powers to stop the kind of abuse that I have seen in my professional life. I am desperate to ensure that it does not happen again. I agree with the noble Lord that we

767
must be swift and sure. But if a balance is to be struck, we must err in that balance on the side of the abused adult or child.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has teased out some extremely important strands of this very complicated issue. The House will be grateful to him for that. I should begin my brief remarks by reiterating my wholehearted support for the principles and policies underlying these provisions of the Bill. What worries the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and others of us is the scope for error and misrepresentation, whether innocent or malicious, on the part of the person referring someone's name to the Secretary of State. The result of such error or misrepresentation could be that a worker could find his or her name included on the provisional list quite unjustly and perhaps for an extended period. The Minister may be tempted to say to this that it is only a provisional listing. But we should not be in any doubt of the stigma that will attach to an individual in these circumstances or of the point of principle that this process contravenes; namely, that only an overriding risk to the public can justify the infringement of an individual's right to the normal freedoms, one of which is not to have his name officially and publicly blacklisted without at least a measured assessment of the evidence.
There are lines in the sand, sometimes not easy to determine, which should not be crossed in a free society. I am not convinced that the provisions of this part of the Bill fall on the right side of the line. The Bill takes the precautionary principle to the limit by seeking to protect the public in all conceivable circumstances of referral. Like the noble Lord, I question whether that is the right approach. The merit of the amendment is that it recognises the need to protect the public in cases where there is a risk of significant harm to vulnerable adults. The name of anyone who is seen to pose such a risk would be placed on the provisional list immediately. Those who clearly did not fall into that category—it is easy to imagine cases of misconduct arising from inexperience rather than malicious intent—would have their cases considered by the Secretary of State in the normal way, and their names would be included in the list if the conditions laid down in subsections (6) and (7) were met. I have no difficulty with that.
I realise that the amendment may be open to the objection that it poses questions of interpretation. That may be so. But the question is whether that is a price worth paying for the sake of avoiding injustice and the infringement of liberties. I believe that it is, and I urge the Minister to give this matter the most careful consideration.
Lord Rix: My Lords, first I pay tribute to the sterling work undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, on behalf of Mencap during its recent transformation from an exclusively parent carer organisation to a body representative of people with learning disabilities. Last Saturday was an historic
768
climax to this important work when for the very first time people with learning disabilities took their place on Mencap's national assembly, or policy making body.
In view of the noble Lord's efforts on behalf of Mencap, and his eloquent arguments in support of the amendment, it grieves me that as President of Mencap, having consulted my colleagues, I am unable to support the noble Lord's amendment. While I acknowledge his concerns and those of other noble Lords, I feel duty bound to examine the matter from the perspective of the welfare of vulnerable adults who receive care.
People with learning disabilities are especially likely to be abused for many reasons. These range from the general lack of value which society places on people with learning disabilities to the lack of choice and control that some adults have over their own lives, and more specific considerations such as the likelihood of living away from home and increased exposure to medication which has the potential for misuse. People with learning disabilities often rely on multiple carers in a variety of services and may face the additional problem of very limited ability to communicate about abuse.
A comprehensive register will offer comprehensive protection for vulnerable adults. That protection inevitably must be weighed against the civil liberties of individuals who are suspected of abuse. I believe that the Bill achieves the right balance. The Bill errs on the side of caution by placing known abusers, and those suspected of abuse, on the register but allowing a right of appeal to all and for evidence to be examined afresh and a detailed examination to be made of the way in which the decision has been reached. It is worth reminding noble Lords that there can be no laxity in these matters. The Bill has been assessed as being fully compliant with the Human Rights Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has expressed to me concern about the impact of the stringent new measures on recruitment. He rightly recognises that many establishments already experience problems in filling care staff vacancies. However, I believe that any recruits deterred by the measures contained in this Bill should, in all probability, be deterred. There are many talented and dedicated staff working in the care industry. This legislation should ensure that even more join in future years. Quality needs to be preserved, not diminished. While recognising the strength of feeling on the matter, and indeed the complexity involved, I would, of course, expect the Minister to make a full assessment of concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I await his response with interest.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I have listened to this argument today as I listened to and took part in the corresponding debate in Committee. One thought crosses my mind. I would that there was a large audience listening to this debate of profound significance in which considerable differences of

769
principle have to be argued through and a conclusion reached. However, we are debating the issue at a late hour of the night, and largely talking to ourselves.
I find myself leaning in favour of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. Perhaps I may address one remark to the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and one to the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I address the noble Baroness. What on earth does one lose by inserting,
"if it appears to [the Secretary of State] that, unless such a provisional listing is made, there is a risk that any person will suffer significant harm"?
The noble Baroness referred to a case in, I think, Moss Side. I could understand that she was seeking the machinery that this section sets up and which is supported by noble Lords on all sides of the House. I remain to be convinced that the test suggested by the noble Lord, Lori Phillips—that there is a need to be satisfied that there is a risk of harm—would prevent the case being dealt with as the noble Baroness would like. Such a test would simply have tilted the balance so that the injustice to the individual—as it might well have been—would have been incurred because there was perceived to be a risk of harm. Someone may have retired and no longer be working with vulnerable people. There is no risk of harm in those circumstances. Why should a provisional listing be made at that stage?
I have, and have had over many years, enormous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the work he has done through Mencap. I believe that he is being over-optimistic when he suggests that the existence of this draconian procedure for weeding out the people likely to abuse vulnerable people will encourage others to go in for that kind of social care. I suppose that in the very long run, if such a procedure leads to the drying up of the cases, the ending of the tabloid witch-hunts so that that aspect becomes as much part of our social history as the real witch-hunts of centuries ago, that belief is conceivable.
The Scouts may be only one example. I fear that there must now be many people who feel that there is a risk in dealing with children; that there is a risk in dealing with vulnerable adults: that someone, whether from malice or for whatever reason, will accuse an individual of being an abuser. Instead of being able to argue the matter, and to say, "This is not true. I am being wrongly accused. This is all entirely misconceived", that person will find his name whisked off to the Secretary of State and that he is on a black list before he has had an opportunity to do anything about it. I can conceive that younger people who may well have been attracted to the idea of entering this type of service would find that a very alarming prospect. Therefore, I believe that in an effort to go, as it were, over the top in order to protect vulnerable people, in the end one may do them more harm because it would 3e increasingly difficult to find people of the right quality to look after them.
770
I believe that importing, as the amendment does, the need for the Secretary of State to be of the opinion that there is a risk that a person will suffer significant harm is a very necessary test before a name goes on the provisional list. Therefore, I support the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene before the noble Lord, Lord Warner, rises to speak because he may be able to answer the questions that I want to ask. Let us suppose that a person's name goes forward to the Secretary of State but the person concerned maintains that he is innocent. If he does not "fly away", will he still be paid and employed, or will he be suspended with pay, or dismissed?
I take this opportunity to say, as I have said before, that I feel that it is very important for children's homes and care homes to have independent visitors who know the staff and the residents and who are able to stop any abuse taking place. I say this as a member of a board of visitors of a young offenders' institution. That is just what we used to do; we could feel what was happening, and see and talk to people.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I rise to attempt to bring us back to earth a little regarding what takes place at the local level. I shall relate one or two cases which, from my dim memory, I can recall as examples of the type of issues with which we are dealing. I remember two cases very vividly. In one, the driver of a bus carrying people with serious learning difficulties sexually abused a young girl at the end of the journey. In another case, a care worker in an old people's home beat up elderly people. We are talking about seriously vulnerable people who have been abused—sometimes badly physically abused. Let us keep that in mind before we go overboard in terms of a balance in favour of the civil liberties of some of the people who have been accused of abuse.
We should also bear in mind—this is where I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has it wrong—that there are considerable checks at the local level before a case reaches the Secretary of State. We are talking about a set of circumstances in which there is scope for hearings and disciplinary processes, and there are no incentives to malicious—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords—
Lord Warner: I shall give way to the noble Lord, but perhaps I may at least employ the argument before he asks me any questions. We are talking about a set of circumstances in which people at the local level have many checks on employers who misbehave. Yes, there are. I see the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, shaking his head. We have checks in the system. However, I suggest to the noble Lord that some of us who have worked at the local level, who have run these services and have registered other bodies which provide these services, have some experience in this matter.
I suggest to the noble Lord that there are checks in the system at the local level. There are no incentives to malicious employers to refer employees up the line to the Secretary of State. If, for example, a private home

