Sitting of 24 April 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
  The Secretary of State was asked—

  Kyoto Protocol
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: What further representations Her Majesty's Government are making to the US Administration on the ratification of the Kyoto treaty. [157180]
  Jane Griffiths: What discussions he has had with the Foreign Secretary regarding President Bush's recent statement on the Kyoto protocol. [157184]
  Mr. David Rendel: If he will make a statement on the future of the Kyoto protocol. [157190]
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): As the Prime Minister has said, we continue to believe that the Kyoto protocol provides the best framework to deal with climate change. The President of the United States has said that he accepts the need for global action to combat climate change, but he has declared that he opposes the Kyoto protocol. He has ordered a review of US policy on climate change and the next round of talks has been deferred from May to July to allow the US more time to prepare its position.
  We obviously want to hear the views and ideas of the US Administration, but for our part, we think that the Kyoto protocol is the right way forward. At meetings in New York last week, Ministers from the European Union and around the world reaffirmed their overwhelming support for the Kyoto protocol.
  I have discussed the issues with the Foreign Secretary and he has raised climate change with the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell. My Cabinet colleagues and I will continue to raise climate change in discussions with our US counterparts. I hope that we can find agreement on a way forward in July.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Kyoto protest rally that will take place on 5 May at the American embassy and of the campaign to get Coca-Cola, which funded the toxic Texan, to persuade him to change
  150
  his mind on Kyoto? Will he confirm that it is vital that everyone who cares about the future of the planet does everything possible to get US policy back on track?
  Mr. Prescott: I am aware that a number of protests have taken place since the President declared that he was against the Kyoto protocol. Protests and discussions have taken place not only internationally—I have referred to the meeting that took place in New York last week—but in America itself. Debates, discussions and protests will no doubt take place, as will the one on 5 May to which my hon. Friend referred. They will undoubtedly be taken into account in the presidential review.
  Jane Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend join me in being much encouraged by the talks that took place at the weekend and by the united front that has been presented by all countries except the United States? Will he also join me in hoping that the fool on Capitol Hill changes his ways before it is too late?
  Mr. Prescott: I am well aware of the extent of the protests against the President's statement on the Kyoto protocol and a number of measured statements have come out of the United States Administration since then. As the Americans have asked to delay the meeting of COP 6—the sixth conference of the parties—until July, we should wait to hear what they have got to say. The President has called a cabinet discussion and review on the matter, so I hope that we will know more in July.
  Mr. Rendel: Given that the Climate Change Bill, which has been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), would do no more than put on a statutory footing the targets for CO2, emissions that were set out in the previous Labour party manifesto, will the Secretary of State ensure that no Labour Member will oppose the Bill's Second Reading on Friday?
  Mr. Prescott: The Government have made it absolutely clear that, in playing an active part in the Kyoto negotiations and in bringing to the House policies that would observe those objectives, we will fulfil our policy commitments. That does not mean piddling on the side as Liberals tend to do on such matters.
  Mr. Michael Jack: On the position of the United States on climate change, President Bush has suggested that there may be an enhanced role for nuclear power to help in the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. What efforts are the Deputy Prime Minister and his Department making to enthuse others in the British Government about the contribution that nuclear power can make in the United Kingdom further to help to meet our Kyoto targets?
  Mr. Prescott: It is clear that, in the discussions at COP 6 and since Kyoto, the question of nuclear energy has been highly controversial in European nations and in developing countries. The overwhelming opinion is against the involvement of nuclear energy. As it forms part of the energy requirements of several countries, it is best to leave it out of such judgments. Decisions have not yet been taken.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that President Bush's decision has

  151
  nothing to do with the American economy—America is ideally poised to take advantage of renewable technologies—and everything to do with the money that was used to fund the Republican party's presidential election victory? Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure me and the House that this Government will never bow to such financial pressure? Will he also join me in saying that he will boycott all American products from companies that support the rejection of the Kyoto protocol?
  Mr. Prescott: I hope that the hon. Gentleman makes that point to the Welsh Development Agency, which is constantly over there asking for American investment in Wales. However, I take his point. We have set out our programme and, as I understand it, the climate change levy was somewhat controversial in certain business sectors. We have shown courage in getting on with our policy and in meeting the commitments that we have given. I wish the hon. Gentleman good luck with his policy.
  Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: On the environment, my right hon. Friend will be aware that former Tory MP Tony Marlow and his long-term partner Jill Chambers are about to trial genetically modified crops at Mathry in my constituency. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern that that is causing locally and will he agree to meet a delegation from my constituency to discuss those matters?
  Mr. Prescott: I note what my hon. Friend says.
  Mr. Archie Norman: We share the Deputy Prime Minister's support for the Kyoto protocol, but does he recall the comments of his spokeswoman before his trip to the United States? She said:
  "this is a crucial chance…the first meeting on climate change since the talks at The Hague."
  Does he also remember his intemperate attack on the US Administration when he said that its exports would be made to suffer and Anglo-American relations should be put into "deep freeze"? Was that all just macho man bluster? While in the United States, whom did he meet at a senior level of the Administration to discuss the matter? Exactly what sanctions did he have in mind?
  Mr. Prescott: The problem with the hon. Gentleman is that he believes too much that is put in the press. As I understand it, the same papers went on to say that discussions on the Kyoto agreement would not take place at the United Nations conference when, in fact, they took place on every day—on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday. The hon. Gentleman is reacting to those press reports and took the chance to make a statement, but he is wrong. We got on with the Kyoto negotiations.
  Mr. Norman: I note what the Deputy Prime Minister says about the press and it might be useful if I quote from it. It reported:
  "'There will be a chance for bilateral talks' said a spokeswoman for Mr Prescott."
  The Times said:
  "Mr Prescott has issued a warning that American firms would see their European exports suffer if they persisted in rejecting Kyoto."
  152
  The truth is that the answer to my question is yes, it was all bluster—the same bluster that led to the fiasco of the Hague talks. The right hon. Gentleman's own officials said afterwards that he had no scheduled meetings with the US Administration and it was all a public relations exercise. When he looks back on the past four years, will he reflect on the facts that the Kyoto protocol is in disarray; the Hague talks collapsed as a result of his actions; Britain's carbon emissions are rising; and the Americans regard his contribution as ridiculous? Such diplomatic ineptitude might go down fine in old Labour, but it does not do much for our relations on climate change.
  Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman continues to prove my point: he puts too much faith in press reports. I did not have a meeting with the Administration, nor did I seek one when I visited Washington. The meeting that I had was set up to talk to the Secretary of Transportation about the aviation deal. That is precisely what I said I would be doing. I did not have a meeting with the Administration because they had made it clear that they did not know what their policy was. Why should I have a meeting to find that out? Would it not be better to wait until July, which is precisely what I am doing? As to whether I have been inept, in my four years in government I am proud of playing a major part in bringing about the Kyoto agreement. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will find things to be proud of in his political life, but he certainly has not yet.

  Cycling
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: What action he plans to take to make cycling safer. [157181]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Robert Ainsworth): The Government's road safety strategy, "Tomorrow's roads: safer for everyone", sets out our strategy to make cycling safer. It embraces measures that cyclists can take to protect themselves, including wearing cycle helmets, training and making it safer to cycle on the road through engineering measures. Further measures to educate drivers will also be of benefit.
  Mrs. Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he commend Cambridge university for its innovative park and cycle scheme that is due to open on Thursday? It offers not only secure cycle parking, but a safe and easy route to cycle into the centre of Cambridge. Does he agree that that is a commendable scheme that should be copied by others?
  Mr. Ainsworth: A great deal of good work on cycling has been done in Cambridge because it has a far higher proportion of cyclists than elsewhere in the country. Much of the town's work over the years is to be commended. Many of its initiatives have improved cycling safety in the city and set good examples for others to follow.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the splendid example set by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin)

  153
  and the bicycling baronet, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), both of whom have done much to promote cycling.
  Apparently, flashing lights on cycles are illegal, and one is supposed to have a steady light. However, a flashing light is much more readily seen by motorists, particularly in wet conditions. May I urge the Minister to change the regulations in that respect?
  Mr. Ainsworth: I congratulate anybody who tries to encourage more people to cycle. I am not sure how the 10-minute journey cycled by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) contributes to that cause, but I am sure that it is having an effect. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) chose not to mention his bowler-hatted cyclist colleague on the Back Benches.
  There are minimum standards for cycle lights, and there is nothing to stop cyclists having flashing lights in addition to steady lights that meet those minimum requirements. I shall look into the matter, and if we believe that a change would improve safety, we will consider it.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: All Tory cyclists are well known flashers, as the Minister knows. Is it not safest to cycle in a dedicated cycle lane, instead of using the little yellow lines that simply attract motorists to try to knock down cyclists such as me as I come to Parliament? Will the Minister talk to Westminster city council about having dedicated cycle lanes in the centre of London? We are the worst city in the world for cycling and it is a disgrace that that Tory council will not give London cyclists lanes to ensure that they can travel round the centre in safety.
  Mr. Ainsworth: As part of local transport plans we now expect local authorities to produce and update, a cycling strategy, which will include measures to make cycling safer. My hon. Friend knows that we have provided £8.4 billion in the local transport settlement, so there is no excuse for local authorities such as Westminster to continue to neglect that matter.

  Congestion Taxes
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: What recent discussions he has had with local authorities regarding the introduction of congestion taxes. [157183]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Through the charging development partnership, my Department is engaged in continuing discussions with a number of English local authorities about the role that congestion charges may have in relieving local traffic problems and promoting wider travel choice through improved public transport services and facilities. As the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, his county council of Hampshire, which I was pleased recently to designate a centre of excellence for integrated transport planning, is a member of the charging development partnership, and last
  154
  year was allocated £300,000 to carry out several studies into the implications of road pricing and workplace parking charges, to assist its decision making on those matters.
  Mr. Swayne: The Minister will be aware that not all local authorities can match the standards achieved by Hampshire county council. Will he assure the House that he will refuse any application to implement such a charge unless the local authority can demonstrate a clear and appreciable improvement in public transport prior to the application?
  Mr. Hill: I am happy, if slightly surprised, on this occasion to agree with the hon. Gentleman on both points. Any proposal for a charging regime is subject to the final approval of the Secretary of State, and one of the criteria that he will examine is whether there are already clear commitments to, and achievements in, improving local transport.
  Ms Hazel Blears: As chairman of the all-party motorcycling group, I am delighted that the Government, through the motor cycle advisory committee, have acknowledged the significant contribution that motor bikes and powered two-wheelers can make to reducing congestion and pollution. I appreciate that this is a matter for local authorities, but will the Minister encourage local authorities to consider exempting motor bikes and powered two-wheelers from congestion charges?
  Mr. Hill: I am grateful for that characteristic intervention from my hon. Friend, Blears the bike. The Government appreciate warmly the contribution that motor bikes and powered two-wheelers can and do make to the reduction of congestion and pollution on our roads. I am sure that local authorities contemplating charging regimes will want to bear in mind those important considerations.
  Mr. Robert Syms: Is this not another example of the Government's vendetta against the motorist? Not only do we have the highest petrol price in Europe as a result of the Government's policies but, in the London scheme, a motorist who has to travel in every day could end up paying £1,250 a year. Residents, including many who are council tenants, could end up paying a charge of £130 for owning a car, whether or not they use it. Is not the Minister ashamed that, yet again, Labour has broken its pledge of no new taxes?
  Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman does his best to make his point. In all seriousness, not only is congestion a cause of immense frustration to the travelling public, but it costs the economy billions of pounds every year. Every study has concluded that congestion charging is the most effective way to cut congestion, but essentially it will be for local authorities to make their own decisions. As I have indicated, the Secretary of State will have the final say and will look for evidence of local consensus and robust plans for local transport improvements. We have stipulated that, at least for the first 10 years, all proceeds of congestion charging must be ploughed back into local transport improvements.

  London Underground
  Mr. Mike Gapes: If he will make a statement on the future of the London underground. [157185]
  Mr. Prescott: The Government are fully committed to the public-private partnership, which will produce £13 billion over the next 15 years to refurbish and modernise the London underground—more long-term investment than ever before. The PPP will mean better safety and better value for money; it will guarantee that London Underground stays in the public sector.
  In that context, I regret the fact that Transport for London has initiated legal proceedings against London Underground. I understand that the board of London Transport expects to meet on 2 May to consider its decisions on preferred bidders, with which it plans to conclude negotiations for the two deep tube contracts once legal proceedings have been resolved.
  Mr. Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me and my constituents, who are increasingly frustrated by delays, which have continued for many years, in getting an adequate level of investment for our public transport in London? Is it not time that we just got on with the job of investing the resources that are needed in London instead of engaging in petty posturing, which is happening in some quarters?
  Mr. Prescott: The essential issue for the underground, as everyone who has looked at the problem knows, is long-term investment. Previous Governments, both Labour and Tory, have all been involved in giving inadequate resources to the London underground; those resources were even cut every two or three years. One cannot plan long-term investment in the underground by having an uncertain safety and investment programme. Our Government are addressing themselves to long-term investment which will bring in that £13 billion and will not be subjected to the cuts that Governments tend to impose on capital programmes once they are in office and face economic difficulties.
  Mr. Peter Brooke: After four years, what do Londoners have to do to achieve genuine activity and improvement on the London underground?
  Mr. Prescott: First, voting Labour is a good proposal, as Londoners will shortly do in increasing numbers. In the past four years, we have averaged £500 million of investment in the underground each year, while the record of the previous Administration was £360 million. We shall point out that comparison to Londoners when talking about our major and substantial contribution to long-term investment in London Underground.
  Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he is engaged in a public relations war with the Mayor of London, and that
  156
  he is losing the war? To what does he attribute that failure, and what does he expect to have to do to win the PR battle?
  Mr. Prescott: I hope that the battle will be fought on the substance and the facts, rather than on public relations, although I agree that taking advertisements at £15,000 a time in the Evening Standard is one way of going about it. If I suggested doing that on Parliament's budget, the Mayor and his team would be the first to say that it was wrong. I have no intention whatever of doing that, but I have published a statement of the facts and made it available to the Evening Standard, which refused to print it. That is one of the difficulties, but I shall continue to make my case.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: When will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that the PPP represents four wasted years of failure? What does he have to say to Peter Bishop of the London chamber of commerce, who yesterday said:
  "London's transport system is failing on every front";
  or to the chairman of British Airways, who said yesterday that London faced being "left standing" by cities with a superior transport infrastructure; or to London First, which complains of
  "continued political interference and lack of leadership"
  over key projects?
  How many major transport projects has the right hon. Gentleman's Department initiated in London since Labour came to office? Has he the courage and honesty to admit that the answer is not one? Are not Labour's four wasted years on the wretched tube PPP the crowning failure of the Government's record on transport in London?
  Mr. Prescott: To be fair, I would have to include the investments started by the previous Administration. It takes a considerable time for the effects of those to be felt. That is an answer to those who say that we are not getting an improvement in London transport: it is a long-term process. The extension of the docklands light railway—[interruption.] I am not saying that that did not take place, but the fact that such investments have been made belies the statement that nothing is being done for transport in London—
  Mr. Jenkin: What have you done?
  Mr. Prescott: What we are proposing—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Minister answer the question.
  Mr. Prescott: The charge is made that nothing is being done for London transport. An awful lot of money has been poured into London transport for such projects as the docklands light railway and the Jubilee line, which we had to continue to finance. We must now make sure that London Underground gets guaranteed long-term investment—not the sort of policy promoted by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), which would mean that the subsidy for the underground would have been reduced to £161 million, and by this year to zero. That is the priority that the Conservatives give to London Underground. We are looking to a £13 billion investment.