771
owner maliciously refers employees to the Secretary of State in this way, he will almost certainly draw his activities to the attention of the inspection authorities. In the future, he will draw his activities to the attention of the general social care council. He will bring odium upon himself and his operations if he behaves inappropriately with an employee. I suggest to the noble Lord that he considers this matter. I did not hear in his speech any recognition of the checks and balances which take place at the local level before a case comes forward.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He talks—I am almost inclined to say "blithely"—about the universal presence of those checks. Will he tell me what check there is in relation to a typical small private home for half a dozen old people where an employee who has been there for 10 months is sacked? What checks are there?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not know what the grounds for the sacking would be.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, any grounds.
Lord Warner: My Lords, we are not talking about any grounds. We are talking about grounds on which the employee is removed and his name referred because of allegations of misconduct against one of the residents of the facility.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, but the noble Lord was making the point—
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that the Companion states that a noble Lord should speak only once in the debate.
Lord Warner: My Lords, with the permission of the House, perhaps I may complete what I was going to say before I was interrupted.
We are not talking about employees who were sacked for bad timekeeping or raiding the till. We are talking about employees who are sacked or who resign after accusations of abuse against vulnerable people. We are not talking about the Scouts and children. This provision is in relation to vulnerable adults who are in no position to defend themselves in many of those cases.
I believe that the noble Lord has got it wrong. It is the civil liberties of the vulnerable people that we are trying to protect here. These processes are there to protect those particular people. I strongly suggest to the House that we do not support this particular amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he keeps referring to the process as though it is inevitably only subsection (2)(a) which will apply; that is, that the provider has dismissed the worker. He has completely ignored paragraphs (b), (c)
772
and (d), which give grounds for placing someone on the provisional list in other circumstances. In particular, on an earlier amendment, the noble Earl referred to the circumstance where the employer would have considered dismissal. In that case, there would have been no process. Is the noble Lord not being rather optimistic about how that process will operate?
Lord Warner: My Lords, not at all. If, in the particular case which the noble Lord is talking about, the person has resigned and left, he may well have left because he was fearful of the process which would have led to his eventual dismissal after the full truth of his activities had emerged.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, but does the noble Lord not agree that the processes would not have been in train?
Lord Mackenzie of Culkein: My Lords, I hesitate to keep the discussion going at this late hour but I feel strongly about this matter. I want to say something about this from two perspectives: first, from the perspective of my younger years as a nurse with responsibility for managing other nurses and for aspects of healthcare delivery; and, secondly, at a second stage in my life, from the perspective of a healthcare trade union officer representing members before disciplinary and appeals tribunals of health authorities or disciplinary committees of the nursing and midwifery statutory bodies.
In the first of those incarnations, I was rather intolerant of any bad practice. But in the second, I used every adversarial and advocacy skill to get my member off or to mitigate the effect of any penalty. But, after a successful case, I would sometimes go home in the evening and wonder what on earth I had done. However, like, I am sure, every lawyer representing someone before the courts, I would rationalise my position by saying that I had a job to do and it was for the other side to prove its case.
So I know about focusing on the rights of workers and I know also of the ambivalence of anyone concerned about care delivery and standards and sometimes, I think, the fear that someone is free to repeat an offence because of one's advocacy.
The reality is that the vulnerable patients and clients must be protected and no one here this evening will depart from that. I suspect that a number of years ago, I should have been tempted to put forward some of the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. But, given the recent scandals that have emerged, I do not believe that we shall be lightly forgiven by the public if we do anything other than take effective steps to ensure that the guilty abusers do not move from one job to another.
The issue is whether that much-discussed balance is right; namely, the balance between the rights of vulnerable people and the rights of the worker. It is certainly not easy. If this matter stood in isolation, it might be argued that it has the appearance of individual responsibility, with poor management and

773
poor care delivery getting off scot-free while the worker carried the can. In such cases, I might just be inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. But this is part of a much bigger regulatory picture. Poor management and poor care standards can be brought to account in other ways in this new system.
There is an absolute right of appeal to a properly constituted tribunal against any decision to be listed, and I think that is a great step forward. I believe that my noble friend the Minister has the balance—albeit a very difficult balance—just about right.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend Lord MacKenzie really put his finger on it when he talked about the difficulty of coming to the right balance. Clearly, from our debates tonight there is some degree of disagreement on where the line, or balance, should fall. I am confident that we have got the balance in the right place.
I am also confident that these provisions, far from inhibiting people from wishing to work in a care setting in the future, are part of a whole set of arrangements contained in this Bill which in the long term, if not the shorter term, will lead to the whole care setting having a more professional, more developed, and more highly trained and qualified workforce. As such, I am convinced that it will become more attractive for people to work in. The legacy of these inquiries into horrendous cases of abuse which we have seen over the years has in itself deterred entrants to the profession.
Let us consider the general social care council, which is just one element of these measures, and the impact that that will have in determining the greater professionalism of the whole workforce, aligned to the system that we are putting in place to protect vulnerable adults. That will enhance the attractiveness of this profession in the future.
These clauses in the Bill, and indeed the protection of children list on which they are based, are the result of the evolution of the Consultancy Index. This has been run by the Department of Health for some 25 years, after it had inherited it from the Home Office, and it has been operated on a non-statutory basis until now.
In 1998–99, the Home Office led an interdepartmental group to prevent unsuitable people working with children and abusing trust. The group recommended that certain people, including criminals convicted of particular offences, should be prevented from working with children. The group also considered that the protection of vulnerable adults should be dealt with and recommended that there should be a workforce ban on people who abuse vulnerable adults, as no such protection then existed. Part VI of the Bill implements this.
Until we brought forward this Bill, no sure method existed of offering a degree of protection to many vulnerable adults from those who cause them harm or put them at risk. That contrasted with the case of children, for whom at least we have the Department of Health's Consultancy Index, and, indeed, the DfEE's
774
List 99. They operated to keep unsuitable people from working with children. The lack of assistance to protect vulnerable adults meant that unsuitable workers might be dismissed from one employment, only to find new employment in a similar position at an establishment, agency or hospital just down the road.
That is unacceptable. Over the years there have been examples of service failure where workers, as a result of neglect or of deliberate acts, have caused harm to elderly people or to adults with learning disabilities. One can point to a number of examples, such as the Longcare case, where adults with learning disabilities were treated very badly in a number of homes until inspectors stepped in and closed the homes concerned. After that happened there were examples of nurses employed at the home at the time who subsequently were able to obtain employment in another care setting.
The protection of vulnerable adults scheme requires the Secretary of State to keep a list of persons who are unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults. It provides that those listed are prohibited from taking employment in a care position looking after vulnerable adults. Overall, the system is similar to that provided for in the Protection of Children Act 1999 which your Lordships passed some months ago.
An individual must be referred to the Secretary of State for possible inclusion in the list by an employer who has dismissed him on grounds of misconduct which harmed a vulnerable adult or placed him at risk of harm. As we have already heard, to prevent avoidance of the scheme, special provision is made to catch those who have resigned so as to avoid such disciplinary action or who have been suspended, transferred, or provisionally transferred. On referral, the Secretary of State will provisionally list the individual if it appears that it may be appropriate to include him in the list. That person will then be subject to the prohibition from working with vulnerable adults.
The Secretary of State then goes on to disclose the referral papers to the person and to invite observations from him and, if appropriate, further observations from him on any observations made by the referring employer before reaching an opinion as to whether the employer reasonably believed that the person was guilty of misconduct and whether the person is unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults. If both those tests are passed, the permanent listing is confirmed.
That is the point at which the person has the right to take his case to the independent tribunal. The tribunal will remove the person from the list unless it is satisfied that he is guilty of the misconduct and that he is unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults. The tribunal therefore provides a full hearing of the underlying merits of the case with a burden of proof favourable to the applicant. The applicant will have a right to make oral representations to the tribunal.

775
I should like to emphasise the responsibilities that employers will have in order for the scheme to operate effectively. I turn to a point debated earlier. First, an employer proposing to offer employment in a care position must, before making the offer, check whether the person is on the list. If he is on the list, the employer cannot employ the person in a care position as defined in Clause 70. Secondly, the employer has a duty to refer workers to the Secretary of State for inclusion on the list under the circumstances that I mentioned earlier.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, referred unfavourably to the urgent deregistration procedures for child-minders in Part V. Those can be activated only, as he said, where a child is likely to suffer significant harm. In the case of the child-minder, it is only through the action of the Ofsted inspector undertaking an emergency deregistration that the child-minder will be prevented from working with children. In the case of a person referred to the vulnerable adults list, the employer will already have removed the worker from a situation where he may be in contact with vulnerable adults. It is not meaningful to imagine that the likelihood of harm can be assessed in those circumstances.
The issues around provisional listing essentially boil down to this: every person referred to the list should have a right to have the allegations against him proved. If one accepts that point, one is inevitably faced with the question of what to do between the time when the Secretary of State is notified that the employer has already taken disciplinary action and the time it takes for the allegations to be proved at an independent tribunal. Either one takes the stance that no action should be taken to protect vulnerable adults during that period, or one can ensure that precautionary action is taken pending proof.
We have heard that many people in the field believe that it is high time that the Government ensured that effective precautionary action is taken. I agree. That is why provisional listing is a central part of the scheme. In addition, there is an extra safeguard for the worker in ensuring that he comes off the list even before the case goes to a tribunal, unless the Secretary of State believes that there is a reasonable basis for the allegations.
I turn specifically to the amendment. When we discussed the matter of restricting provisional listing I expressed my fears that such a move would seriously weaken the scheme we devised for protecting vulnerable adults. The whole concept of provisional listing provides the important safeguard we require for vulnerable adults.
I am aware of the effect that provisional listing can have on an individual and his or her future. Provisional listing is not something to be taken lightly. However, perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the list is not published as such. The fact of listing is only disclosed to those who are required to check. I assure noble Lords that provisional listing will not happen in every case which is referred to the
776
Secretary of State. It will not be a matter of an employer making a reference and the Secretary of State reacting by immediately listing an individual provisionally.
Each case will be considered on its merits. The Secretary of State will have to be satisfied that provisional listing is the thing to do in each case. He will have to make a decision that the employer has made a proper reference and that provisional listing is warranted. If necessary, he can go back to the employer and seek additional information if the reference is unclear or incomplete.
We are concerned to ensure that the Secretary of State is able to take a broad view of everyone concerned in a referral when he considers whether it is appropriate to include a worker in the list provisionally. I believe that including restrictions on this on the face of the Bill would detract from the ability of the Secretary of State to act in the best interests of all concerned. It could raise issues of interpretation. I suggest it would raise an impossible test for these arrangements. People are referred to the list only after the employer has taken them away from caring for vulnerable adults.
I do not take lightly the concerns expressed by noble Lords. We have clearly heard a division of view as to where the balance rests in these cases. However, I have thought long and hard about this. At the end of the day, I am convinced that we have got the balance right.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining so clearly where the Government stand. I am grateful, also, to other noble Lords who participated in this mini-debate.
I have to say that I think there has been some misunderstanding, particularly on the part of t he noble Lord, Lord Warner, as to the circumstances in which the procedure starts to roll. In many of the smaller homes and institutions there will have been no procedure, no protection, no tribunal, just a sacking. We are all at one that where that sacking has been for good reason it is entirely right that somebody should be put on the provisional list if there is, indeed, significant harm in prospect for old people. However, the whole point of the amendment and the concern on this side of the House is in respect of those cases where the sacking or suspension will not have been fair. Where it has not been fair, where there has not been a tribunal and where, therefore, the care worker has been unjustly dealt with, the provisional listing procedure will not apply. There will be no reference to the worker concerned. Unlike the childminding provisions and, indeed, the emergency protection orders for children, there will be no independent judge and no threshold, significance, seriousness or likelihood. That is why we have pressed the matter so hard.
Speaking for my own part, I confess that I remain unconvinced that the protections provided by the section dealing with childminders should not be applied in this circumstance also without any damage to the purposes we all share.

777
However, one must leave it at that. I shall withdraw the amendment but reserve the right to bring it back at the next stage of debate when more noble Lords will be in the House to participate. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudburymoved Amendment No. 114:
Page 43, line 46, at end insert—
("(c) afford tie worker and the provider an opportunity to make oral representation to him; and
(d) if at any stage he considers that the reference ought in fairness lo be determined by the Tribunal, notify the parties and transfer the same to it.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I can be a great deal shorter. It proposes to introduce two additional paragraphs to Clause 72(4). I hope that their intention is clear.
As I have already explained, we are anxious about the difficulty of the task given to the civil servant here. He or she must deal first with provisional listing and then with permanent listing. To those noble Lords who rest content at the thought that there is in place a right to appeal to a tribunal, I put it to them that in the interim the person concerned will have lost his or her career and reputation.
Although it is true that the list is not made available for public inspection, it must be searched by everyone who is considering employing anyone in the care industry. For that reason, the list will quickly become public knowledge and as such will be open, for example, to local newspapers to report with impunity. We feel, first, that it will be of great help to the civil servant concerned if he or she gives both the worker and the provider an opportunity to make oral representations. Secondly, if the civil servant considers that the matter is mired in complexity by being presented with two conflicting versions of the truth, reality and facts of the case, he or she can then, without more ado, refer the matter to the tribunal so that it can deal with it.
Perhaps I may make two further points. First, in the course of undertaking the Herculean task provided under Clause 72, the civil servant must try to weigh up whether the worker is suitable to work with vulnerable adults. Frankly, I cannot see how anyone can sensibly reach such conclusions without having had an opportunity to meet and speak to the worker concerned. Secondly, Clause 72(6)(a) stipulates that when considering permanent listing, the civil servant must consider not only information submitted with the reference from the complainant, and any observations submitted to him by the counter-complainant, but also,
"any other information which he considers relevant".
The Bill offers no guidance as regards the basis on which the civil servant should search for such "other information". I put it to the Minister that it may be extremely helpful, when exercising that particular power, for the civil servant concerned to have an
778
opportunity to meet and speak to the complain ant and, indeed, the counter-complainant. On purely practical grounds—and very much in the spirit of what the Government seek to achieve here, and consistent with the protestations made by the Minister of the Government's wish to play fair—I hope that the Minister will consider that Amendment No. 114 represents an improvement. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, having added my name to this amendment, I should like to emphasise to the House that I am in complete sympathy with the proposals made so eloquently by the noble Lord. I hope that the Minister will consider these proposals seriously.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, let us continue the debate. Perhaps I may reflect on the proposed scheme. The intention is that the Secretary of State will write to the individual seeking his comments on the referral. He may seek the individual worker's comments again where there are clear discrepancies between the employer's referral and the worker's comments. All comments made by the worker on the referral will be taken into account when the Secretary of State comes to make his decision on whether to list an individual permanently.
It is important to remember that a person who has been referred to the list will be considered for permanent inclusion only after the employer's disciplinary procedures have been completed. I think that it is most important to stress that. At that stage, the worker would have been able to put his case in full. The Secretary of State makes his decision based on the outcome of that process.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. Does he accept that in many cases there will be no disciplinary procedure?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I intended dealing with that a little later when dealing with the second part of the amendment. Essentially, the Bill will ensure that in the future all establishments that are regulated under its provisions will have to have employment procedures that are up to scratch. But perhaps I can come back to that.
What I was going to say in relation to oral representations was that, based on what I have just said and the fact of the ability to appeal to a tribunal, that is the stage when it is appropriate for oral representations to be made; that is, where a tribunal conducts a full investigation of the facts and where oral representations will be a key part of that. I believe also—the noble Lord referred to the practicalities of this—that if we were to add the right to make oral representations after written representations, it would lead to the listing process taking longer, so effectively delaying the time when the Secretary of State makes his decision, in turn leading to delay in the time a person can apply to the tribunal. That is a factor which should be considered.