  157
  As to the Tories' position on the underground, one moment they want to privatise it, then they want to nationalise it, and once it is nationalised, perhaps they might put it back into private ownership. That is typical of the Tories: they never take a long-term decision.

  Mobile Telephone Masts
  Mr. David Amess: What recent representations he has received on the criteria for granting planning permission for the erecting of mobile telephone masts. [157186]
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Our Department has received a range of representations on planning arrangements for telecommunications over the past year. On 16 March, I announced a series of important changes to the planning system on the siting of mobile phone masts which significantly strengthen public consultation requirements.
  Mr. Amess: Why have the Liberal-supported Labour Government not yet acted positively on the recommendations of the Stewart report? Will the Minister explain to my constituents how, in a heavily populated, tiny urban area, these monstrosities are being erected all the time? Local residents protest, the council tries to intervene, the matter goes to appeal, yet the masts stay up. Can we have some action from this rotten Liberal-supported Labour Government?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is carried away by the flights of his own fantasies. I can assure him that the Government have acted on the Stewart recommendations. We have acted by strengthening the public consultation arrangements, and by ensuring that all base stations meet the international exposure guidelines; we have set in train an audit of base stations, starting with schools; we have set up a national database with details of base stations; and we are launching a new £7 million joint industry-Government research programme. Those are all actions undertaken by the Government to ensure that the public interest is safeguarded while we facilitate the continued roll-out of a mobile phone network on which 40 million people in this country depend.
  Mr. George Stevenson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the changes that he mentioned with regard to strengthening public consultation will remove the anomaly whereby a proposal for a mast of 15 m in height only requires prior approval from a local authority, whereas a proposal for a 20 m mast is subject to full planning permission?
  Mr. Raynsford: Under the new arrangements that we have announced, all applications for ground-based masts will be subject to a consultation period of 56 days, which is the period for all normal full planning applications. For masts under 15 m in height, there will be continuation of the prior approval procedure. Under that procedure, if the local authority does not reject the proposal within the 56 days, consent is deemed. In every other respect, the procedure will be the same as that for full planning approval.
  Mr. David Heath: Does the Minister accept that, although the improvement of
  158
  consultation measures is welcome, it does not bring radio masts into the normal planning permission regime? People throughout the country are asking why their local councils are incapable of enforcing the views of local people and communities because of the planning regime. That may have been good enough for the get-rich-quick 90s, but it is not good enough now. When will the masts be brought under proper planning control?
  Mr. Raynsford: Our procedures ensure that the public have as full an opportunity to comment on any new mobile phone mast application as that which they have under the full planning procedures, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware. The only difference is that if the local authority fails to reach a decision by the end of the 56-day period, consent is deemed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would want all local authorities to deal with planning applications expeditiously, as we do. Provided that they do so, there is no difference.
  Mr. David Lepper: I welcome the announcements that my right hon. Friend made in March, as, I am sure, do others. However, when he lays the final regulations that relate to those announcements, will he take into account the experience of my constituents in Mitre House, a block of flats in my constituency? My constituents found that they and the local council were powerless to prevent the erection of a mast on the roof of the building. Nothing less than full planning permission would satisfy the need for proper consultation.
  Mr. Raynsford: I assure my hon. Friend that under the arrangements that we have announced, roof-based masts will also be subject to the 56-day procedure. Currently, a separate 28-day procedure applies in respect of such masts, so there is a significant improvement. The doubling of the consultation period should ensure that my hon. Friend's concerns in respect of his constituents' views about such proposals are dealt with satisfactorily.
  Mr. Damian Green: I cannot believe that the Minister is convincing even himself with this flannel. Clearly, he is not convincing any of his colleagues. On 31 July last year, he said that he was
  "minded to introduce a requirement for full planning permission."
  He reneged on that statement, and his alternative proposals were rightly shredded by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which had a Labour majority. The Committee pointed out that he planned to
  "entrench the unpopular and confusing prior approval regime"
  and
  "entrench existing perverse incentives to operators to put up masts below an arbitrarily chosen height limit".
  Does he agree with his colleagues on the Committee that his policy is perverse, unpopular and confusing?
  Mr. Raynsford: As I recall it, the Trade and Industry Committee described our proposals in its most recent report on the subject as a carefully crafted compromise. That is exactly what they are. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen. They are a compromise because there are two conflicting pressures. There is concern among a very large number of our citizens who want to use mobile phones and want good reception. There are 40 million users. Equally, there is concern about

  159
  the adverse environmental and amenity impact, and about health matters. We have considered those concerns carefully and sought an appropriate compromise. I should like to quote the views of a particular person on this subject. He said:
  "people need reassuring and the planning guidelines do need changing. I don't think we need to smother the thing in bureaucracy and red tape, and mobile phone companies have to have the ability to put up the masts."
  I agree with those comments entirely. They come from the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), and I am sorry that he has not persuaded his colleague of the sense of his approach.

  Bus Travel
  Mr. John Grogan: What plans he has to encourage travel by bus. [157187]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): We are encouraging bus travel by a combination of policy and fiscal measures. They include: strengthened powers for local authorities under the Transport Act 2000 to improve the quality of bus services; statutory requirements to ensure that buses are fully accessible; guaranteed half-fare reductions for elderly and disabled people; a major boost to capital investment through local transport plans; and enhanced funding for rural and urban buses. That accounts for some £230 million over the next 3 years—a 35 per cent. increase on the subsidy paid by local authorities in 1997.
  Mr. Grogan: Will the Minister congratulate all those in Selby district who are involved in implementing the half-fare bus pass scheme, which comes into force there, as in the rest of the country, on 1 June? More than 6,000 pensioners have applied for it already. The pass is valid not only in Selby but for destinations throughout North Yorkshire and parts of West Yorkshire. Given the huge success and popularity of the scheme in rural areas, is there not a case for considering whether such bus passes should be valid not only in pensioners' home areas but throughout the country?
  Mr. Hill: I am delighted to hear of the welcome for the concessionary fares scheme in Selby; it is reflected throughout the country. Indeed, 7 million elderly and disabled people stand to benefit from the introduction of the guaranteed statutory half-fare travel concessions.
  My hon. Friend's second point was about the interchangeability of concessionary passes. That subject has frequently been raised with the Government, and we have asked the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK to consider it. We look forward to receiving its recommendations in due course.
  Mr. Don Foster: Does the Minister agree that if we are to encourage bus travel, it must be reliable, and decent travel information should be provided? Will he therefore explain why, since November 1999, when the Secretary of State set a target for reducing bus cancellations, they have rocketed to four times the target figure? Why has the Department published only a summary of the report that it commissioned about its plans for improving travel information? Is it because the
  160
  full report points out that many of the proposals are unrealistic? Will the Government publish the full report, with realistic proposals to reduce bus cancellations and improve transport information?
  Mr. Hill: Obviously, the report is available to the hon. Gentleman; he has his own arcane means of acquiring such documents. I do not dispute that some cancellation figures have worsened, hut they need to be set in the context of overall growth in the use of buses, especially in south-east England. All the signs are that the long decline in bus use which resulted from privatisation and deregulation under the previous Administration is coming to an end. We are confident of achieving our 10-year transport plan target of 10 per cent. growth and more passenger journeys.
  Mr. Jonathan Shaw: Does my hon. Friend know that later this year, pensioners in Medway will be able to travel for a 20p flat rate fare? Will he join me in welcoming that? It is not surprising that, while Liberal Democrat councillors were able to support Labour councillors in Medway, the Tories voted against the proposal.
  Mr. Hill: I am not in the least surprised to hear of that Conservative opposition to an extremely positive measure. One of the great satisfactions of the half-fare concessionary scheme is that, for the first time, senior citizens and disabled people in Conservative-run local authorities will be able to benefit from half-fare concessionary schemes. Because of the rural bus grant, some rural bus services—2,000 nationwide—are running for the first time in Conservative-controlled areas. That is a commitment to the countryside that the Opposition never contemplated in their 18 years of misrule.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: However attractive concessionary fares are—and I support concessionary fares for the disabled and the elderly—does the Minister accept that, whatever resources the Government put in to bus services, they will be inadequate to provide an acceptable quality of service in the more remote rural areas, and that the people who live in those areas will have to rely on their own cars? Does he accept that in many areas of the country, sufficient buses are not available to provide people with the quality of life that we all expect?
  Mr. Hill: I certainly accept that bus services are not extant in many areas of the country. That is why recently, in Cornwall, I was delighted to announce the parish transport fund initiative, which will provide £15 million for parishes to originate their own transport schemes. Those could take the form of shared car schemes, of hiring in bus services for villages that have heretofore not been served by them, or of new taxi schemes in those localities. The announcement has been widely welcomed by the parishes, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the message about this opportunity back to his own locality.
  Ms Rosie Winterton: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that many companies are considering ways of persuading their employees to make more use of public transport, especially buses, for getting

  161
  to and from work. Will he support those companies, and will he discuss with Treasury Ministers whether financial incentives could be made available—for example, to enable companies to make season ticket loans to their employees?
  Mr. Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. The Government are, of course, open to any proposal that serves to enhance the provision of public transport services. I know that many companies run their own coach services, which play an important role in a public transport context, although they are run specifically for the companies' own employees. The Commission for Integrated Transport has considered the issue of fuel duty rebates in connection with coach services, and I know that it will certainly take such matters into its future remit.

  Council Tax Benefit Subsidy (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Peter Luff: If he will make a statement on the council tax benefit subsidy payable to Worcestershire county council. [157188]
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Council tax benefit subsidy is paid by the Department of Social Security to billing authorities. Therefore, as a major precepting authority, Worcestershire county council does not receive council tax benefit subsidy.
  Mr. Luff: That disingenuous answer from the Minister covers up the truth, as she well knows. She knows that her Government have monstrously cut the subsidy payable to Worcestershire, and that the roots of the huge increase in council tax—[Laughter.] I am sorry that Labour Members find a 45 per cent. increase in council tax in Worcestershire over the past four years a laughing matter. It is not a laughing matter at all. The roots of that increase lie in the incompetence of the Lib-Lab pact that runs Worcestershire, and in the Government's rigged funding for all shire counties. Is not the cut that the Minister knows her Government have made in council tax benefit subsidy a stealth tax on a stealth tax, which the very poorest can least afford?
  Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman is clearly very disappointed that more people in Worcestershire are now working, and are therefore not eligible for council tax benefit. The amount going to all districts in Worcestershire is £12.8 million. That is not a reduction. There is a slight decline in the percentage, because there is a decline in the number of people out of work and benefiting from the subsidy. The hon. Gentleman rails about council tax, and he is right: in Tory counties, council tax is higher than in any Labour county.

  Planning (Chelmsford)
  Mr. Simon Burns: If he will make a statement on the impact of his planning criteria in the Chelmsford local authority area. [157189]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): The Government's policies are designed to promote more sustainable patterns of development,
  162
  reconciling the need for new development with the need to conserve the countryside and the character of our cities, towns and villages. It is for Essex county council, in its replacement structure plan, and Chelmsford borough council, through its borough local plan, to ensure that policies in national and regional planning guidance are taken into account in their areas.
  Mr. Burns: Is the Minister aware that people living in the village of Boreham, in the Chelmsford local authority area, are appalled at the thought of having 2,000 houses imposed on them by Liberal Democrat-controlled Chelmsford borough council—part of the overall amount of housing that the Government are inflicting on Essex and the south-east? Is the Minister also aware that there is bitter resentment of the fact that 2,500 of the 12,500 houses that Chelmsford must take are intended not to meet Chelmsford's housing needs but to relieve pressures in the south of the county? People in Boreham—in my area—are asking why the Thames gateway cannot take the 2,500 houses which, although they are being inflicted on them, are needed because of the increased employment and industrial building in the Thames gateway that the Government require.
  Ms Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will know my responses to those questions, because he asked them during an Adjournment debate not long ago. He will also know that the question of the land allocated for housing in his constituency is still open to consultation—and that in the regional planning guidance just published by the Government, the annual housing figures for Essex as a whole during the first five years of the relevant period are lower than they were in the 1994 regional planning guidance. Furthermore, he will know that the previous Government directed three councils in Essex to increase their housing numbers, and imposed 20-year figures through their regional planning guidance procedure. Ours, by contrast, is a bottom-up process, involving redistribution of housing on a regional basis.
  The people of Chelmsford will know that the Tories' policy on these matters is in complete disarray. On the one hand—as we saw today, when they launched their bus—they propose a Nimbys' charter, giving every local authority the right to veto and to renege on its housing responsibility. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) told Show House magazine only a few months ago:
  "We all live in the real world. I've been involved in development myself and I recognise that unfortunately it is inevitable we will lose some countryside…We're not in any sense anti-housebuilding, we're the friend of housebuilders".