779
I turn to the second part of the amendment in support of an earlier reference to the tribunal, in the protection of vulnerable adults scheme. We feel it is right that the Secretary of State should be able to come to a decision based on the employer's reference and the worker's comments on it. It will then be for the worker to choose whether or not he wishes to make an appeal to the tribunal against any decision by the Secretary of State to include him in the list of people banned from working with vulnerable people.
Let me come to the substance of the concerns raised by the noble Lord in relation to the employment practice of some of the establishments to be regulated under the Bill. It is worth making the point, first, that many employees will be protected by employment law and will have the opportunity of going to an employment tribunal if they consider that their employer acted unfairly against them. But it is important also that all services covered by the protection of vulnerable adults scheme will either be subject to registration by the national commission for care standards or be subject to direction from government—for example, in the case of the National Health Service.
Through those mechanisms it is possible for us to require employers to have proper procedures in place to deal with disciplinary action against employees, either through registration requirements or directions. The effect of that will be that a worker referred to the list will have more than one avenue to pursue if he thinks that the referral is wrong and he is being badly treated.
In addition, under the Bill as currently drafted, if the Secretary of State is unable to form the opinion both that the employer's view of the facts is reasonable and that the person provisionally listed is unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults, then he will have to remove him from the list. It appears to me that the amendment would actually lessen the protection for a provisionally listed person in that it allows him to remain on the list pending a tribunal hearing even where, for instance, the Secretary of State cannot say that the employer was reasonable to conclude that he risked harm to a vulnerable adult.
The procedure that we are proposing whereby the Secretary of State simply confirms or ends listing following written observations, following the process undertaken by the employer which will be subject to registration by the national commission for care standards or to direction by government in the case of the NHS, ensures that cases will be decided on a reasonable basis, and that at the end of day we keep the balance that is so very much needed in all these arrangements.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, before the Minister concludes, can he say how the civil servant will judge whether someone is suitable to be a care worker, without interviewing that person?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the whole basis of these arrangements rests on the paperwork
780
that will be provided and upon which a judgment can be made as to whether the employer has acted reasonably on the basis of the disciplinary procedures. The tribunal exists to allow for a full hearing of the facts.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's explanation of his unwillingness to accept my amendment. I have to say that his final comment does not deal with my point. In seeking to judge the second limb of the judgment—the first is the reasonable dismissal and the second is whether the worker is suitable to work with old people—I do not know of any employer on earth who would seek to make that judgment without seeing the person in respect of whom the judgment is to be made. I should have thought that that, of itself, would work in favour of this amendment.
However, I have to accept what the Government have said. I believe that the argument about the delay is a canard; indeed, it is up to the complainee to decide whether or not he wants to risk delay by going to see the civil servant exercising such huge powers. As regards employment law protection, I have made it clear again and again that the workers who are at most risk under this procedure of victimisation by employers are those who have not yet reached the stage of being protected by the employment law because they will not have served a full year in employment. I am most disappointed.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that the remaining provisions in the Bill will ensure, through registration by the national care standards commission, that employers do have proper provision in place to deal with such issues?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Yes and no, my Lords. Even under the most fulsome codes of arrangement in, for example, dismissal, the noble Lord will find that gross cases of employee failure or breach permit the employer to sack the employee instantly. There will be cases where that will happen within the code that the Minister has said will be laid down by the Government in guidelines and, therefore, the people about whom we are concerned will not be protected. Moreover—and I return to the issue—if someone has served under one year in employment, his protections will be sketchy in any event.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the whole basis of the Bill is the effective regulation of the establishments about which we are talking. Through the national care standards commission we can ensure that the proper procedures are in place to deal with such issues. This will not be guidance; it will be effective regulation of the care sector. The very reason for having this Bill is to deal with the sort of homes that the noble Lord has mentioned. We must see this as a package of measures.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am trying hard to do so. However, as someone who has practiced

781
the law for 35 years, I must make the point that it is all very well for the. Minister to say that the Government's guidelines will provide a system of adjudicating disciplinary procedures should one of these clashes arise; but it will be a disciplinary procedure exercised, run and decided by the employer. We have an independent employment appeals tribunal because such clashes will be between the employer and the employee. If there is unjustness in the way that the employer Ls exercising those disciplinary rights, the employee will not be able to go to the tribunal and will not, we believe, receive adequate protection under the Bill. That is why we persist in thinking that this is an important matter, which goes to issues of victimisation and, ultimately, to the confidence of employees in the whole procedure. However, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, while expressing the reservation that I may wish to revisit the matter at the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]
11.15 p.m.
Clause 73 [Employment agencies and businesses: duty to refer]:
[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
Clause 75 [Applications for removal from list]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 117:
Page 46, line 24, at beginning insert ("Subject to section (Conditions for application under section 75),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return to further discussion on protection of vulnerable adults. Amendments Nos. 117 to 122 concern applications by listed people under the protection of vulnerable adults scheme to have their names removed from the list. At present anyone so listed can apply to have his or her name removed after being listed for a period of 10 years. That means full listed for 10 years: any period of provisional listing does not count for these purposes.
We are proposing easements to this scheme. First of all, we have an amendment to allow the tribunal to grant leave to an individual to be able to seek a review not just once after the first 10 years, but to be able to apply for review at subsequent 10-yearly intervals. I believe that that reflects our discussions on the then Protection of Children Bill as it progressed through the House. I am glad that we have been able to make that change.
In our discussions on the Protection of Children Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the issue of young workers who might be affected for life by being placed on the list. We certainly think that in those cases the option of a review after 10 years could be too harsh on a worker who was aged under 18 at the time of listing. These young workers would have been juveniles at the time of their listing. We are therefore bringing forward amendments to provide for such young workers to be able to apply to have their names removed from the list after a period of only five
782
years—and, again, at five-yearly intervals. We think it right to make this distinction between workers listed as juveniles and those listed as adults.
There are two other amendments in this area. The first requires the listed person to prove that he is suitable to work with vulnerable adults before his name is removed. At first sight this might appear to be lessening the rights of the listed person. However, we think it right in these instances that the individual should take on the burden of proving that he is now suitable to work with vulnerable adults. He will be at an advantage over anyone else seeking evidence about his life since he was listed.
The other amendment allows the tribunal to remove a person from the list only where his circumstances have changed in such a way that it is proper that his name should be removed from the list. With these amendments we think that we have achieved a proper balance between the protection of the public and the rights of the worker when it comes to considering removing workers' names from the list.
We are also making amendments to Schedule 3. Amendment No. 203 allows the tribunal to obtain the evidence it needs for the purposes of a review. Amendment No. 204 requires the Secretary of State to consult the National Assembly for Wales before he makes regulations on related matters which will affect Wales.
In the protection of vulnerable adults scheme we are seeking to identify individuals who harm vulnerable adults and ban these individuals from the workforce. Since the Bill was last in your Lordships' House, we have further considered the definition of "harm". We are now putting forward Amendment No. 149 to provide for an extended definition of "harm" that takes into account the particular needs of adults who are mentally impaired. Amendment No. 150 provides a definition of what we mean in this Bill by an adult who is mentally impaired. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 118 to 122:
Page 46, line 24, leave out ("has been included (otherwise than provisionally)") and insert ("is included").
Page 46, line 25, leave out ("for a continuous period of at least ten years").
Page 46, line 30, leave out ("not").
Page 46, line 30, leave out ("remains") and insert ("is no longer").
After Clause 75, insert the following new clause—
CONDITIONS FOR APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 75
(" .—(1) An individual may only make an application under section 75 with the leave of the Tribunal.
(2) An application for leave under this section may not he made unless the appropriate conditions are satisfied in the individual's case.
(3) In the case of an individual who was a child when he was included (otherwise than provisionally) in the list, the appropriate conditions are satisfied if—

(a) he has been so included for a continuous period of at least five years; and

783

(b) in the period of five years ending with the time when he makes the application under this section, he has made no other such application.

(4) In the case of any other individual, the appropriate conditions are satisfied if—

(a) he has been included (otherwise than provisionally) in the list for a continuous period of at least ten years; and

(b) in the period of ten years ending with the time when he makes the application under this section, he has made no other such application.

(5) The Tribunal shall not grant an application under this section unless it considers—

(a) that the individual's circumstances have changed since he was included (otherwise than provisionally) in the list, or, as the case may be, since he last made an application under this section; and

(b) that the change is such that leave should be granted.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 85 [Welfare of children in boarding schools and colleges]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 123:
Page 51, line 37, leave out ("registration") and insert ("appropriate").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a group of amendments which are purely minor corrections or consequential amendments to other legislation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 124:
Page 52, line 14, leave out ("registration") and insert ("appropriate").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 86 [Suspension of duty under section 87(3) of the 1989 Act]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 125 to 134:
Page 53, line 22, leave out ("registration") and insert ("appropriate").
Page 53, line 25, leave out ("registration") and insert ("appropriate").
Page 53, line 27, leave out ("registration") and insert ("appropriate").
Page 53, line 30, leave out ("registration") and insert ("appropriate").
Page 53, line 42, leave out ("registration") and insert ("appropriate").
Page 53, line 44, leave out ("registration") and insert ("appropriate").
Page 53, line 48, leave out ("registration") and insert ("appropriate").
Page 54, line 2, leave out ("registration") and insert ("appropriate").
Page 54, line 4, leave out ("registration") and insert ("appropriate").
Page 54, line 21, leave out ("registration") and insert ("appropriate").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
784
Clause 87 [Boarding schools: national minimum standards]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 135:
Page 54, line 33, leave out ("registration") and insert ("appropriate").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 88 [Annual fee for boarding school inspections]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 136 and 137:
Page 54, line 45, leave out ("registration") and insert ("appropriate").
Page 55, line 2, leave out ("registration") and insert ("appropriate").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 91 [Nurses Agencies]:
[Amendment No. 138 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 139 and 140:
After Clause 92, insert the following new clause—
SCHEMES FOR THE TRANSFER OF STAFF
(" .—(1) This section and the next apply to a scheme made under section 37, 67 or 69(2A) for transferring eligible employees.
(2) Subject to those provisions, such a scheme may apply to all, or any description of, employees or to any individual employee.
(3) Such a scheme may be made by the appropriate Minister, and a recommendation may be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order containing such a scheme, only if any prescribed requirements about consultation have been complied with in relation to each of the employees to be transferred under the scheme.").
After Clause 92, insert the following new clause—
EFFECT OF SCHEMES
(" .—(1) The contract of employment of an employee transferred under the scheme—

(a) is not terminated by the transfer; and

(b) has effect from the date of transfer as if originally made between the employee and the transferee.

(2) Where an employee is transferred under the scheme—

(a) all the rights, powers, duties and liabilities of the old employer under or in connection with the contract of employment are by virtue of this subsection transferred to the transferee on the date of transfer; and

(b) anything done before that date by or in relation to the old employer in respect of that contract or the employee is to be treated from that date as having been done by or in relation to the transferee.

This subsection does not prejudice the generality of subsection (1).
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not transfer an employee's contract of employment, or the rights, powers, duties and liabilities under or in connection with it, if he informs the old employer or the transferee that he objects to the transfer.

785
(4) Where an employee objects as mentioned in subsection (3), his contract of employment with the old employer is terminated immediately before the date of transfer; but he is not to be treated, for any purpose, as having been dismissed by that employer.
(5) This section does not prejudice any right of an employee to terminate his contract of employment if a substantial change is made to his detriment in his working conditions.
But no such right arises by reason only that, by virtue of this section, the identity of his employer changes unless the employee shows that, in all the circumstances, the change is a significant change and is to his detriment.
(6) In this secticn—
"date of transfer" means the date of transfer determined under the scheme in relation to the employee;
"transferee" means the new employer to whom the employee is or would be transferred under the scheme;
and expressions wed in this section and in the provision under which the scheme is made have the same meaning as in that provision.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 95 [Orders and regulations]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 141 and 142:
Page 57, line 5, leave out ("of the Secretary of State") and insert ("conferred on the Secretary of State, the Assembly").
Page 57, line 6, after ("Act") insert ("except an order under section 37 or 69(2A)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 143:
Page 57, line 7, at end insert—
("(1A) An orde' making any provision by virtue of section 96(2) which adds to, replaces or omits any part of the text of an Act shall not be made by the Secretary of State unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I brought forward an amendment in Committee which required the order-making power in subsection (2) of what is now Clause 96 to be made by the affirmative procedure. The Minister was kind enough to accept my amendment in principle but offered to suggest an alternative form of wording. This he has done and my Amendments Nos. 143,144 and 145 are the result. I am most grateful to him for his help in this matter.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I explain that the amendment to Clause 95(1) requires orders under Clause 96(2), which are made by the Secretary of State in relation to England and which change an Act, to be subject to the affirmative procedure. It does not therefore bite on regulations made by the National Assembly for Wales. This is because the Government of Wales Act 1998 gives the National Assembly the power to decide its own procedure in respect of making subordinate legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I am very happy to accept the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howemoved Amendments Nos. 144 and 145:
Page 57, line 8, leave out ("Any such statutory instrument") and insert ("Subject to subsection (1A), an instrument containing regulations or an order").
Page 57, line 9, leave out from ("98") to ("shall") in line 10.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 146 and 147:
Page 57, line 13, leave out from ("the") to end of line and insert ("Assembly to make regulations or an order under this Act: and subsections (4) and (5) apply to any power of Her Majesty to make an Order in Council under section 67").
Page 57, line 28, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("person exercising the power").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 96 [Supplementary and consequential provision etc.]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 148:
Page 57, line 35, leave out (", instrument or document") and insert ("or instrument").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, asked in Committee why the term "document" was included in Clause 96(2). This clause provides the power to make any transitional or consequential amendments to other legislation to assist with the implementation of this Bill. Having reflected on the matter, I cannot envisage a situation where we would want the Secretary of State to amend any "documents" by order and Amendment No. 148 simply removes the term "document" from that clause. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I rise merely to say, "Thank you very much".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 97 [General interpretation etc.]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 149 to 156:
Page 58, line 6, leave out from (""harm"") to end of line and insert—

("(a) in relation to an adult who is not mentally impaired, means ill-treatment or the impairment of health;

(b) in relation to an adult who is mentally impaired, or a child, means ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development;").

Page 58, line 47, at end insert—
("( ) an adult is mentally impaired if he is in a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind (including a significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning).").
Page 59, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) References in this Act to a child's being looked after by a local authority shall be construed in accordance with section 22 of the 1989 Act.").
Page 59, line 5, at end insert—
("(4A) Section 84(1) of the Government of Wales Act 1998 (payment of Assembly receipts into the Consolidated Fund) does not apply to any sums received by the Assembly by virtue of any provision of this Act.").