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Jim Dobbin: What progress he has made in transferring freight from road to rail. [157191]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Our policy is to help to establish an integrated, sustainable freight distribution system to support economic growth and bring social and environmental benefits. Our 10-year transport plan sets out our long-term plans for rail freight. We have already provided over

  163
  £100 million in grants to move freight from road to rail or inland waterways; we have issued guidance to local authorities to facilitate more use of rail for freight; and we have established a Strategic Rail Authority with a duty to promote rail freight.
  Mr. Dobbin: Does the Minister accept that there is an imbalance in a process that allocates the equivalent of about £7 billion in Government funds to the road haulage industry over 10 years, and £3.4 billion to rail freight? That makes it difficult for rail freight to compete. The Treasury should consider creating a level playing field; that would help the funding process, and would also help the Government to achieve their environmental and economic targets. It would enable much more freight to be transferred from road to rail.
  Mr. Hill: I recognise my hon. Friend's powerful commitment to the expansion of rail freight. The Government fully support that objective where it provides value for money.
  There is good news. My hon. Friend will recall that on 5 April the Rail Regulator published his provisional conclusions on rail freight charges. His proposals halve access charge revenues paid by freight operators to Railtrack, and bring greater transparency to the charging regime. Over the next five years, the bill for that income reduction will be about £450 million. As part of the announcement on Railtrack earlier this month, the Government have agreed to fund that through the Strategic Rail Authority. That is in addition to the massive £4 billion in public and private funding set out for rail freight in the 10-year plan, and represents a significant further contribution to the Government's objective of achieving 80 per cent. growth in rail freight traffic by 2010.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: The Minister will be aware of my personal interest in Railtrack and FirstGroup, and will probably have received representations from the Potter Group of Melmerby in Vale of York, which is particularly anxious for its businesses at Selby and Ely to benefit from rail freight grants. Would the Government see fit to extend such grants to smaller operators such as the Potter Group, rather than to big players such as English Welsh and Scottish?
  Mr. Hill: I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing my attention to the opportunities. The Government are eager to take up any opportunity for the extension of rail freight facilities. The grants vary in scale. They range from £60 million recently allocated to a major port rail freight development in Bristol, to less then £1 million. I will take the hon. Lady's words away and look at the opportunities that they represent.
  Mr. David Watts: Does my hon. Friend agree that the development of a north-west direct freight line to Europe is crucial to the well-being of the north-west? Will he assure me that he will do all he can to promote that development, and that he will help with parliamentary time to ensure that a Bill gets through the House to make the scheme viable? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Hill: "Before the election," my hon. Friends mutter. If my hon. Friend is talking about the re-use of
  164
  the Woodhead tunnel, the Government are enthusiastic to see that development. In much of my transport life over the past quarter of a century, I spent the whole of my time campaigning for that reopening. I am aware that it is part of the Northern Spirit franchise bid, which is now before the Strategic Rail Authority.
  I think that my hon. Friend was alluding to the Central Railway proposal. The Strategic Rail Authority is carrying out a review of the scheme. Until we know the result of that, it would be inappropriate for the Government to comment on the company's proposals, and in particular its request for a hybrid Bill.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does the Minister accept that the wrong way to drive freight on to rail is by having the highest fuel prices in Europe? Is he aware that freight companies in the west midlands are filling their lorries up in Belgium, Holland and France? Does he know that diesel in Britain is twice the price of diesel in Croatia, for God's sake?
  Mr. Hill: I cannot imagine what the hon. Gentleman has against poor little Croatia, but the costs of motoring and road haulage need to be taken in the round. Innumerable costs are imposed on our continental counterparts, including social costs and toll road costs, which are not imposed on British road hauliers. Taken in the round, there is a level playing field in that regard.
  Angela Smith: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the proposed development for a new container port in my constituency, which has the potential to create up to 10,000 new jobs? Although that has been welcomed by many people, there is still some concern about the amount of extra traffic, particularly freight traffic, that it will generate. Given that there is already a direct rail link from the site to the main rail network, will my hon. Friend consider meeting the company concerned, and Railtrack, as proposals progress, to ensure that as much freight as possible travels by rail?
  Mr. Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As Britain's shipping Minister, as well as a junior transport Minister, I am well aware of the proposals for major new port installations. Of course I will be happy to meet the promoter of the scheme. I will have the opportunity to look at those matters more thoroughly tomorrow morning when I visit Thurrock district council.

  Second Homes
  Mr. Andrew George: What recent assessment he has made of the operation of the council tax system with respect to second homes. [157192]
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): In the rural White Paper, which was published in November 2000, the Government proposed, subject to consultation, to give local authorities discretion to charge the full council tax on second homes. We are currently preparing a consultation paper, which we intend to issue later this year.
  Mr. George: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but is she satisfied that, after four years of this Government, my constituency still contains communities

  165
  where homeless people live cheek by jowl with those who are the owners of second homes? Does the Minister agree that it is no longer acceptable that £200 million of taxpayer's money should be spent on subsidising the second homes of wealthy people when many thousands of rural folk do not even have their first homes? If so, why do the Government not get on with the task and introduce legislation now, instead of issuing consultation papers? Four years on, let us see some action.
  Ms Armstrong: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have a statutory duty to consult. There are many reasons why some homes will remain empty. We want to make sure that we give people incentives to bring back into use homes that have been empty for a long time. We also want to look at the problem of homes that are empty because of this year's flooding. We want to be sure that the exemption scheme can be administered by local authorities, so that issues of local importance can be dealt with. For that reason, the consultation process must go further than the issue of second homes. At present, the exemption regime extends beyond second homes. We must get that matter right, so that all local authorities have the exemptions that meet the needs of people in their areas.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Surely the Minister knows that such a scheme has operated successfully in Wales for many years. Can she not get on and do something about this matter? We all know that the consultation that she announced to change the council tax funding formula has been delayed again and again. Is it not time that she either took action or left office and let us do so?
  Ms Armstrong: I am always grateful for advice from the hon. Gentleman, who was so successful in persuading the previous Conservative Government to act that his party judges his seat to be one of the most vulnerable in the country. The Government will get on with doing things, and we will make sure that we take people along with us. That is why we will consult—to ensure that we produce legislation appropriate for the introduction of the necessary changes.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfort): Does the Minister accept that the council tax system that operates in Wales remains a fairly blunt instrument when it comes to controlling the over-development of holiday and second homes in some communities? Given the Minister's commitment to give local authorities the maximum freedom in such matters, will she consider creating a new planning category for such homes? That would give local authorities control over granting or withholding planning permission if there is to be a change of use.
  Ms Armstrong: The right hon. Gentleman goes way beyond the question. As he knows, Welsh local authorities can exercise discretion over council tax in their areas, but the planning regime is a different matter. The rural White Paper contained announcements on council tax, but not
  166
  on planning. We are concerned that all local authorities should be able to act in the interests of the residents for whom they have responsibility. That is why the Government have been moving forward the agenda for local authorities in England. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will push the Welsh Assembly to do the same in Wales. As he knows, I have no responsibility for that.

  M6 Motorway
  Mr. Stephen Day: What plans he has for widening the M6 motorway. [157193]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I should point out that after years of confusion and delay under the previous Administration, work has now started on the Birmingham northern relief road. That road will relieve congestion on the M6 motorway through Birmingham between junctions 4 and 11.
  However, I presume that the hon. Gentleman's primary concern is with the section of the M6 between Birmingham and Manchester. That transport corridor is at present the subject of a multimodal study that is looking into capacity problems and possible solutions, including scope for modal shift. Widening the M6 is certainly one of the options being considered. At this juncture I cannot comment further, as the study has yet to report
  Mr. Day: The Minister gives no comfort whatever to my constituents, either about the M6 or about other schemes such as the Manchester airport eastern link road and the Poynton bypass, all of which the Government have put away into multimodal transport study schemes. People in the area want action. Congestion is solved by building the roads that have public support. Will the Minister please get them built?
  Mr. Hill: If the hon. Gentleman and his constituents feel so passionately about these matters, I am rather surprised that they were not carried further forward under the previous Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "They were."] I am aware that there have been—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Minister answer. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) should know better.
  Mr. Hill: I am aware that there have been proposals at various stages of development for the widening of the M6 between junctions 11A and 19, and for the A556(M)/M6/M56 link, which have been remitted to the multimodal study. Work on phase 2 of the study is well under way, with a number of options under consideration including road schemes, metrolink, railbus, use of road space, and freight and transport charges. The steering group is engaged in consultations with local authority members to inform them of the initial results and to seek views and guidance on the development of the preferred strategy, which, as I have indicated, will be reported to the Government in due course.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House will know that on 10 April the Prime Minister held a 15-minute telephone conversation with Motorola's president, Chris Galvin, in an attempt to stave off the closure of the Motorola plant in West Lothian. You may know, Mr. Speaker, that Motorola has now confirmed that it is to close the plant, with the loss of 3,000 jobs. Has the Prime Minister or any other Minister come to you wishing to make a statement to the House?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall call the constituency Member of Parliament the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on that point of order.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is in sorrow that I ask how any of us can understand—I wonder whether it is for reasons of devolution—the fact that there is neither a statement nor a private notice question on Motorola, where 3,200 people lost their jobs this morning. It is beyond comprehension.
Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry that so many people are facing job losses in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. However, it is not a matter for the Chair as to whether a Minister makes a statement.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If a Minister did ask to make a statement on this devolved issue, would you allow him to do so?
Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman please repeat his question? I was distracted.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I asked whether, if a Minister did request to make a statement on this devolved issue, you would allow him to do so.
Mr. Speaker: Of course I would not stop a Minister making a statement—I would not dream of doing so.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As someone who was born within a few miles of the Motorola plant, I know that your expression of sympathy for the area will be much appreciated. I am glad of your clarification, because although I would be delighted if the Scottish Parliament were responsible for all these matters, there are a number of aspects, not least those relating to social security and the Prime Minister's intervention, that could properly have been raised by the constituency Member of Parliament if a Minister had deigned to make a statement.
Mr. Speaker: That is a not a point of order. However, no one is more experienced in finding the time and means to raise a matter such as this before the House than the hon. Member for Linlithgow. I am sure that he will make every endeavour to see that it is debated or that a Minister comes before the House.

Protection From Smoking (Employees and Young Persons)
3.34 pm
Mr. David Taylor: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require employers to reduce or eliminate the exposure of their employees to passive smoking in the workplace; to protect children and young persons from such exposure in public places; and for connected purposes.
The Government's Advisory Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health has confirmed without equivocation that passive smoking causes cancer, heart disease and respiratory diseases. A seminal report on passive smoking and heart disease, published in 1997 by the British Medical Journal concluded that
"the effect of environmental tobacco smoke is not trivial, as is often thought. It is a serious environmental hazard and one that is easily avoided. The evidence on ischaemic heart disease warrants further action in preventing smoking in public buildings and in enclosed working environments."
My purpose is to respond to that recommended action. The Government have made great strides on their public health agenda. In late 1998, they published an excellent White Paper, "Smoking Kills", which observed that around 2,500 people die each week from illnesses directly related to smoking. Included in that horrifying figure are a sizeable number of people—the passive smokers—who contracted their illness from environmental tobacco smoke.
Passive smoking seriously damages the health and welfare of non-smokers. While the voluntary approach to reducing or eliminating dangerous exposure to noxious and toxic fumes has worked in numerous places, it has failed in many others. It will continue to fail unless the Government take action along the lines suggested in my Bill.
The House clearly believes that all employees deserve protection from the harmful effects of passive smoking while they are at work. Some 155 right hon. and hon. Members have supported early-day motion 173, on smoking in the workplace, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). Those signatories noted
"the recent survey of the Office for National Statistics showing that 89 per cent. of the public favour restrictions on smoking at work",
and that
"three million non-smokers are frequently or continuously exposed to second hand smoke at work".
The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 already requires employers to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their employees so far as is reasonably practicable. More than a quarter of a century after that Act's passage, however, and despite the progress made in recent years, the legal obligations and expectations placed on employers remain as hazy as the air that many of their non-smoking employees have to inhale.
The Government seem to have responded to that uncertainty. Within the range of measures to drive down tobacco fatalities, the 1998 White Paper encouraged the approach taken by the Health and Safety Commission in producing a draft approved code of practice—an ACOP—on smoking in the Workplace. That code would at last enable the 1974 Act to bear down on passive smoking,

169
but the Government have appeared slow to introduce it. The purpose of part I of my Bill is to require its introduction without further delay.
It is surely not unreasonable or impractical to require employers to do all that is reasonably practicable to comply with the 1974 Act, which so many of them seem slow or unwilling to do when it comes to passive smoking. In addition to possible prosecution under the 1974 Act, employers may be exposed to passive smoking legal proceedings through personal injury actions under common law. In addition, they can face proceedings through employment and contract law at industrial tribunals.
My Bill would provide employers with guidance on compliance. In essence, it would provide a series of defences against unpredictable legal actions brought under ambiguous and loosely defined law. We might expect widespread support for that from employees, the general public, the medical profession and lobby groups such as Action on Smoking and Health, and it is unsurprising that many employers are themselves beginning to call for measures of the type encapsulated it the Bill, not only to show that they comply with the existing law, but because there are wider benefits for them.
One such benefit is employee welfare. Firms already take care to provide appropriate working temperatures, comfortable work stations, adequate lighting and so on. The provision of clean air would be a further expression of a desire to improve working conditions. Improved productivity is another benefit. American estimates indicate a typical minimum productivity gain of 3 per cent. from a smoke-free place of work. There are further benefits from reduced cleaning costs and fewer fire risks: smoking causes one in eight accidental work fires. All in all, an approved code of practice on passive smoking at work will save money and increase profitability, so it achieves the triple target of making economic sense, as well as being environmentally imperative and socially desirable.
I turn briefly from part I to part II—moving from addressing the effects of passive smoking in the workplace to tackling its impact in public places. Most people think that more should be done to restrict smoking in public places. In restaurants, for example, the seven in 10 people who do not use cigarettes should not—if they do not wish to—have to breathe in smoke from the three who do use them. However, as the "Smoking Kills" White Paper observes, it is a question of balance; if a smoker wants to spend an evening in a bar or pub with friends who smoke or who do not mind other people's smoke, so be it.
As with an approved code of practice for workplaces—many of which are of course public places—the key to a better code for public places is what is reasonably practical. No code can force employers—such as those in the licensed hospitality trade—to do things that would cause them serious financial pain, or even drive them out of business.
The Government are to be congratulated on agreeing with the hospitality trade the broad principles of a public places charter. The charter envisages increasing provision
170
of facilities for non-smokers, a written policy on smoking—available to customers and staff—and a range of sensible, practical improvements to ensure that consumers are better able to choose whether to eat, drink or socialise in smoky atmospheres. The charter is welcome as far as it goes, but it is really the continuation of a voluntary approach, aimed at keeping legislation at bay—compliance levels are still low.
Part II envisages much tougher targets and tighter time scales, requiring those who provide services in public places to recognise non-smoking as the general norm where children and young people are important parts of their clientele. At present, the serious effects of environmental tobacco smoke on the young include childhood induction and exacerbation of asthma, bronchitis and pneumonia, middle ear infection and chronic respiratory symptoms.
In view of that litany of the health effects of passive smoking on the young, we really must take more vigorous action on their behalf. A major public health objective must be further measures to restrict smoking in indoor environments frequented by the young. That is precisely what my Bill aims to do.
We appear to be in the run-up to a general election and manifestos—like spring—are in the air. In my home area of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, a health promotion alliance has written a "Smoke Free Manifesto" as part of its campaign for that most basic right—the right to enjoy clean air, free of tobacco smoke. Two of the key ways of meeting that goal are to introduce more no-smoking policies in offices, factories, schools and other workplaces, and to introduce more no-smoking areas in public places such as leisure facilities, restaurants, buses and shopping centres.
The Government have indicated their broad support for an ACOP in workplaces and for consumer charters in public places. My modest measure aims to add thrust and teeth to the Government's warm words. Bryan Ferry was only partly right: smoke gets not only in your eyes, but also in your hair, on your clothes, in your lungs and bloodstream and on to your death certificate. It is especially important for us to protect innocent bystanders at work and play—passive smokers—from that tragic tobacco toll. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Taylor, Mr. Kevin Barron, Mrs. Liz Blackman, Mr. Ian Davidson, Mrs. Janet Dean, Dr. Ian Gibson, Dr. Brian Iddon, Mr. Gordon Prentice, Mr. Andrew Reed, John Robertson, Dr. Phyllis Starkey and Dr. Howard Stoate.

PROTECTION FROM SMOKING (EMPLOYEES AND YOUNG PERSONS)
David Taylor accordingly presented a Bill to require employers to reduce or eliminate the exposure of their employees to passive smoking in the workplace; to protect children and young persons from such exposure in public places; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 8 June, and to be printed [Bill 86].
Orders of the Day

  Finance Bill
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  (Clauses 1 to 3 and 16 to 53 and Schedules 4 to 11)
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 23 April], pursuant to Order.
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Clause 1

  RATES OF DUTY ON HYDROCARBON OIL
  3.45 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 1, line 18, leave out "0.4582" and insert "£0.4392".
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 28, in page 1, line 20, leave out "£0.4582" and insert "£0.4392".
  Mr. Salmond: I take great pleasure in moving amendment No. 27 and in speaking to amendment No. 28, both of them proposals tabled by my hon. Friends and me. This matter, too, may be relevant on Friday 8 June, unless the Government choose to accept the amendments and to change course on a very important issue that affects large areas of the country, but especially Scotland—the fifth largest oil producer in the world—which suffers from the highest petrol prices in Europe.
  During yesterday's debates on the Finance Bill, I was struck by the Treasury team's complacency in the face of a world economic environment that is moving into much stormier waters than the benign conditions enjoyed over the past four years. Given that the Treasury team, and the Chancellor in particular, were so quick to claim the credit for the past four years, they will, no doubt, also want to accept the responsibility for the economic difficulties that we are approaching.
  Earlier today, I saw the Chancellor making a speech, and he said that he was not complacent. He sounded pretty complacent to me, and I should have thought that the Treasury team would do well to understand that, although they may still have boom conditions in the south-east of England, they now have bust conditions in Bathgate.
  We also discuss the Finance Bill against the background of the Minister for the Environment yesterday making the point about the impact on the rural economy. Although these amendments would have an impact on every petrol consumer in the country, they are also designed to benefit the rural economy, which is hit first and foremost by high fuel prices. Yesterday, the Minister for the Environment told the House that the current estimate of losses caused to the rural economy by the foot and mouth outbreak amounts to some £140 million every single week, against which the Government's package of £200 million, as he claimed it to be, looks devastatingly inadequate to stem the economic impact on those important areas of the country. I make that point because the rural economy is hurt first and foremost by high and rising oil and petrol prices.
  172
  It is obvious that the Government's transport strategy—eventually unveiled only a few months ago by the Deputy Prime Minister—has still to make any serious impact on making alternative means of transport available to people in the rural economy. It is also obvious that, although oil and petrol prices are high across the country, in the rural economy, especially in the highlands of Scotland, we have the highest petrol prices of all. For a range of reasons, although the amendments would help every motorist and every petrol user, and hence every person who depends on goods purchased—fuel is a significant component of the costs—they are also designed to help the hard-pressed rural economy in particular.
  Under amendments Nos. 27 and 28, the duty would be reduced on ultra-low sulphur petrol and diesel by 2p a litre—about 10p a gallon. That would be in addition to the small but welcome reductions announced by the Chancellor in the Budget.
  It is time for the Treasury team to come clean about what they believed a couple of years ago petrol prices were likely to be in 2001. Two years ago, we in the Scottish Grand Committee debated a range of matters that affect petrol prices, and the late Donald Dewar made a clear statement about what the Government's expectation then was on the price of oil:
  "The oil price is likely to stay at about $10 to $12 a barrel at least in the foreseeable future. Therefore we are worlds removed from the oil prices and production levels of the mid-1980s."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 1 February 1999; c. 8.]
  We can take it from such an authoritative source that that was the Government's expectation just two years ago.
  At that time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer assumed that oil revenues would be £1.2 billion in the current financial year. In fact, the latest forecast is for oil revenues to be £5.9 billion, rising to £6.2 billion next year, and £5.4 billion and £5.7 billion in the two years after that. Even that forecast was based on the assumption that oil prices would be much lower than those prevailing at present. Two years ago, the Government expected oil prices to be roughly $10 to $12 a barrel, but the price is now $27 a barrel. The Chancellor has benefited massively in terms of the exploitation of Scottish resources and filling the Treasury's coffers, so it is entirely reasonable for these modest but important amendments to seek a further concession for consumers at the pumps.
  Mr. John Bercow: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but in the name of transparency, does he not agree that it would be helpful if the proportion of the purchase price of petrol that is represented by tax and excise duty were displayed at the pump or on the bills that customers receive?
  Mr. Salmond: I very much agree with that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, three quarters of the price of every gallon of petrol or diesel is made up of the various levies imposed. They include the specific fuel taxes and VAT. One important factor is that, as the price of fuel increases, the VAT obtained from every gallon of petrol also increases. Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that such information should be displayed on every petrol pump—that would be excellent for the transparency of fiscal policy—I suspect that the Treasury team would be not too keen on the idea.
  The Scottish National party produced a helpful pledge card and we distributed 500,000 of them last September during the fuel tax protests in Scotland. I would willingly

  173
  send such a pledge card to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). If he would like to distribute SNP publicity in England, I would be very pleased—as long as he promises not to advertise the fact too much.
  The hon. Gentleman made a fair point about transparency, but I suspect that the Treasury team are desperate, despite the rising price of oil, to prevent people from realising that 75 per cent. of the price of every gallon or litre of petrol is made up of Treasury charges of one kind or another. That fact clearly places responsibility where it belongs: on the Chancellor and his Treasury team.
  Two years ago, the Government expected a very different oil price environment and they have benefited massively from Scotland's resources pouring into the London Treasury. The Government expected the current price of petrol to be considerably lower, and that fact gives the lie to the suggestion that we sometimes hear—including from the previous Govertment—that the fuel price escalator and the approach taken to the price of petrol are entirely due to international obligations and the Kyoto summit. If the expectation that the price of a barrel of oil would be $10 had been realised, the price of petrol would obviously be much lower than it is. But it is not, and the Government have reacted incredibly slowly. It was only the pressure of the massive fuel price protests last September that led them to make any significant concessions at all and to fine-tune their fiscal position to take account of reality and the price that people paid at every petrol station in the country.
  The Treasury team would do well to recognise that, when the fuel price protests were under way, the country of England was so anxious that, if we believe the opinion polls, even the Conservatives, for a very brief period, looked like a tenable option for voters. Such was the public anxiety—and people would have to be extremely anxious to turn to the Conservatives—that pressure was brought to bear on the Government when the average price at the pumps was 80.9p a litre. The average price today is 78.9p a litre, with price rises expected in the next few weeks. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the Government will have to fight the election campaign with the price of petrol approaching £4 a gallon and a public who are extremely sensitive to the issue. Although it might be against my electoral interests to argue that the Government should accept the amendments, they would be wise not to take for granted the public's tolerance of current petrol prices and the increases in the pipeline.
  We know that last September the Prime Minister telephoned the oil companies to persuade them not to increase prices at the pumps, and there was a small delay. We saw again today the limitations of the Prime Minister's telephone calls when it comes to affecting major policy decisions. I dare say that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister—the man who has suggested, against the backdrop of a major industrial closure in Scotland, that it is appropriate to slash public expenditure there—are probably on the telephone to the oil companies pleading for the increases to be delayed until after 7 June. The public will not be fooled, because they do not find it acceptable that we have the highest petrol prices in Europe. They have seen through the Government's claim that prices reflect an environmental imperative rather than a fiscal accumulation, which is what actually lies behind the petrol price strategy, just as
  174
  surely as they saw through the previous Government who made the same claim when they kicked off the vast petrol price increases.
  The public's tolerance is now such that they will not accept the same cavalier attitude as was displayed until last September. The Treasury will be wise to have a damascene conversion in the next few hours and to accept our amendments, so that the price of petrol is reduced as it should be, given the vast accumulation of revenues in the Exchequer and the fact that oil costs $27 a barrel. I suspect that if the amendment were put to the population at large to determine, there would be vast support for it.
  We are debating the issue as we enter an election period. When it comes to the Division, all hon. Members will be wise to vote for a more reasonable attitude to the price of petrol at the pumps. That will help every motorist, every consumer who relies on purchasing goods for which the price of transport is important, and our rural areas that are especially hard pressed.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have great respect for the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), but I cannot recall taking part before in a debate initiated by the Scottish National party. I have no objection to doing so now. I congratulate him on tabling an amendment on an important subject. However, I am not totally persuaded by its literal terms, so I am not sure that I will join him in the Division Lobby.
  Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman raises an important topic for most of our electorate, certainly those who live in rural areas. A short discussion about tax levels on petrol and diesel is justified. I decided to speak in the hope that the Minister would take the opportunity to explain the Government's policy on that. This subject, above all other aspects of their economic policy, is something on which they have no consistency. Their most recent primary motivation has plainly been panic in the face of public opinion. They have been buffeted by events and give no inkling of the direction of their policy should they be returned to power.
  4 pm
  The explanatory notes to the Bill give the last great pronouncement of our Chancellor on his considered policy on this subject. They say:
  "In November 1999 the Chancellor announced that the appropriate level of fuel duties would be decided on a Budget by Budget basis, taking into account the Government's economic, social and environmental commitments."
  That seems to me largely to depend on the dates of an election, newspaper reaction to recent decisions and the public reaction to the levels of taxation which have been imposed, and that is not very satisfactory.
  The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that we are having this debate against the background of an interesting change in the economic climate, which affects all our discussions on the Bill. The Chancellor has at last recognised that he has not abolished the economic cycle. A marked slowdown is taking place in the American economy; there is some slowdown in the eurozone economy and some economic slowdown will take place here.
  A question should be asked of a Chancellor who has been very lucky in the past four years. I shall not talk about his inheritance, but I certainly think that he has been

  175
  lucky in the state of the world economy. He has managed to produce reasonable results by following fairly aberrant policies. He taxed too much when he did not need to, putting taxes on business, savings and pensions. He savagely restrained public spending for his first two years, and he now promises for the next three years massive increases unrivalled in this country since the days of the Heath Government which he thinks can be sustained by continued growth. All that may be changing, and I agree with what the hon. Gentleman just said about the Chancellor's apparent complacency about that—it fits in with my theme on fuel taxes. The time has come for a clear policy and a clear statement of where we are going, and I am not sure that that is what we will have.
  The Chancellor's approach to fuel prices when he came to office was very straightforward. It was very flattering of him to adopt what he said was my policy. Indeed, for some time I had been following the fuel tax escalator, having introduced it when we had the cheapest petrol and diesel in western Europe, a situation that, in my opinion, we had arrived at slightly by accident and without anybody really noticing or asking why. I made it clear when I stuck to the escalator during my time as Chancellor that I was doing so first because I needed to raise the revenue to deal with the state of the public finances. That is a matter for which the Chancellor should be grateful because he inherited very healthy public finances as a result of the tax and spend policies to which he had succeeded. Secondly, the escalator had environmental benefits, which I did not overstate, but I certainly thought that it was worth while to return to a higher rate of tax and a higher price for petrol and diesel to make people think twice about using their car and to make them look for efficiencies in their use of fuel, and that had environmental benefits.
  The Chancellor was very flattering—he took all that over and decided that the fuel tax escalator was now an essential part of his tax strategy. However, he increased the rate above inflation at which he was going to escalate fuel tax. He also increased the frequency of the increases by having two Budgets in one year, in both of which he applied the same escalator. He took over the escalator and accelerated it. He also forgot one of the rules of escalators which those who travel by public transport will recall, which is that one gets on at the bottom and one gets off at the top. This escalator was now to go on for ever, and according to this Chancellor, before last September, fuel taxes were going who knows where. At that stage, we were already the most expensive country in western Europe for the motorist and the haulier, and the Chancellor was firmly committed to carrying on with the fuel escalator for the foreseeable future, come what may.
  As a tax policy, that was catastrophic. It was one of the Chancellor's more elementary errors. People have often quoted Colbert saying that the art of raising taxation is to pluck the feathers of the goose but to get as many feathers as one can with the minimum of hissing. The Chancellor chose one target, fuel taxes, and drove them on remorselessly at such a rate until he had a consumer explosion—a revolt. He carried on with that policy to such an extent, showing no reservations about it, until we had the nearest that we have had to a citizens' revolt on the streets. For a week or two, it had mass support, as people realised that they had by far the most expensive
  176
  petrol and diesel in western Europe and that the Chancellor intended to carry on raising prices. Those of us on the road at the time found ourselves surrounded by a public who genuinely sympathised with hauliers going in for direct action, causing conflict and so on. Fortunately—although this is a funny way of conducting Government policy—the Government showed signs of panic, as they do in every crisis, retreated rapidly and backed down. Now we have no policy and there is a freeze on duties for an unspecified period, which will certainly go on until after the election.
  Mr. Salmond: I do not want to discourage the right hon. and learned Gentleman from speaking in Scottish National party debates in future but, if I have followed him correctly, he said that the Chancellor made two mistakes; first, public expenditure in the first two years was too low—which, of course, was inherited from the right hon. and learned Gentleman—and, secondly, the fuel price escalator, which was also inherited from him. Could he not have left a note in the Treasury telling the Chancellor to get off the escalator, or other helpful advice?
  Mr. Clarke: The Chancellor is fond of taking my slogans and claiming that he is taking my policies. In previous Budget and Finance Bill debates, I have tried to make it clear that he is getting them slightly wrong. I have been highly critical and have often regretted the fact that he has used my slogans and taken my name in vain to characterise the rather peculiar policies that he has followed. I will not go through everything, but I invented the slogan,
  "No return to boom and bust".
  I used that in my first Budget, and it was promptly stolen by the present Chancellor. When I used it, I did not mean that we going to abolish the economic cycle; the whole point of macro-economic policy was to stop the extremes that could arise from bad macro-economic policy when the economy went into a bubble, followed by a deep recession, which we experienced in the late 1980s and early 1990s and which the Americans may be experiencing now, as they seem to be going through a classic boom and bust scenario.
  I left behind figures on spending and, with all my colleagues, expected an annual public spending round, which would adjust those figures between Departments in the light of circumstances affecting both them and the national economy. The Chancellor said that he was following Tory figures, but when he made that announcement he made only one decision—to cancel two years of public spending rounds. I have said previously that I am sure that none of my colleagues in the Conservative Cabinet, especially the Secretaries of State for Education and for Health, would ever have put up with that.
  I find myself agreeing with Liberal Democrat Members that the Government's bizarre decision was motivated only by a desire to out public spending commitments in the first two or three years to enable them to be more generous at the end of the parliamentary period. The Government left it a bit late; the health service was in crisis and the Prime Minister was panicking when they finally changed gear and went into pre-election mode. Now there are spending commitments, not just on health and education—if wit were to take office now, I would