787
Page 59, line 8, at end insert—
("(5A) Subsection (5) does not affect the power to make further Orders varying or omitting that reference.").
Page 59, leave out line 20.
Page 59, line 26, at end insert—
("Independent clinic and independent Section 2") medical agency
Divide Clause 97 into two Clauses, the first (Wales) to consist of subsections (4A), (5) and (5A) and the second (General interpretation etc.) to consist of subsections (1) to (4) and (6).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 98 [Commencement]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 157:
Page 59, line 30, after ("except") insert ("section 67(2) to (2C) and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 99 [Short title and extent]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 158:
Page 59, line 36, leave out ("extends") and insert ("and, so far as relating to subsections (2) to (2C) of that section, sections (Schemes for the transfer of staff), (Effect of schemes) and 95 extend").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Commission and the Council]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 159:
Page 60, line 6, at end insert—
("(2) In this Schedule, in relation to the Welsh Council—

(a) references to the Secretary of State or to Parliament are to be read as references to the Assembly;

(b) references to the Comptroller and Auditor General are to be read as references to the Auditor General for Wales.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 160:
Page 60, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) co-operating with other public authorities in the United Kingdom;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is clearly essential that the councils should have the power to relate to other bodies to be able to give the public the full measure of protection we intend for them. Amendment No. 160 will provide the councils with this flexibility.
If the councils are to undertake their functions properly and to protect the public, the English and Welsh councils will clearly need to co-operate with each other. Further, they will need to co-operate with equivalent bodies that may be established in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. The kinds of areas in which we see the UK councils co-operating are in exchanging information about people who are refused registration, removed from a register, or who have some kind of qualified registration.
788
This is a very useful schedule. It sets the pattern for the way in which we would like there to be co-operative arrangements across the UK in the future. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Clement-Jonesmoved Amendment No. 161:
Page 60, line 24, at end insert ("and two of the members of each such authority shall be current users of services regulated under this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I know that the Minister, even at this late hour, has a horror of lists. We have had enough debates on previous Bills to know that.
The amendment seeks to add two service users to the commission itself. I do not believe that that is unduly extending the provisions of Schedule 1. It is extremely important that service users should be on the commission in order to inform its work.
In putting forward the amendment I take inspiration from a document which the Scottish Executive put out in December 1999 called Regulating Care and the Social Services Workforce. I am sure that the Minister will also take inspiration from his counterparts in Scotland, even though the Government Chief Whip may shake his head in these circumstances. Perhaps I may quote to the Minister a little of that document which I believe is extremely instructive. It states,
"The involvement of people who use care services is central to our plans, as is the confidence of the general public in the work of the Commission. We therefore propose that at least one-half of the Commission membership will comprise people using services, their carers or their representatives. In appointing these members, Ministers will take account of the diversity of people using care services in terms of age, gender and ethnicity".
This amendment is considerably more modest than that, but I commend it to the Minister. I believe that there are very strong reasons which have been put forward by the Scottish Executive as to why those care users should be on the commission. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 162 to 167 inclusive standing in my name, along with Amendments Nos. 170 to 175 inclusive and Amendments Nos. 178 and 183.
As regards Amendments Nos. 162 and 163, in Committee we devoted only a relatively short time to the composition of both the national care standards commission and the general social care council. I felt that this was an issue that merited further debate because the membership of each of these bodies and the range of skills within that membership will be absolutely critical to their success and to their public credibility.
It would have been very easy to put down the type of amendment which resembles a shopping list, and I thought that, as far as possible, I would try to avoid that temptation. As I said before, my concern about this Bill is that it was geared up as a vehicle for the regulation of what might loosely be termed "social

789
care"—in other words, the whole spectrum of activities which currently fall under the aegis of local authority social services departments.
The inclusion of private healthcare within the same regulatory framework is, on the face of it, a gross anomaly. I said in Committee and I say again, that this element of the Bill almost has the look of a last minute bolt-on extra. I guess that that is not so far from the truth when we reflect that only a few months ago the Government were giving us to understand that private healthcare would be regulated by a body completely separate from the regulator of social care. That is why I believe that the focus of both the commission and the GSCC and the equivalent bodies in Wales should be balanced and that that balance should be reflected in the professional expertise present in the membership.
In Committee the Minister said that he was not drawn to the idea of making board members representative of individual interest groups. I thought that that was rat her an underhand way, if I may say so, of dismissing what I believe to be the legitimate concerns of a number of us. I am not talking about interest groups, but about professionalism. It would be very helpful if the Minister could give us some idea of the expected composition of these bodies. In particular, I shall be grateful if he will say something about their clinical and medical focus. It seems to me that unless we are very careful, the focus on social care will be next to total. I believe that that would be wrong.
Amendment No. 178 in my name, which is very similar to Government Amendment No. 177, proposes the appointment of a director of independent healthcare as someone senior on the staff of the commission with specific responsibility for regulating the private health sector. I am further proposing that this individual, along with the chief officer—and because the post is so important, the children's rights director—should be members of the commission—in other words, that they should be appointed to the board.
If we are really going to have a single regulator for social care and private healthcare, then we cannot isolate the one from the other, not least because the experience of being in care is for many people a complex product of health and care services combined. The way in which those services are delivered determines how people feel about being in care. I hope that the Minister can provide some reassurance on those amendments.
I turn now briefly to the remainder of the amendments grouped in my name and to one of the very few issues debated in Committee which gave rise to considerable dismay on this side of the House as a result of the Minister's response. It is the issue of the regulation of healthcare in the independent sector and the structures to be established in the national care standards commission to exercise that regulatory function.
We have been told by the Government that they intend, within the commission, to see a separate division established to handle the regulation of private and voluntary healthcare. I believe that such a division
790
may be workable. But if it is to do its job in a way that commands public confidence, it cannot be just another section or department within the commission; it must have a weight and standing that reflects the technical complexity and diversity of its remit.
I make no tendentious comparison with the regulation of social care, I merely say that the two could not be more distinct. Those charged with the regulation of acute private hospitals have to know their job and be seen to know it. Furthermore, the expertise of those in charge of the division should be brought to bear at board level within the commission as a whole. There is nothing wrong with a statutory framework for the committee that directly oversees that division. My amendment proposes a structure for such a committee to be laid down in regulation with its functions and procedures to be similarly defined.
One particular feature of the committee which I need to mention is the inclusion of a member of the Commission for Health Improvement. That is a small, but I hope significant, step toward achieving that which many of us on this side of the House want to see, which is consistency of clinical standards throughout the public and private healthcare sectors.
When in Committee I had expected to hear from the Minister some substantive information about the separate division that the Government proposed, but unfortunately we did not, either as to its functions or its structure. I hope that the intervening two and a half months have enabled some further thought to be devoted to those issues. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it was at a late hour when we rushed through these matters in Committee, and I am afraid it is rather late for us to be discussing these matters tonight. Like the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I think that it is important because the quality of leadership that we wish to see within the NCSC is absolutely crucial in terms of the regulatory system. I am sorry that I disappointed the noble Earl with my replies in Committee. I am certainly prepared to try again.
Perhaps I may first of all speak to the issue of the regulation of private healthcare. I know that some concern has been expressed about the relative importance and emphasis that the commission will place on its responsibility for regulating independent healthcare. I have no reservations about that. It will be an important task of the commission. And in our monitoring of the commission we will wish to ensure that the commission fully recognises that importance. I do recognise that an additional reassurance is required. Amendment No. 177 is placed before the House to require the commission to appoint a director of private and voluntary healthcare. That director will be a member of staff of the commission. His or her functions will be prescribed in regulations. Exactly what is prescribed is a matter for further consideration. But the fact that we are doing this ensures that the importance of the private and

791
voluntary healthcare regulatory elements are fully considered and that a senior member of staff will have direct responsibility for that.
As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has pointed out, the requirement to appoint a healthcare director is one of the points raised by Amendments Nos. 164 and 165. But he proposes that the healthcare director as well as the chief officer of the commission and the childrens' rights director and the chair of the independent healthcare committee ought to be a member of the commission's board. I do have reservations about that. The members of non-departmental public bodies have a different function to that of senior staff. Accordingly, most of those bodies will not have staff as members. Indeed new Cabinet Office guidance for NDPBs—a guide which was actually published yesterday—confirms this position, where it says that it is unusual for staff of the NDPB, excluding its chief executive to sit on its board, and there is a general presumption against it.
I should like to reassure the House that, although the persons named would not be entitled to vote, we would expect them to attend and to be able to reflect their work interests at meetings of the commission's membership. That would be essential in keeping members of the commission informed. We intend the majority of the commission's 15-strong membership to be lay members. If all the other directors and the chief officers were to be members of the board, there would be much less scope for appointing non-executive members with the experience and skill relevant to the functions of the commission.
I turn now to the noble Earl's other amendments, Amendments Nos. 167 and 170 to 175. These amendments propose the establishment of a healthcare committee of the commission. I dismayed the noble Earl on the previous occasion. I have to say to him that it seems to be unnecessarily bureaucratic to specify such a committee. We have indicated our resolve to ensure that the commission undertakes its responsibility for regulating healthcare effectively by requiring the appointment of a healthcare director. That director will head the division within the commission. The introduction of a committee would simply add a further layer of administration which is not warranted. I also believe that it might have the adverse effect of detracting the commission itself from a focus on private and voluntary healthcare. Because of the presence of a statutory committee it might tend to push concerns in relation to that sector on to that committee rather being focused on it as a corporate body in its own right.
I have sympathy with Amendment No. 161. We have made it clear that lay members will be in a majority on the commission and the council. Service users will be included among these lay members. The direct involvement of service users will be an integral part of the credibility and success of these new bodies. Ministers will be responsible for making all the appointments to these bodies. I can assure the House that we aim to appoint at least two service users as members of each. However, some practical difficulties
792
will have to be faced up to. We cannot be sure that there will be suitable service users who are willing and able to serve as members. It is unlikely, for example, that a resident of a nursing home or of a residential care home for older people will be able to participate sufficiently as a member of one of these authorities, and of course children will not be eligible. For those reasons, I cannot accept the amendment, but I certainly agree with the spirit of it. I very much hope that we shall be able to find at least two service users to appoint to each body.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 162 and 163. These amendments provide that persons appointed to the membership of the commission or council should have appropriate skills. It is plainly the case that in addition to a lay majority, the commission and the council will need members with both the relevant skills and experience of the type of work which these new bodies will undertake. However, as I said in Committee, I do not think it is appropriate for me at this stage to reserve individual places for particular professional disciplines on the membership of these new bodies. I shall not go over the ground again, but I reaffirm the Government's intent to ensure that the new authorities each have the right balance of skills and experience.
I end as I started. We are all committed to getting very high quality members of these organisations who will come from different backgrounds and have different skills but who, together, will make a very strong impact on the work of these organisations.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, unfortunately, the Report stage procedure means that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, cannot reply to what the Minister has said. I found his reply something of a curate's egg. I welcome his statement about Amendment No. 161. I recognise that there may be practical difficulties and that perhaps it is not totally appropriate to include Amendment No. 161 in primary legislation. But I accept the noble Lord's assurances that there will be strong service user representation. I look forward to seeing that in due course.
As at Committee stage, even at this late hour the Minister disappoints me in relation to the committee. I do not propose to take up the time of the House by unpicking the arguments. However, I do not believe that to characterise the proposals as bureaucratic, or possibly as pushing on to that committee matters which should be spread more evenly across the commission, holds a great deal of water. It may well be that we shall return to this matter at a later stage, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 162 to 167 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 168 and 169:
Page 61, line 6, after ("must") insert ("pay or").
Page 6I, line 12, after ("him") insert ("or make provision for the payment to him of").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 170 to 175 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 176 and 177:
Page 61, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert—
("(3) Arty subsequent chief officer is to be appointed by the authority.").
Page 61, line 33, at end insert—
(".—(1) The Commission shall appoint a director of private and voluntary health care, who is to be a member of the staff of the Commission.
(2) The director shall have such functions as may be prescribed.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment Vo. 178 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 179:
Page 61, line 36, leave out from ("(3)") to ("on") in line 37 and insert ("staff appointed by an authority are to be appointed").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, although Amendment No. 180 has already been spoken to, I must point out that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 181.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 180:
Page 61, leave out lines 39 to 43 and insert—
("(2A) Without prejudice to its powers apart from this paragraph, an authority may pay, or make provision for the payment of—

(a) pensions, allowances or gratuities;

(b) compensation for loss of employment or for reduction of remuneration,

to or in respect of staff appointed by them.
(3) The Secretary of State may give directions as to—

(a) the appointment of staff by an authority (including any condition; to be fulfilled for appointment);

(b) their term and conditions; and

(c) any other provision that may be made by the authority under sub-paragraph (2A).

(3A) Sub-paragraphs (2A) and (3)(c) apply to the first chief officer as they apply to other staff.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 180.
Earl Howe: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may speak briefly to Amendment No. 181, which raises some important issues. One of the most important tests of the credibility of the national care standards commission will be the conduct of inspections. The manner in which inspections are carried out and the consistency of approach will largely determine the way that the commission is viewed. Achievement of the right style and consistency does not depend simply on specialised knowledge. Inspection reqdres particular skills which can be acquired by experience and training. Those skills are
794
important if those who are inspected are to feel more capable, where that is the appropriate outcome, rat her than cast down after a visit by an official inspector.
The fear has been expressed to me that current inspection teams will simply be transplanted into the new commission and all will go on as before. We should be absolutely clear that that will not do. I do not wish to make generalisations or issue sweeping criticisms, but the fact is that some inspection teams contain people who are wholly unsuited to the job. It is the poor standard and inconsistency of inspections which has in no small degree given rise to this 13i11. I believe that there should be some kind of revalidation process to ensure that the same poor standards are not perpetuated and that inspectors have the opportunity to refresh and update their skills at appropriate intervals.
Anecdotally, there is evidence that inspectors of care homes overstep the bounds of reasonableness and professionalism in their current practice. I have heard of one local authority area where inspectors already require care homes to meet the standards set out in Fit for the Future? even though they have absolutely no status in law. They make it quite clear that immediate implementation of the standards is a condition of the local authority placing further contracts.
There is worse. There are numerous stories of owners and managers being brought to a state of near nervous breakdown by the spiteful behaviour of inspectors who have abandoned all pretence of objectivity in the wake of the Shipman case and Waterhouse report. Aggressiveness and a climate of fear are commonplace. One care home recently had 11 unannounced visits in the space of a month, some of them in the night. In another case, inspectors have taken advantage of minor breaches such as a failure to display a certificate to intimidate owners into doing anything they say. That is the background to the amendment I have tabled.
Perhaps one of the most sensitive environments in which an inspector may be called upon to operate is the private home. The inspection of a fostering or adoption agency may well involve an inspector visiting private domestic households in order to asses the ability of those running the services to promote the welfare of the children, and generally to manage the services properly. In that situation, the privacy of those who care for children as adoptive or foster parents must be respected. It might well be good procedure when an inspector visits a private household for him always to be accompanied by an officer of the agency or the local authority, as the case may be. The regulations issued for inspectors should at the very least list the range of qualities and experience that are required. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide me with some reassurance on all these issues which I regard as of the highest importance.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I hope that with the leave of the House I may reply. The noble Earl raises some critical matters. He will know that I believe