  177
  support colleagues who have committed us to that—but across Whitehall. The Government are now postulating increases in public spending in the next three years far beyond any likely rate of growth in our economy. Those increases are bound to take us into deficit in the middle of the next Parliament unless fiscal prudence is pursued by the Chancellor's successor.
  I have already dealt with fuel tax the Chancellor took over my escalator. If, when I was Chancellor, I was asked whether the idea of petrol and diesel escalator was that every year, whatever the circumstances, taxes on those commodities would be increased by a certain percentage beyond inflation for an indefinite and non-foreseeable period I would have said, "Of course not." I would have said that that would have caused a consumer revolt, because no sensible tax raiser puts such a large burden on a narrow piece of the tax base. When people look back on that feature of Government policy, they will think it quite bizarre; the Government just sat and waited until, eventually, the lorry drivers predictably took to the streets. Indeed, we got to the stage when major haulage firms filled large-capacity lorries with diesel before coming back to this country to make their journeys here.
  In present circumstances, I do not expect the Chancellor to accept the SNP's inducements to take off another 3p a litre. However, could we have an indication of the Government's present and future policy? Is it just to go to the election saying, "We cut the duty and held it down, and after the election, we'll have to see what turns up, but so long as you keep quiet and the newspapers don't mind, and if we have some problems with the public spending commitments, we will no doubt be back to putting up the tax on petrol and diesel again"?
  The Government got away with what they did before September last year because they were very lucky with the crude oil price, which fell extraordinarily for a long time, so the motorist and the haulier did not notice the impact of the taxation. Once the oil price began to go back to a more normal level, the full horror for the rural economy and much of the business economy was revealed, and the Government had to go back. Do they intend in future to take account of crude oil prices in deciding the appropriate level of petrol and diesel tax in any given year?
  Will the Government in future pay more attention to the impact of the tax, on the rural economy in particular? This is an especially appropriate time to discuss that aspect, as the rural economy faces a tremendous crisis this summer, which will have a marked effect on the growth of the economy as a whole, when the knock-on effect of the foot and mouth epidemic on many associated rural and countryside industries is felt.
  Will the Government have any concern for the environmental consequences of taxation? One minute they put the tax up because that is good environmental policy, then they put the tax down, which apparently, they say, has no environmental consequences at all. I know that the Government have no real commitment to using tax for environmental purposes. I personally introduced the landfill tax and gave a rebate on it—instead of the taxation being paid, when money was put by site operators into environmentally approved schemes. I cited environmental reasons for putting up road tax.
  This Government cited such reasons when it suited them, but they had different arguments for lowering the tax on domestic fuel. They had different arguments for
  178
  subsidising the coal industry and coal-burn in power stations. They have absolutely no consistent or genuine view on environmental issues, but will they be persuaded that there is an environmental case for keeping our fuel taxes among the highest in western industrial countries, but not vastly above the level that prevails in competitor economies across the rest of western Europe?
  When the Minister says that she cannot take off 3p per litre, I invite her to take the opportunity to explain the Government's approach. They look back over folly, panic and U-turn. Can they explain what balance they intend to strike, bearing in mind the crude oil price and the particular effects on the rural economy and on other parts of the economy that are dependent on diesel fuel, such as haulage? What is their policy on the environmental consequences of a fuel tax?
  Mr. James Clappison: It is a great pleasure to follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). I am sure that the House listened with interest to his analysis. If anything, he was unduly modest when he dealt with the history of the matter, and particularly the inheritance that the Government took over from his stewardship of the economy.
  My right hon. and learned Friend left the Government a benign economic inheritance and, as he made clear, the Government's principal activity since then has been to tax too much when they did not need to do so. The taxes that are the subject of the amendments are a good example of the Government's inclination towards tax by stealth and to tax as much and as long as possible while they can get away with it. Now, as my right hon. and learned Friend rightly said, after all the Government's boasts about boom and bust, they face a humiliating change of spin but not of policy, with the Chancellor today having to climb down over his claims about the economy and admit what is apparent to many other people—that we are facing a period of uncertainty in the world economy.
  I listened with interest also to the opening speech by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I hope that he will forgive me if I say that I feel able to resist the temptation that he presented to us to distribute Scottish nationalist literature throughout England. That is one activity that I can happily do without. However, I acknowledge reluctantly that some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made with respect to Scotland apply to motorists the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. I shall make some particular points about the effect of the Government's policies on Northern Ireland in due course.
  4.15 pm
  I want to make our position clear at the outset. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor said, we are committed to cutting duty on fuel by at least 3p a litre. We want to cut petrol tax and to offer some relief to the hard-working families who have to pay too much to the Government every time they fill their tanks. I assure Labour Members that those families will remember that in future.
  Mr. Bercow: Of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to speak about the impact of petrol tax on hard-working families. However, will he also bear in mind the interests of an appreciable number of people, not

  179
  least in rural areas, among whom I number Mrs. Elizabeth Zettl, an 83-year-old woman in Buckingham High street in my constituency? Mrs. Zettl travels around by car to undertake charitable work on behalf of deserving causes. She has been consistently punished by this Administration and she is very angry about it.
  Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend rightly illustrates some of the personal circumstances that lie behind the problems associated with motoring in rural areas. His example concerned somebody who undertakes very commendable activities. The problems that are faced by poorer members of rural communities, who may rely on their cars to make their way from village to village, or from village to supermarket, often seem to be overlooked by the Government, under whom motorists in town and country alike—I shall deal with the special problems of the countryside in a moment—have taken a clobbering.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe was right in his analysis of the history of those problems. Perhaps his words deserve underlining with this fact: in May 1997, the motorist paid an average of 59p a litre to fill up at the pump, but today, he pays almost 76p a litre. For the benefit of Labour Members, we should make it clear where the responsibility lies, as no less than 13p out of that 17p increase arises from additional tax piled on by the Chancellor. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, it was piled on time and time again for as long as the Chancellor thought that he could get away with it. The amount of tax on a litre of petrol in May 1997 was 45.7p; it is now 59p. Let me give one particular motoring example. We have heard something about Mondeo man in the past. A Mondeo man who fills up his tank now pays £10 more than he did before this Government came to power.
  I have obtained from the Library figures that are based on the European Union weekly oil bulletin. According to those figures, even after making allowance for when the change in duty on ultra-low sulphur petrol and the temporary change in respect of ordinary unleaded petrol take effect, the United Kingdom still has the most expensive petrol in the European Union. That is the case because United Kingdom motorists pay so much tax and duty. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan adverted to the fact that tax and duty amount to 75 per cent. of the total price of unleaded petrol at the pump. As was pointed out by one of our tabloid newspapers last week, the United Kingdom has one of the cheapest rates in the European Union for pre-tax petrol, but the most expensive rate for post-tax petrol.
  Not least among the implications is that which affects the part of the United Kingdom that shares a land border with another EU member. In the Republic of Ireland, petrol is about 15p to 17p a litre cheaper than in Northern Ireland. The gulf between petrol prices in Northern Ireland and the Republic has been reflected in the growing problem of cross-border fuel smuggling, to whose existence even the Government are beginning to admit, and in the disappearance of petrol retail stations in the vicinity of the border. A significant number of those stations have been lost in the past four years.
  The background to our debate is the unprecedented public dissatisfaction with fuel prices that was expressed last autumn. As my right hon. and learned Friend the
  180
  Member for Rushcliffe rightly said, the Chancellor was prepared to continue to increase petrol prices, apparently without any rationale or firm policy other than to raise as much revenue as possible from the motorist. He was happy to pursue that course, thus causing more and more pain to motorists, until the general public said that they could take no more.
  It was clear last autumn that those who expressed their dissatisfaction and said that they could take no more included pensioners and families on low incomes. High fuel taxation bears down heavily on pensioners and other groups who cannot afford it. However, it is part of the Government's unenviable record of increasing the tax burden on the least well-off in our society. The Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed that out today.
  The least well-off include people who want to own and use a motor car. In some rural areas, that is a necessity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made clear. They want to use their cars, but the Government are punishing them with high levels of tax and duty, which contribute to their record of regressive taxation that hits the least well-off the hardest.
  My right hon. and learned Friend was right to paint a wider picture to encompass the world economy and the possibility of future increases in the price of petrol. Whatever happens to the price of crude oil, there should be no doubt about where responsibility rests for the relatively high price of petrol in the United Kingdom. Ministers cannot spin away the fact that the Government have significantly increased fuel duty and that 75 per cent. of that high price—the highest in Europe—arises from taxation. The Government must accept responsibility for the high price that motorists pay every time they visit the pumps. They must not be allowed to spin their way out of it.
  We shall endeavour to make it clear where the responsibility lies: it lies with the Government, who have lost their grip on policy. They try to increase taxation whenever they can get away with it—when they are not being pressed and buffeted by public opinion. They created those forces by setting such high taxes. Ministers are responsible for the agony that high prices at the pumps cause so many motorists. Responsibility rests with the Government, and they should not be allowed to escape it.
  Mr. Michael Moore: This has been an interesting discussion, not least for the cameo it has provided of the continuing debate about boom and bust and a possible return to the cycle over the coming months.
  Sadly, the debate has lacked any reference to sustainability, or to the role of the environment in the determination of fuel policy and associated matters. I note that no Labour Back Benchers are rushing to participate; I hope that Ministers will address such matters when they respond.
  We cannot ignore the difficulties that can arise in balancing the needs of the environment, economic competitiveness and social inclusion, which are the three components of sustainability. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made some important points about the economy and the way in which he sees it developing. I associate myself with his comments and those of other hon. Members concerning the sad news about Motorola jobs in central Scotland. Our rural

  181
  communities are suffering greatly from foot and mouth, and it is therefore right to place emphasis on the way in which we tackle the economic problems that affect the whole country.
  In the past two or three years—and especially in the past 12 months—the fuel price issue has been buffeted around. When things came to a head last autumn, we acknowledged that there had to be an accommodation and that we had to keep all parts of the sustainability argument in kilter. In the past, it was important to support the fuel duty escalator for environmental reasons, but changing circumstances meant that it had to alter.
  We have been advocating for a long time that there should be a freeze on fuel duty in real terms for the lifetime of this Parliament, and, indeed, the next one. After the events of last year, we would like to have seen a return to the travelling public of the windfall VAT receipts that the Treasury obtained and pocketed for other purposes. It is important to switch car tax aggressively towards encouraging smaller, more environmentally friendly cars and to shift the whole emphasis of our environmental taxation towards congestion charging, recognising, as we do, the need for upfront investment in public transport that will enable us to produce appropriate public transport alternatives.
  The pain that many of our communities are suffering has focused everyone's mind. We recognise the difficulties of escalating fuel prices, but we also recognise the opportunities that congestion charging and other technologies will afford us for using a more sophisticated approach to targeting environmental taxation.
  New circumstances involving huge increases in world oil prices, followed by massive fluctuations, have been experienced over the past six months. All the parties have had to adjust to that new reality—and some have done so more dishonourably than others. In adapting to the new situation, we cannot let the central idea of sustainability get lost. But alas, that is exactly what is happening, with a Dutch auction under way between the different parties to see which one can promise the most meaningless tax policy changes. We did not hear much about the environment from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan—nor did we hear much from the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) about his party's policy on fuel taxation. Sadly, even his Front-Bench spokesman did not provide an answer to that particular mystery.
  There is an argument for a cut in fuel duty if it can stimulate changes that lead the market to adopt more environmentally friendly fuels. We support the plans on ultra-low sulphur fuel for that reason, and, if the debate should move on, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will have the opportunity to raise the issue of taxation changes on biodiesel.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I agree with the tenor of most of the hon. Gentleman's comments. However, a problem remains in rural areas, where a double jeopardy, or double whammy, is imposed on rural dwellers. The figures quoted for the price of petrol per litre by the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman would not be recognisable to the people in my constituency, who have to buy petrol at 2p, 3p or 4p a litre more than that. Does the hon. Gentleman have any suggestions as to how,
  182
  on the social justice side of sustainability, we can ensure that people in rural areas who need some form of private transport for access to jobs and services are not penalised by the differential between urban and rural petrol costs?
  Mr. Moore: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and I acknowledge his credentials in these matters. He raises the issue of the environment with great regularity. This is a difficult issue for all of us. Our view is that the funds that will be made available through congestion charging must allow us to create alternative public transport systems. That will apply not only in urban areas but in rural areas, where people will be able to use those facilities to get into the towns and cities where many of them have to work. I suspect that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is in nobody's mind just yet. However, we must ensure that, when we put forward these arguments, we do not lose sight of the environmental aspects as we rightly and properly focus attention on the problems in rural areas.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: My hon. Friend referred to urban congestion charging. Is it not the case that, in urban areas where public transport could be made available, if properly funded through urban congestion charging, there would not only be a renaissance of public transport, but higher costs for those who chose to use their cars needlessly? That would mean that those in rural areas would pay far less, because there would not be the same availability of public transport or the same need to get people out of their cars.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Moore: I agree with my hon. Friend.
  We should ask what lies behind the amendment—what the intention is. The Scottish National party's petrol price policies have a sorry history: few survive, and this one is likely to fare no better. We have been told that what is proposed is an initial cut of 10p a gallon, which is tantalising stuff. Nowadays we tend to buy our fuel in litres rather than gallons, although we measure our cars' fuel economy in miles per gallon. My point is, however, that there may be just a hint of politics in this, rather than any real concern about the issues that are at the heart of the debate.
  What is behind the policy? Is it the environment? Clearly not: we have heard virtually no mention of that, except in the form of attacks on others' views. Is it a desire to help small petrol stations, in the teeth of competition from the major oil companies and the supermarkets? That is unlikely; there was certainly no evidence of it in the speech of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. Is it the fluctuating oil price? Well, we have heard a little more about that.
  Andrew Wilson, the SNP's finance spokesman, relaunched his policy a few days ago, trumpeting it as a response to a price increase announced by Shell. The problem is that the policy had been announced earlier, before the price increase. The "auction" approach that many other parties now seem to espouse does not take account of the fact that the oil price is fluctuating wildly. What we have not been given today is any sense that the objective is to tie us to a particular petrol price at a particular time. We have seen massive shifts in the oil price over the past year; to keep up with that would

  183
  require a weekly policy change, which, even by the SNP's standards, would be fairly breathtaking. The party's position has no credible basis.
  Mr. Salmond: What is breathtaking is the position taken by the Liberal Democrats over a number of years. It is based on the politics of the Kincardine and Deeside by-election: the Liberal candidate was busy attacking the price of petrol under the Conservative party, only for it to be revealed that Liberal policy would make it even higher. Indeed, Liberal policy over most of the last few years would make it even higher than it is under the present Government.
  If the hon. Gentleman consults the record, he will note that every fuel tax debate that has taken place while I have been a Member of Parliament has featured an extremely consistent position, to which some Members of his own party have been extremely sympathetic. What a pity that a Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman will have to reveal to the people of Scotland that he is not prepared to vote for lower petrol prices in existing circumstances.
  Mr. Moore: As usual, what the hon. Gentleman says half-answers the point that we have been debating.
  Over the past two or three years, my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have consistently opposed increases in fuel taxation that have not been accompanied by the requisite investment in public transport. Such investment has been completely lacking under the current Government, and it is still lacking. We hear lots about the £180 billion in the 10-year transport plan—I shall be very surprised if we escape another reference to that this afternoon—but that vague and notional amount is not, in fact, committed. The private sector amounts are not known; and, as we noted earlier during questions to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, we are still stuck in multimodal studies halfway around the country, which means that no serious investment is going on.
  The hon. Gentleman need not lecture the Liberal Democrats on fuel policy. We believe that there is a link between any fuel tax, the revenues that are raised, and the public transport that is created as a result. The hon. Gentleman has not demonstrated this afternoon that he cares much about that.
  As I have said, there is no credible basis for the SNP's position. This is a pre-election stunt, and we will have nothing to do with it.
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I want to talk briefly about the effect that the amendment would have on rural areas such as the one that I represent. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) said, in rural areas, we are talking about a cut in the retail price, which is already much higher than in many urban areas.
  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale is one of the six constituencies with the lowest average income in Scotland. Household incomes in Dumfries and Galloway, in which the constituency is situated, are the second lowest of all the local authorities in the UK, yet Galloway and Upper Nithsdale is in the top six constituencies in Scotland for car ownership.
  184
  That is not because my constituents are particularly perverse. It is not because, although they have much lower incomes than the average, they want many more cars than the average. It is because it is essential for them to have those cars to get to work. Another consequence of the lower incomes is that people's cars are often much older; more difficult and more expensive to maintain; and less fuel efficient.
  People in areas such as mine—as in many other areas in Scotland and the UK—have to travel considerable distances to work. That is largely due to the decline in agriculture, which is on-going even as we speak. In many cases, two members of the family have to travel to work separately: because wages are so low, both parents have to work but they cannot work at the same time because of child care and other commitments, so they need two cars—a fact which to some extent accounts for the increase in car ownership.
  In many such areas, public transport is not an option. Dumfries and Galloway offers a very generous subsidy to public transport in the area, yet services will never be frequent enough or at the right times to allow the majority of my constituents to get to work when they want to. I was recently at a meeting in Dalbeattie, where a factory was shutting down, with about 50 redundancies. One young chap said that he had been able to get a job in Dumfries, the nearest major town some 10 miles away, but that the job started at 7.30 am and the first bus in the morning could not get him to work in time. The only alternative for him was to buy a car. It is all very well to talk about alternative transport systems and investment in alternative transport systems, but the harsh fact is that, in many rural areas, no matter how much we invest in those systems, they will never be good enough to enable the vast number of people to get to the jobs that are on offer.
  There exists an alternative for those people: to get on their proverbial bike and move out of rural areas. Interestingly, the latest population statistics for Scotland, which were published this week, show that in all areas except Edinburgh, and particularly in rural areas, the population has declined over the past 10 years. At the same time, the number of older people in those areas has increased. The younger people—those who need work—are moving out of the countryside because they cannot afford to travel to work and cannot get jobs in rural areas. As that happens, a vicious circle develops. Local incomes drop even further because fewer people are in employment in rural areas, and the cost of services increases in those areas because more elderly people are putting a burden on social services. There is a cycle of decline in our rural economy.
  Many of the imperatives to use private transport are created by changes in our public services. For example, the centralisation of hospital services is going on throughout the country. From Stranraer, the biggest town in my constituency, it is a journey of 150 miles to the nearest general hospital. From the Mull of Galloway, it is a return trip of 210 miles to the nearest general hospital.
  People cannot do that sensibly in a day by public transport. They have to have a car to visit a relative in hospital or to go to an out-patient appointment. And that is only for those specialties that can still be dealt with in Dumfries infirmary. For many others, people have to go either to Edinburgh or to Glasgow. So the nature of public services in rural areas is driving people to use their cars.

  185
  Although modern technology can enable the economy in rural areas to expand, the Government's policy is to leave telecommunications development, particularly in relation to broadband, to the market. We know what the market is doing in rural areas—it is not investing in them, so in those areas of the modern economy that include some opportunity for rural areas to prosper, nothing is happening.
  I remember Government Back Benchers in previous Budget debates saying that the tax was being imposed for the sake of the environment, but we have not heard that story so much lately. That argument cut little ice with my constituents, who are relatively few in number and who did not see that they were individually causing much of a problem to the environment in Dumfries and Galloway, although they could see that the far more highly paid drivers who clog the M25 every day were contributing to the detriment of the environment. The tax did not stop those drivers, who simply absorbed the cost in the higher wages paid in their areas.
  It is a pattern that so-called environmental taxes hit rural areas harder. Yesterday, we debated the aggregates tax, which affects quarries, some 99.9 per cent. of which are situated in rural environments. That tax will be redistributed, allegedly, through cuts in employers' national insurance contributions, but—surprise, surprise—most of those with jobs work in urban areas, so the subsidy flows to those areas from a tax raised in rural areas.
  Another effect of the fuel duty is the significant impact on commercial hauliers, including those in my constituency. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) mentioned competition from Northern Ireland, and that is significant for my constituency because it is the closest mainland constituency to that area. Many hauliers come across to Galloway from Northern Ireland, having filled up with cheap DERV in the south of Ireland, and can undercut local hauliers in my constituency—many of whom have gone out of business as a result.
  I suspect that the Government will not accept the amendment, even though they could earn some brownie points for the coming election if they did so. However, the Government must seriously consider mechanisms designed to help rural areas, and I have a suggestion for them. We know that the tourism industry is in deep crisis and we also know that rural bus services receive an essential rebate on DERV duty. Why not extend that duty rebate to operators of touring coaches? That would encourage them to come into country areas. Many hotels in my constituency, and other constituencies throughout rural Britain, have been affected by cancellations from tour operators because they have not had the bookings.Fuel duty is a significant cost for tour operators, and a reduction in it would enable them to reduce their prices and bring more tourists into the countryside. As we heard from the Minister for the Environment in his statement yesterday, we need to encourage more people to come to the countryside, and the Government could play their part today.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): The amendment is an irresponsible attempt to reduce fuel duty below the levels proposed by the Government. Clause 1 already cuts the duty rates on the main road fuels used in the UK. The duty on ultra-low sulphur petrol will be cut by 2p a litre and that on ultra-low sulphur diesel by 3p, to equalise the
  186
  duty on the two products. Those reductions form part of a package of measures that will protect and enhance the environment, and are also equivalent to an overall cut of 4p a litre for motorists and 7p a litre for hauliers.
  The Government have a prudent and responsible strategy that balances the interests of motorists with legitimate concerns about the environment—about which we have heard remarkably little in this afternoon's debate—while ensuring that we continue to raise valuable revenue from fuel duties for spending on vital public services including health, education and transport, which is another issue that the Opposition seem keen to disregard.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Salmond: I spoke at some length about the increase of £5 billion in Government revenues that has resulted from the fact that the price of oil is much higher than the Government expected two years ago. Will the Minister say what, in 1999, the Treasury expected the price of petrol to be now? If we are to believe the Treasury forecast, the expectation must have been that the price would be below current levels. If that level was considered sustainable for the environment in 1999, why is it not so in 2001?
  Miss Johnson: The hon. Gentleman made that point earlier, and I shall respond to it in detail later. However, there has been no reference in the debate so far to the Red Book. It was noted earlier that there have been considerable fluctuations in the spot price of Brent crude oil. The graph at box 6.3 in chapter 6 shows that that price rose from a low of $10 a barrel in January 1999 to a high of between $33 and $34. I am sure that I do not have to remind the hon. Gentleman that that threefold increase makes a considerable difference to the price of petrol at the pump.
  Mr. Salmond: The Minister makes my point for me. I have demonstrated already that in 1999 the Government expected oil to cost between $10 and $12 a barrel for the foreseeable future. What was the Government's expectation in 1999 of what the price of petrol at the pumps would be in 2001? It must have been lower than the current price, so why is that forecast level not sustainable in environmental terms now? It is a reasonably simple question, and I hope that the Minister will address it now.
  Miss Johnson: As I said, I shall come to that point in the course of my response. I want to be as logical as possible, to prevent the debate from jumping around from point to point.
  The hon. Gentleman did not mention the fact that the amendment would cost the Exchequer more than £800 million a year. That is a substantial amount of revenue, and he must explain how he would recoup the money and so be able to match the Government's spending plans. He must also explain how he would meet the environmental targets. The Scottish National party is keen to be seen as a tax-and-spend party. It needs to offer more of an explanation of how its economic policies hang together, and of how it would be able to deliver—fiscally and in terms of public finances—policies based on the tax-and-spend premise.
  Mr. Salmond: I give the Minister the credit of assuming that she has read my party's taxation document,

  187
  which explains that we propose to increase the rate of taxation for people earning more than £100,000 a year by 5p. Whether the Government think that that is right or wrong, the Minister's statement that we have not explained how we would raise the revenue to finance the proposal in the amendment is totally invalid. In passing, may I point out that our proposal would still leave the highest marginal rate of tax considerably below what the Chancellor considered to be the appropriate rate just a few years ago?
  Miss Johnson: I am well aware of what the Scottish National party's manifesto contains, but when he moved the amendment, the hon. Gentleman did not explain to the House how his party's proposals on spending and taxation would be squared. It is good to hear him confirm the party's commitment.
  However, the hon. Gentleman's policy contains an inconsistency. His party's taxation document talks about fulfilling Britain's international commitments, especially in reducing levels of carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide, and related environmental obligations. It is unclear how the amendment would contribute to achieving such objectives.
  The package of measures in the Bill represents a balance between economic, environmental and social concerns. As I have argued, a single cut in fuel duty—which is one of the amendment's proposals—could have adverse effects on the environment. Instead, the Government have announced a package of measures that will protect and enhance the environment. The package is equivalent to a cut of 4p per litre for motorists, and 7p per litre for hauliers. Those who wish to cut fuel duty must explain how they would do that. The Government's first priority is a stable economy.
  Let me turn to the points made about the global economic climate by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and to the remarks made by other right hon. and hon. Members. The Chancellor said today that all countries should take the necessary action to sustain growth. He made the point powerfully, supported by all that we have done, that our policy is much better placed than before in the face of global instability. As he said, we are on course to deliver stability and sustain growth. One reason for that is our tough and decisive action in introducing tough fiscal rules, reducing the national debt and making the Bank of England independent, which has succeeded in delivering the lowest rate of inflation for 30 years.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe spoke proudly of the previous Government's legacy. We come back from time to time to the idea of the Tories' golden inheritance. I can never manage to square that with the fact that under the previous Government there was £28 billion net borrowing, and that between 1979 and 1997 more was spent on debt and unemployment than on the national health service. What sort of golden legacy was that? In contrast, in 2001–2 alone we will be spending £30 billion more on the national health service than on unemployment and debt. We also inherited an unemployment figure that had reached 3 million, and a 15 per cent. interest rate.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman says how lucky we have been—supposedly—but neglects to mention the Asian crisis and what we have done in international
  188
  environments to stabilise the global economy and to work for continuing stability through the institution of such organisations as the financial stability forum.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Lady has become slightly confused in giving the usual Labour account of the Government's awful inheritance. She will recall that the Government came into power after three years of growth, low inflation and consistently falling unemployment. The public finances were on course for balance. At the last election we debated the black hole in Labour's finances, but when the Government came to power it did not appear. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is because they failed to mention that they would increase the tax burden so heavily, as they did over the next three years, and freeze public spending so severely for their first two or three years in office? They are only just beginning to emerge from the consequences of that, so under this Government the increased spending on health and education for example, is still below the levels achieved under the Major Government.
  Miss Johnson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is again rewriting history. We inherited a 44 per cent. debt-to-GDP ratio, and have reduced it to 31 or 32 per cent.
  Mr. Howard Flight: That is too low.
  Miss Johnson: The hon. Gentleman says that that is too low. He wants to borrow more and enter the cycle of boom and bust that characterised all previous Conservative Governments.
  Mr. Flight rose—
  Miss Johnson: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  The Chairman: Order. This macro-economic debate is going wide of the amendment, and I do not want it to spread.
  Mr. Flight: Does the Minister believe that the long-term gilt yields underlying annuity costs, and the poor deal that pensioners buying annuities get, is a desirable part of Government policy, or would she like pensioners buying annuities to get better value?
  Miss Johnson: Our position on annuities has been made clear many times to the hon. Gentleman, and was set out in the Red Book and the Budget statement. I shall not be drawn further on that, Sir Alan, as I realise that I am testing your patience.
  The Chairman: In the time-honoured phrase, may I refer all hon. Members to the comments that I made a few moments ago?
  Miss Johnson: We shall abide by them most faithfully, Sir Alan.
  Mr. Clappison: Will the Minister give way?
  Miss Johnson: No I should like to move on.

  189
  Complaints have been made about UK tax levels. The overall context, however, is that our tax burden is much lower than the European Union average. Indeed, 10 EU countries have higher tax burdens. Business tax rates are low, and our corporation tax rate is among the lowest in the EU and well below average. In addition, for small companies the rate is only 10 per cent. We can be proud of our record on reducing taxation on business. Our taxation rates are competitive when compared with those of comparable EU and other countries.
  Let me talk about the Government's strategy on fuel duty. The appropriate duty rate will in future be decided Budget by Budget. Opposition Members have criticised that, and the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe seemed to complain both that we had ended the escalator that he created, and that we had been on it at all. I am not clear what his argument amounted to. He may have been suggesting that we should have come off the escalator sooner—I see him nodding—but that policy would merely have added to the £16 billion cuts guarantee that his party must already explain to the people of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Clarke: The Minister cannot continue the debate using the totally bogus £16 billion figure that the Government keep contributing to an election campaign that is totally brain-free on many subjects, particularly economic policy. Would it not have been logical, having started the escalator when we had the cheapest fuel in western Europe, at least to stop its automatic increase once our fuel had become the most expensive in Europe? Did the Government pursue any logical policy, rather than staying on an escalator towards the stratosphere until civil disobedience on our streets sent them into a U-turn?
  Miss Johnson: We had already announced the end of the escalator before then. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is obviously uncomfortable about the fact that he introduced the escalator and we ended it, but that is the fact of the matter.
  We have used duty differentials to encourage the manufacture and use of cleaner fuels. We have encouraged the use of ultra-low sulphur diesel, which now accounts for 100 per cent. of the road diesel market. The incentives that we recently announced for ultra-low sulphur petrol mean that we expect that to account for 100 per cent. of the petrol market by the middle of June. The Budget introduced a comprehensive strategy to encourage cleaner alternative fuels. Our clear policy on fuel duty has several different dimensions, and it is important that we should maintain that.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Minister address the recent report on fuel duty by the Select Committee on Environmental Audit? That report made it clear that the Government's thinking has been muddled and that not enough environmental modelling has been done on the effect of fuel duty and its relationships with traffic congestion and reductions in greenhouse gases. Does she accept that the Government need to make a far clearer environmental case if they intend to pursue the current rates of fuel tax in future? If they do not, the problems that arose in September will come back.
  5 pm
  Miss Johnson: I do not accept that our position is in any way muddled. However, the Committee is fully entitled to its view. We have looked at the triangle of difficult issues and achieved the right balance between them—between the environment and environmental needs, the costs of motoring, and the revenues from fuel duty. We need to balance those issues and we have made those difficult decisions, leading to the 4p equivalent cut for motorists and the 7p equivalent cut for hauliers.
  I point out to those Members whose memories seem remarkably short that the percentage of tax on a litre of petrol has not really changed. Indeed, in May 1997, tax was 77.5 per cent. of the cost of a litre of petrol, whereas it is now 74.7 per cent. on lead replacement petrol and 75.3 per cent. on ultra-low sulphur petrol. Several statistics were falsely bandied about by Members during the debate, and I need to put the record right.
  Mr. Clappison: When one is talking about a proportion, the figure of which it is a proportion is important. Will the hon. Lady remind us of the price of petrol in May 1997?
  Miss Johnson: I do not have that figure to hand. The point being made by the hon. Gentleman and by other Opposition Members is that the proportion is dramatically different. It is not dramatically different; it is almost the same—if anything, it is slightly lower—so the point is not relevant.
  I remind hon. Members that the wider choice of cheaper motoring that we want to see has also been initiated through policies on car use. There is a reduced rate of vehicle excise duty on cars with smaller engines registered before 1 March 2001. It is being extended on 1 July 2001 to all cars with an engine threshold of up to 1.5 litres, and will eventually be backdated to November 2000. As hon. Members know, that will reduce the cost of VED by £55 a year for an extra 5 million car owners. In addition, all car and motor bike VED rates were frozen this year. Those are relevant considerations when considering the cost of motoring.
  I accept, however, the comments made by several Members that for people living in, and travelling to work from, rural areas, motoring costs are more significant than they are for people in urban environments. However, we have introduced a 7p equivalent cut in the rate, and that is an especially big help to motorists in rural areas.
  Arguments were made about smuggling in Northern Ireland, and the differentials in duty rates between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Those arguments always strike me as curious. UK rates are set for good reasons. The Government are well aware of the smuggling problem in Northern Ireland, but we shall not allow our policies—or the livelihoods of legitimate traders—to be undermined by the activities of criminals.
  I am puzzled by those arguments, because they sometimes seem like arguments for tax harmonisation, which the Government completely reject. Instead, Customs and Excise has developed a strategy to tackle oil fraud. In Northern Ireland, that strategy includes significantly increased resources, which have been in operation since 25 September last year and have resulted in greatly enhanced enforcement activity. The aim of Customs and Excise is not only to seize more smuggled petrol and diesel but to ensure that its activity has an impact on the illicit market.