795
that the new regulatory system will lead to a more professional and consistent approach to inspection than we have had. Equally, I fully accept that both the quality of leadership in terms of the members we appoint to the commission and the staff and the way they behave will be crucial, particularly in those first few months and years. They will set the pattern for the future. I am entirely sympathetic to the points he has raised.
If there are instances under the current system where inappropriate actions are being taken by inspectors, I urge noble Lords to draw them to my attention, because we can look into those matters. It is clear that even under the current regulatory system we have the right to expect that the inspection process should be conducted in a responsible, reasonable way.
Of course, there are instances where the current system is not working well. Some of that is perhaps down to poor quality staff involved in inspections. But, before I rush to condemn individuals, I must say that I believe it is more symptomatic of the problem that such inspection does not work well when operated by over 200 to 300 statutory agencies. With the new regulatory system, and the new commission, we shall have the ability to provide the consistency, training and infrastructure which will lead to a more professional and responsible approach. I also believe that there are many good people involved in the inspection regimes whom we shall be very glad to have transferred to the employment of the new commission and council.
I accept the points in relation to training. It is essential that people have proper training development and keep their skills up to date. There is a general power for the appropriate Minister to issue directions with regard to the way the commission exercises its functions under Clause 6(2) and for the councils under Clause 51(4). Training will be an ongoing operational issue, and the existing general provision in those clauses will be used to ensure that inspectors receive full and appropriate training.
I can assure the noble Earl that the Secretary of State will issue directions to the commission and councils to ensure that their staff receive proper training; and they will be monitored in order to ensure that that occurs. I hope that I have satisfied the noble Earl.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 181 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 182:
Page 62, leave out lines 5 and 6.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 183 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 184 to 187:
Page 62, line 21, leave out from ("may") to ("make").
Page 63, leave out line 40.
796
Page 64, line 3, at end insert—
(" In the Government of Wales Act 1998—
(a) in section 118(2) (meaning of "Welsh public records"), after "referred to in subsection (1)(e) are—" there shall be inserted—
"(aa) the Care Council for Wales;"
(b) in Schedule 4 (public bodies subject to reform by Assembly), after paragraph 3 there shall be inserted—
"3A. The Care Council for Wales." and
(c) in paragraph 14(2) of Schedule 9 (bodies subject to investigation by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman), after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted—
"(ab) the Care Council for Wales;"").
Page 64, line 4, leave out paragraph 26.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Child Minding and Day Care for Young Children]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 188:
Page 64, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) a residential family centre").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 189 to 205:
Page 68, line 36, leave out ("(registration by National Care Standards Commission)").
Page 68, line 44, at end insert—
("Disabled Persons (Services, consultation and Representation) Act 1986 (c.33)
In section 2(5)(d) of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 (rights of authorised representatives of disabled persons), for "a residential care home within the meaning of Part 1 of the Registered Homes Act 1984" there shall be substituted "a care home within the meaning of the Care Standards Act 2000".").
Page 69, line 6, leave out ("(registration by National Care Standards Commission)").
Page 69, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) In section 19(I)(c) (review of provision of day care), for "section 71(1)(b)" there shall be substituted "Part XA".").
Page 69, line 36, leave out ("64(4)") and insert ("64").
Page 69, line 36, after ("homes),") insert ("in subsections (1) and (4),").
Page 70, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) in subsection (1)(i), after "71(1)(b)" there shall be added "or with respect to which a person is registered for providing day care under Part XA";").
Page 70, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) in subsection (5), after paragraph (h) there shall be inserted—
"(hh) person who is the occupier of any premises—

(i) in which any person required to be registered for child minding under Part XA acts as a child minder (within the meaning of that Part); or

(ii) with respect to which a person is required to be registered under that Part for providing day care;"").

797
Page 71, line 37, leave out ("In section 467(2) of the Education Act 1996,") and insert ("The Education Act 1996 shall be amended as follows.
( ) In section 467(2) (provision of information about registered and provisionally registered schools),").
Page 71, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) In section 469(4) (notice of complaint by Secretary of State), after "school is" there shall be inserted "unsuitable to work with children or is for any other reason".").
Page 71, line 39, leave out from ("471(2)(a)") to end of line 41 and insert ("(determination of complaint by Secretary of State), after "school is" there shall be inserted "unsuitable to work with children or is for arty other reason".").
Page 72, line 5, leave out ("I 15(6A)") and insert ("115").
Page 72, line 5, after ("certificates),") insert—
("( ) in subsection (5)(e), for "or" there shall be substituted "registration for child minding or providing day care under Part XA of that Act or registration";
( ) in subsection (6A)").
Page 72, line 20, after ("under") insert (", or by virtue of,").
Page 72, line 22, leave out ("or 75") and insert (", 75 or (Conditions for application under section 75)").
Page 72, line 25, after ("(3A)") insert ("The regulations may also include provision for enabling the Tribunal to make investigations for the purposes of a determination under section 75 or (Conditions for application under section 75) of the Care Standards Act 2000; and the provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (3)(j) and (k) above includes provision in relation to such investigations.
(3B)").
Page 72, line 26, at end insert—
("(3C) Before making in regulations under this section provision such as is mentioned in subsection (2)(c) or (d) above, the Secretary of State shall consult the National Assembly for Wales."").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 206 to 209:
Page 73, line 4, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("appropriate Minister").
Page 73, line 18, leave out ("to the Secretary of State").
Page 73, line 20, leave out ("Commission") and insert ("registration authority").
Page 73, line 22, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("appropriate Minister").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
798
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 210 to 215:
Page 73, line 32, at end insert—

("1958 c. 51.

The Public Records Act 1958.

In Schedule 1, in the Table at the end of paragraph 3, in Part II, the entry relating to the Care Council for Wales.")

Page 73, line 32, at end insert—

("1963 c. 33.

London Government Act 1963.

Section 40(4)(i).

1970 c. 42.

Local Authority Social Services Act 1970.

In Schedule 1, in the entry relating to the Mental Health Act 1959, the words "and the Registered Homes Act 1984 so far as its provisions relate to mental nursing homes", and the entry relating to the Registered Homes Act 1984.")

Page 74, line 23, column 3, leave out ("definition of") and insert ("definitions of "nursing home",").
Page 74, line 24, column 3, at end insert ("and "residential care home".").
Page 74, line 48, at end insert—

1992 c. 53.

Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992.

In Schedule 1, the entry relating to the Registered Homes Tribunals constituted under Part III of the Registered Homes Act 1984.")

Page 75, leave out lines 28 to 42.

Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments and recommitted to a Committee of the whole House; Bill ordered to be printed as amended.
House adjourned at ten minutes before midnight.

  Westminster Underground Station: Faulty Lift
  Westminster Underground Station: Faulty Lift
  Aircraft Noise: Local Authority Powers
  Aircraft Noise: Local Authority Powers
  Local Authority Deliberations: Public Access
  Local Authority Deliberations: Public Access
  Civil Servants: Death in Service
  Civil Servants: Death in Service
  UK Bicentenary: Union Flag Commemoration
  UK Bicentenary: Union Flag Commemoration
  Media Interviews of Government Ministers
  Media Interviews of Government Ministers
  Ministers' Letters to Members
  Ministers' Letters to Members
  Ethnic Minorities: Senior Adviser Post
  Ethnic Minorities: Senior Adviser Post
  BSE: Forecast Incidence
  BSE: Forecast Incidence
  Debt Relief to Poorest Countries
  Debt Relief to Poorest Countries
  Cinema and Theatre Seat Sizes
  Cinema and Theatre Seat Sizes
  Tourism and the Euro
  Tourism and the Euro
  DCMS Projects: Evaluation Criteria
  DCMS Projects: Evaluation Criteria
  Spoliation Advisory Panel
  Spoliation Advisory Panel
  Museums: National Lottery Applications
  Museums: National Lottery Applications
  Museums: VAT on National Lottery Grants
  Museums: VAT on National Lottery Grants
  Vehicles Used for Crime: Forfeiture
  Vehicles Used for Crime: Forfeiture
  Asylum Applicants: Dispersal Information
  Asylum Applicants: Dispersal Information