  191
  A question was put about the hypothecation of fuel tax for investment in public transport. For the pleasure of the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), I reiterate that we do indeed have a £180 billion, 10-year public investment strategy plan—we are extremely proud of it. The plan represents an increase of current expenditure by about three quarters. In the pre-Budget report in 1999, we agreed that any money derived from any future real-terms increase in fuel duty should be hypothecated for transport spending. That point has already been taken on board by the Government.
  I conclude by reminding hon. Members that, as I have said before, if they support the amendment, which is irresponsible, they should say where the money would come from and what would be cut. We have ensured that our monetary and fiscal policy adds up, that we are making the key investments in public services, and that we are tackling the disadvantage that some hon. Members have highlighted.
  In talking about some of that disadvantage, especially that in rural areas, Opposition Members forget the importance of the work being done for those on low and average incomes through the introduction of the working families tax credit, the national minimum wage, the children's tax credit and the cuts that we have made in direct taxation. In all those ways, Opposition Members have neglected to view the Government's policy in its wider context, so I recommend that the House oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Salmond: I assure the Economic Secretary that 75 per cent. of almost £4 a gallon amounts to more in monetary terms than 77 per cent. of less than £3 a gallon. She must take my word for that, but it is absolutely true. She may want to ask the mighty expertise at her disposal in the Treasury to work out that sum, but I can give her an absolute assurance that the sum that the Government are taking in petrol duty has vastly increased during the new Labour party's term in office.
  What does the Economic Secretary's speech amount to? She suggests that the Government's proposed 2p cut in the price of ultra-low sulphur is a wise act of policy, but that the 4p cut proposed by the Scottish National party is wildly irresponsible. However, the reality is that the cut proposed by the Government—and, indeed, the decision to step off the fuel price escalator—were brought about by force majeure, because of the impact of a massive fuel tax protest. That was not an act of policy; it was an act of panic, and everyone knows it.
  If the Economic Secretary cares to check the record, she will see that the SNP has consistently opposed that approach to petrol taxation, which was, I agree, started by the Conservative party—but it was continued by the new Labour party. The reason why we oppose the policy is simple: it is a blunt instrument. In pursuing the policy that the Government inherited from the previous Government, they tax most the people who do least environmental damage to the overall economy.
  Not only is the price of petrol higher in rural areas, but the taxation on every gallon of petrol is higher, because the element of taxation depends on the overall price. The policy is perverse. There are much better and more sophisticated ways to approach environmental taxation.
  192
  The Economic Secretary talks about the great infrastructure plan, but after four years in government, it is still definitely just a plan.
  Matthew Parris wrote an interesting article today, in which he speculated that if the new Labour party won the election, every Minister and Labour Back Bencher would have to get used to the fact that they would no longer have the luxury of blaming the previous Government for their mistakes, because, of course, they themselves would be the previous Government. I hope that when the Economic Secretary has had time to think about some of the arguments that she has used today, she will realise their fragility. Despite being totally unable to tell us what the Government's expectation was in 1999 of what the price of a gallon of petrol would be now, she argued that the policy was based on environmental grounds.
  That idea was always a phantom. The policy was always about cash for the Treasury, not about concern for the world environment. It was never green; it was always Brown. That is the reality of the policy, and it does huge damage to the rural economy, in particular, and to every consumer and everyone who depends on the price of transport when purchasing goods in the shops. The Government have not gone far enough to draw the sting from this as an election issue.
  If proof positive of that final statement were necessary, the fact that five Labour Members from Scotland have attended the debate without one of them indicating a wish to speak shows that they understand that when people—
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge rose—
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman wandered into the Committee a few minutes ago, and I will not give him the opportunity to do what he should have done earlier—make his own speech. Neither he nor his colleagues wanted to speak in the debate because when people go to the polls, they will know that the new Labour party means high petrol prices in Scotland.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 129, Noes 287.

  Division No. 190]

  [5.10 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Amess, David

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Day, Stephen

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Baldry, Tony

  Duncan, Alan

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Evans, Nigel

  Bercow, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Blunt, Crispin

  Fabricant, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Fallon, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Flight, Howard

  Brady, Graham

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Brazier, Julian

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fraser, Christopher

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gale, Roger

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Garnier, Edward

  Burns, Simon

  Gibb, Nick

  Clappison, James

  Gill, Christopher

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Gray, James

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Green, Damian

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Greenway, John

  Cran, James

  Grieve, Dominic

  193

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Paterson, Owen

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hammond, Philip

  Prior, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Randall, John

  Hayes, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Heald, Oliver

  Robatha, Andrew

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Horam, John

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Ruffley, David

  Jenkin, Bernard

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Salmond, Alex

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Key, Robert

  Shepherd, Richard

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Leigh, Edward

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Letwin, Oliver

  Spring, Richard

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lidington, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Lidington, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Syms Robert

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Loughton, Tim

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Luff, Peter

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Trend Michael

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Tyrie, Andrew

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Walter, Robert

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Waterson, Nigel

  Madel, Sir David

  Whittingdale, John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Maples, John

  Willetts, David

  Mates, Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Yeo, Tim

  Nicholls, Patrick

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ottaway, Richard

  Mr. Dafydd Wigley and

  Paice, James

  Mr. Simon Thomas.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ainger, Nick

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Browne, Desmond

  Allen, Graham

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Burden, Richard

  Burgon, Colin

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Austin, John

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cann, Jamie

  Banks, Tony

  Caplin, Ivor

  Barnes, Harry

  Casale, Roger

  Battle, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clapham, Michael

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Benton, Joe

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Best, Harold

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Betts, Clive

  Clelland, David

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clwyd, Ann

  Blizzard, Bob

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cohen, Harry

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Coleman, Iain

  Borrow, David

  Colman Tony

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Connarty, Michael

  194

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cooper, Yvette

  Illsley, Eric

  Corbett, Robin

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Corston, Jean

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cousins, Jim

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cranston, Ross

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Crausby, David

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Joyce, Eric

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kemp, Fraser

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Doran, Frank

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dowd, Jim

  Kidney, David

  Drew, David

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Drown, Ms Julia

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Efford, Clive

  Lammy, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Leslie, Christopher

  Fisher, Mark

  Levitt, Tom

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Flint, Caroline

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Follett, Barbara

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Lock, David

  Gapes, Mike

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gardiner, Barry

  McCabe, Steve

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gerrard, Neil

  McDonnell, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McFall, John

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Godsiff, Roger

  McIsaac, Shona

  Goggins, Paul

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McNulty, Tony

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  MacShane, Denis

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McWilliam, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Grogan, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hain, Peter

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Maxton, John

  Hanson, David

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hendrick, Mark

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Heppell, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Hesford, Stephen

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hill, Keith

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Hoey, Kate

  Mountford, Kali

  Hood, Jimmy

  Mudie, George

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Mullin, Chris

  Hope, Phil

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Howells, Dr Kim

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Olner, Bill

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Hurst, Alan

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Hutton, John

  Pearson, Ian

  195

  Pendry, Rt Hon Tom

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Pickthall, Colin

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Pike, Peter L

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Plaskitt, James

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pollard, Kerry

  Stevenson, George

  Pond, Chris

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Pound, Stephen

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Rammell, Bill

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Timms, Stephen

  Tipping Paddy

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Todd, Mark

  Rogers, Allan

  Touhig, Don

  Rooney, Terry

  Tickett, Jon

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Roy, Frank

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Ruane, Chris

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Ruane, Chris

  Tynan, Bill

  Ruddock Joan

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  White, Brian

  Salter, Martin

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Winnick, David

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Woodward, Shaun

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mr. Greg Pope and

  Soley, Clive

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 21, leave out "14th June 2001" and insert "5th April 2002".
  We have been debating the changes in duty on ultra-low sulphur petrol and the temporary reduction in duty on unleaded petrol. We now come to amendment No. 6, which deals with the period for which the reduction in duty on ordinary unleaded petrol is to apply. In his Budget statement, the Chancellor announced that the Government intended to match the reduction in duty on ultra-low sulphur petrol with a reduction in duty on unleaded petrol for a temporary period. The amendment would extend the period during which that reduction applies from 14 June this year—the date fixed by the Chancellor—to the end of the current financial year, 5 April 2002.
  Given the Government's plans, hon. Members may find 14 June an interesting choice of date. We are tempted to ask about the magic of 14 June. Where does that date come from and what is the rationale behind it? Why has 14 June been plucked from all other dates as the day on which the concession on ordinary unleaded petrol will end? Why is it necessary to end it then? It is clear that, on 14 June, any ordinary unleaded petrol on sale to the
  196
  public will bear an increase of 2p a litre in duty. In other words, on 14 June, the 2p that the Chancellor took off on 7 March will be put back on.
  I shall resist the temptation to talk about stealth, but we need more of an explanation of where 14 June comes from. Given that the price of petrol in this country is relatively high because of high fuel tax, which we have just debated, and given the ominous pressures in the world oil market, which were adverted to by Members on both sides of the Committee in the previous debate, the last thing any motorist using that type of petrol wants is a further increase in its price on 14 June. I suspect that any motorist who pays that extra duty on 14 June will get an unpleasant shock; on top of the already high price that he is paying, he will find himself paying an extra 2p a litre in duty.
  I do not want to anticipate the Minister's reply, but in answering the debate, she may well echo what we are told in the explanatory notes to the Bill:
  "To ensure no market distortion in the final transition to 100 per cent. ULSP"—
  that is, ultra-low sulphur petrol—
  "a temporary cut in duty for ordinary unleaded has also been introduced. This will ensure all distributors and retailers will be able to pass on a 2 pence per litre duty cut to their customers. When this temporary concession ends on June 14 it is expected that ULSP will form virtually 100 per cent. of the petrol supplied to the UK".
  5.30 pm
  We are told in the concluding words of that statement that Ministers expect that ultra-low sulphur petrol will form virtually 100 per cent. of the petrol supplied to the United Kingdom, but we know all too well that, in this field as in so many others, what Ministers expect to happen does not always come to pass. Indeed, in the previous debate we had some interesting questions about what Ministers expected in the past which did not receive an answer.
  In any case, whether or not ultra-low sulphur petrol is supplied to the motorist is not in the hands of Ministers, as Ministers admit. A Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry told my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) in a written answer on 16 November last year:
  "Future levels of supply for ULSP will be a matter for individual companies to determine, "—[Official Report, 16 November 2000;
  Vol. 356, c. 718W.]
  In a further written reply on 26 February, the Financial Secretary stated that he believed that
  "the oil companies are on track to meet their target to supply ULSP nationwide at their retail sites by the end of March"—[Official
  Report, 26 February 2001; Vol. 363, c. 511W].
  However, there is no guarantee of that. Can the Economic Secretary say whether ultra-low sulphur petrol is available at all the retail sites of the major oil companies? In addition, we should like to know how many of the retail sites of the independent petrol retailers are supplying ULSP. Can the Minister tell us what proportion of the petrol supplied in the UK is ULSP?
  If it is the Government's case that the concession on unleaded petrol should end when ultra-low sulphur petrol constitutes 100 per cent. of the petrol supplied in the UK, why should not the date for the ending of the concession be moved from 14 June to 5 April next year? Why should there be any question of whether or not the deadline of

  197
  14 June is approaching, if it is the Government's intention and expectation that ultra-low sulphur petrol should be universally available before the concession ends?
  If that is the Government's position, why do they not extend the deadline to April next year? If the deadline is not extended, is there not the risk that some motorists who fill their tanks on 14 June will get the unpleasant shock of an extra 2p per litre on top of the already high price that they are paying, and on top of whatever else they may face at that time by way of petrol price increases? We need an explanation from the Minister.
  As matters stand, there is the risk of an extremely unpleasant shock for many motorists on 14 June. Just when they have been told by the Chancellor that there was a reduction of 2p in the price of unleaded petrol on 7 March, hey presto—the 2p goes beck again on 14 June. What is going on?
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: When the proposal to which the amendment relates was made, Conservative Front Benchers argued that it was likely that the petrol companies would not succeed in getting ultra-low sulphur fuels on to the forecourt in all parts of the country in time to meet the deadline. It was argued that the deadline was therefore arbitrary and unfair to those who might not otherwise be supplied with the correct form of fuel.
  I listened intently to the comments of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), as I assumed that he would give the House some evidence to show that that problem was now materialising, but I noticed that he was unable to cite one example or to quote any association or organisation in support of his argument. A little earlier, my colleagues spoke to the RAC Foundation to ask whether it believed there was a problem. It said that it believed that there would be no problem in obtaining ultra-low sulphur fuels. The problem on the basis of which the amendment was tabled therefore appears to be non-existent. Opposition Front Benchers cannot give any examples, and people who are in the know argue the contrary of what they are saying.
  The principle of the provision seems to make sense. It is about getting the big petrol companies to supply a fuel that not only causes less pollution in its own right, but will allow the supply of higher-efficiency engines that use less fuel. Such engines are already being used in Japan. As they use less fuel, they will emit less carbon dioxide, so the fuel will also help in meeting the Kyoto targets.
  Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to defend the Government—we are used to seeing Liberal Democrats do that—but in doing so, he has not answered the very point that I put to them. Why is 14 June specified, rather than 5 April next year, if it is intended that the ultra-low sulphur petrol reduction should be matched by a temporary reduction in respect of unleaded petrol until there is 100 per cent. coverage?
  Mr. Taylor: There is a simple answer to that question, but I must respond first to the hon. Gentleman's initial argument: I am defending not the Government but the environment. If there is a way in which we can help to protect the environment and to move towards the Kyoto targets, I believe that we should use it. On the particular element of policy in question, that is what the Government
  198
  are doing. I say again to the hon. Gentleman that if he can give examples that show that there is a problem, he should by all means make his case. The Liberal Democrats want to ensure that nobody is disadvantaged by the proposal. The hon. Gentleman has failed to make his case, however, and when we asked the RAC Foundation whether there was a problem, it said no. We can therefore see no basis for the amendment.
  Why should there be an early deadline, whether it happens to be in June or July? I am sure that it fitted in with the Government's election programme. They were rather lucky, in terms of foot and mouth, that it remained within that programme, but the principle of a tight deadline is correct anyway. We know from experience that the oil companies refused to introduce ultra-low sulphur fuel, on the grounds that it was too costly to do so. As a result of the price differential, we now see that they could have done so very quickly all along. Indeed, that is exactly what we are seeing now.
  A big question mark must be placed over the oil companies' willingness to make the investment that they needed to make without the price differential. Provided that the time scale is achievable, the earlier the deadline, the earlier the companies will supply all petrol stations with ultra-low sulphur fuel. As soon as that happens, manufacturers can introduce the engines that rely on such fuel. The environmental benefits that they bring can then be achieved, so a tight deadline makes sense. If the hon. Member for Hertsmere could provide evidence to show that an extra month or two months, or, indeed, the period until April next year, would make all the difference and allow something to happen that would not otherwise be possible, he would be advancing a perfectly coherent argument. The truth is, however, that he can sustain no basis whatever for arguing for postponement until next April.
  The only difference on the matter between the Conservative and Labour parties—dare I say it?—seems to be the date when they would like the election to occur. The Conservative party would like it to take place as late as possible, and no doubt the Government would like it to happen as early as possible. It seems peculiar, in terms of the general election, that the Government picked the specified date; and if we can assume Conservative Front Benchers are still in favour a an indefinite delay in the general election because of foot and mouth, their amendment precisely matches their election timetable.
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I support the amendment. If there is an agreement to move to the new fuel and there is to be a transition period, it makes sense for it to be longer rather than shorter. Nothing that the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) said contradicts that. An incentive exists for oil companies to invest in the new fuel if they know that at some point in the near future—next April is near enough—the regime will change. The way the Government are proceeding will lead people to feel that they have been conned. They will believe that they were given a fuel tax reduction that suddenly disappeared.
  Logistics dictate that there are bound to be places where the new fuel will not be introduced by the beginning of June. Consequently, people will feel put out. However, if the Government are confident that the new fuel will be introduced across the board by the beginning of June,

  199
  there is no harm in extending the deadline for the offer on the old fuel. A longer deadline is therefore a sensible and prudent step.
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: Clearly, the amendment would have an effect in terms of lost revenue. What would the proposal cost the Exchequer? Where would the money come from?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: If I follow the logic of the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches, there are two arguments: either all the petrol stations will have the new fuel by June, thus entailing no cost to the Exchequer, or some stations will not have the new fuel, which underlines the purpose of the amendment. We await the Minister's response, but we may surmise that the oil companies have taken to the new measure with a will and that the cost to the Exchequer will be small. However, it will be significant for those who have to bear it.
  My constituents already enjoy the benefits of the more environmentally friendly fuel. I am speaking not on their behalf but on behalf of the sort of community that the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell represents. The additional cost of the fuel after June will bear far more heavily on the pockets of those in rural, more outlying parts of Britain, which are suffering so many burdens, than on the Chancellor's. We expect a Conservative Chancellor to be in office in June, and we will easily afford the item that we are considering out of the savings that we intend to make in running the Government.
  I want to comment on the presumption behind the Liberal Democrat argument, and others that Labour Members have expressed, that there would be no demand by consumers for, or movement by oil companies towards, the new fuel without the tuppence reduction. First, the British people's political sensibilities have been insulted this evening. They understand exactly what lies behind the short-term dip in the enormous price of fuel. Secondly, their environmental sensibilities have been insulted. Consumers are environmentally conscious, and companies are responding to that. The idea that the tuppence reduction triggered the introduction of the new fuel is naive on the part of Liberal Democrat Members and calculating on the part of the Government, who try to claim credit for something that would have occurred anyway through consumer demand and the companies' development of new technology.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: The hon. Gentleman may know that I used to be the Liberal Democrat environment spokesman. In that role, I was approached by Japanese manufacturers who make high-efficiency engines. They argued for low-sulphur fuel in this country so that those engines could be used. I was also approached by petrol companies which argued against it because it would cost them too much to introduce. The reduction seems to have had the desired effect, and our argument cannot be characterised as naive, since the petrol companies made a case that was shown to be wrong.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: In his long and varied career, the hon. Gentleman was even spokesman for England. I am therefore not surprised to hear that he was once the
  200
  Liberal Democrat environment spokesman. I am not sure when he held that responsibility, but my point is that technology is moving forward.
  We all have an interest in improving the environmental impact of the fuels and engines that we use. As new technology takes hold, the relevant companies will invest in supplying the new fuel. Their customers want them to do that. Customer and consumer demand drives the changes in our society, not the Government's pettifogging tax changes.
  We welcome any reduction in fuel duty, and we will argue for its extension when we can, because fuel taxes in this country are far too high.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), who said that although the benefits of ultra-low sulphur petrol would be available to his constituents, he was worried about those in rural areas who would be unable to get it. Many of my constituents cannot get ultra-low sulphur petrol. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's logic. However, I disagree with that of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), because, if he is right, the extra cost will be borne by constituents such as mine who will probably not have access to that petrol by the due date in June.
  I have checked today, and the Petrol Retailers Association tells me that two thirds of the country's garages are now able to supply ultra-low sulphur petrol. It is quite unlikely that the remaining third, including some of the smaller and more remote independent retailers, will be able to supply it by the due date in June. There will therefore be a problem of supply in those small country filling stations that are under so much threat, and customers in those areas will have to pay more.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: Will my hon. Friend join me in expressing the hope that the assurance provided by the Liberal Democrat spokesman might be tested by the hon. Gentleman s offering personally to meet the additional costs if there are any motorists who fail to get ultra-low sulphur petrol by the due date? If the hon. Gentleman is as confident as he maintains, should he not be willing to give the House that assurance?
  Mr. Atkinson: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I shall certainly give way to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell to see whether he will give that assurance. I do not know what a Liberal Democrat cheque is worth, but a promise of something would be better than nothing. I am waiting, but I am sad to say that I do not think that the hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Matthew Taylor rose—
  Mr. Atkinson: Ah! I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman was listening to my earlier remarks, he will have heard me say that if the Conservative party could offer evidence of retailers who were unable to find ultra-low sulphur petrol, we would support an extension of the deadline. However, his Front-Bench spokesman has been unable to offer any evidence of that whatever.
  Mr. Atkinson: As we can see, the money is not forthcoming. The hon. Gentleman would be a brave man

  201
  if he were to take on that bet, because the chances of ultra-low sulphur petrol reaching all corners of these islands by June are remote.
  We heard earlier about an explosion at a refinery in Houston, Texas. That has already prompted an increase in the price of petrol. One of the problems is that, with many states in the US now demanding cleaner fuel, the US is importing more and more fuel from Europe to meet that demand because it cannot produce ii itself. British petrol companies were relying on an import of some ultra-low sulphur fuel from Europe to reach the targets involved in meeting the June due date. That petrol may not now be available to them, because it will go to the United States instead. In that case, there will be a considerable likelihood of the deadline not being met.
  I would like to illustrate the problems and penalties of living in a remote rural area such as my constituency in Northumberland. Now that one of the small filling stations there has closed down, some of my constituents are faced with a round trip of 60 miles to fill up their car with fuel. That is a considerable burden. Furthermore, the prices charged by rural filling stations are already considerably higher than urban prices. The problem is that the smaller filling stations are not supplied by the major oil companies, which are currently engaged in a battle with the supermarkets. They have to buy their fuel from smaller, independent wholesalers who, in turn, buy it from the large oil companies. Those filling stations, therefore, face an extra stage in the wholesale market before they can start pricing their petrol.
  Today, ordinary unleaded petrol costs the wholesalers between 77p and 80p a litre. They then sell it on to the independent retailers, such as the small ones in my constituency, who are faced with charging 82p, 83p or even 84p a litre. That is considerably more than the 77p or so that people currently pay in urban areas. If rural people cannot obtain ultra-low sulphur petrol, 2p will be added to the substantial additional burden that they must bear, which will make ordinary unloaded petrol in rural areas 10p or 12p more expensive than it is in urban areas.
  According to the hon. Member for Shipley, if there is a loss to the Treasury it will be made up by my constituents. For safety's sake if for no other reason, I do not see why there should not be an extension. If the Minister does not like the suggested date of 5 April 2002, perhaps the date could be three months after 14 June 2001. That would be better for my constituents. [Interruption.]
  This may seem funny to Labour Members. It may be a joke to the Parliamentary Private Secretary. Labour Members like to laugh during debates such as this, but we are not talking about politics now; we are talking about people living in country areas who—in the case of my constituents—are suffering a foot and mouth crisis and a tourism crisis, and may subsequently have to pay 10p or 12p more for their petrol. I do not consider that to be a laughing matter.
  Miss Melanie Johnson: As well as being unnecessary, amendment No. 6 sends out entirely the wrong environmental signals. It seeks to delay our attempts to ensure that cleaner fuels are available from all United Kingdom petrol stations as soon as is practicable.
  Clause 1 cuts the duty rates on the main road fuels used in the UK. The Government have a record of using duty differentials to good effect, as I said earlier today. We
  202
  successfully introduced ultra-low sulphur diesel across the UK five years ahead of the European Union deadline, and we have now built on that success. By using duty incentives in the case of ultra-low sulphur petrol, we have ensured that this cleaner fuel will be available to every petrol station in the UK by June this year. Clause 1 is an important part of that strategy.
  I am not sure that the Opposition have thought out what they are proposing, or the reasons for their proposal. I agree with the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) that they have come up with no evidence in favour of either the date that they suggest, or the extension.
  Ultra-low sulphur petrol offers environmental benefits over and above those of ordinary unleaded petrol when used in modern cars meeting Euro I/II emission standards—that is, cars fitted with catalytic converters. Research suggests that its widespread use in such cars could reduce emissions of nitrous oxides by up to 6 per cent., emissions of hydrocarbons by up to 14 per cent., and emissions of carbon monoxide by up to 11 per cent.
  As well as ensuring that emissions from the latest generation of cars remain low, ultra-low sulphur petrol allows the use of new fuel-efficient technologies, as the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell pointed out. Gasoline direct injection engines, for example, can deliver substantial carbon dioxide savings. The early introduction of GDI and other fuel-saving technologies in new petrol cars is being strongly encouraged by the Government's carbon dioxide-based reforms of graduated vehicle excise duty and company car tax. The early introduction of ultra-low sulphur petrol ensures that fuel quality is not a barrier to the introduction of such technologies.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: The Minister said that the Opposition had provided no evidence in favour of the later date in April next year. She has not yet given us a jot of evidence in favour of the date in June. I hope that we shall hear some.
  Miss Johnson: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will be more generous with his patience than he appears to have been with his research before arriving in the Chamber.
  Clause 1 completes the introduction of the ultra-low sulphur petrol duty differential by cutting duty by a further 2p per litre, providing a total incentive of 3p per litre in relation to ordinary unleaded petrol.
  The Government recognised that the final stages of transition to ultra-low sulphur petrol had the potential to create competitive distortions in the market, and that short-term constraints on the capacity of UK oil refineries might have meant that it took longer for independent retailers to complete the transition. The Government want to ensure that everyone has access to the environmental benefits of ULSP and the associated duty cut. To ensure a smooth transition to 100 per cent. ULSP across the United Kingdom and to guard against any competitive distortions in the final stages, clause 1 also provides for a temporary cut of 2p per litre in the price of ordinary unleaded petrol.

  203
  The reason that that will be withdrawn on 14 June 2001 is that it will no longer be needed by then, as the market shift to ULSP will be virtually complete—in fact, complete.
  Mr. Letwin: Complete?
  Miss Johnson: It will be complete.
  Mr. Letwin: Will the Minister give way?
  Miss Johnson: I will, but I am trying to answer the points that have been raised.
  Mr. Letwin: The Economic Secretary has just told us, in terms, that the market shift will be complete by 14 June. Will she now, in slightly more serious vein, offer the guarantee that I mentioned earlier in relation to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, on behalf of the Government? Will she give an undertaking that any motorist who fails to find ULSP as of that date will be reimbursed—paid the difference—by the Government?
  Miss Johnson: I will not respond to the hon. Gentleman's points. I want to respond to the substantive points made by members of the official Opposition, which I must say were rather limited.
  By 14 June, ULSP will be available to all UK forecourts. One reason why I will not answer the more trivial point made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is that, although it will be up to petrol retailers to decide whether to make ULSP available, it will be available to them. I understand that 14 June was picked because it matches the oil companies' accounting period, thus minimising compliance costs. It was chosen during discussion with the industry on a practical timetable following the point at which the policy was announced.
  Mr. Letwin: Will the Minister give way?
  Miss Johnson: I will give way once more.
  Mr. Letwin: I am doubly grateful to the Economic Secretary. Now that we understand her logic—which is perfectly rational—may I ask her to adopt a slightly different formulation? Will she guarantee to refund the differential to any retailers who cannot find ULSP to service their own forecourts?
  Miss Johnson: Let us go through the figures—a process that has been notably absent in the contribution of Opposition Members.
  DTI figures show that from early April ULSP was available from 81 per cent. of retail sites—up from 68 per cent. in late March—and made up 94 per cent. of unleaded sales, up from 77 per cent. in late March. By 1 June, 98 per cent. of the network should be covered. By the middle of June, ULSP will be available to every petrol station in the country. Of the oil majors, Esso and Shell already have ULSP at 100 per cent. of their retail sites.
  204
  BP has it at 99 per cent., TotalFinaElf at 98 per cent. and Texaco at 87 per cent. All the oil majors will achieve 100 per cent. by 1 May.
  Mr. Clappison: Did not the Government claim that those major oil suppliers would have the arrangements in place by the end of March?
  Miss Johnson: The reason for the 14 June date is that that is when it needs to be done by, and that is when we are saying it will be done by. The figures show that we are very close to being 100 per cent. there already. I realise that the hon. Gentleman may be a little embarrassed, having come to the debate with no evidence in support of an amendment asking for a postponement, and no real justification for the date that he has selected.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: Will the Minister give way?
  Miss Johnson: I will give way one last time.
  Mr. Atkinson: I came to the debate with some evidence. I spoke to the Petrol Retailers Association today. The DTI figures given by the Minister do not take into account the consequences of the explosion in the Texas refinery the other day, which will have a substantial effect on United States demand for petrol from Europe. All we are asking the Minister is this. If she is wrong, the DTI figures are not reliable and the oil companies do not meet that target date, what will happen? Who will reimburse the motorists, particularly those in rural constituencies, who will lose out?
  6 pm
  Miss Johnson: I have already explained that ULSP will be available to all retailers. Obviously, it is up to retailers whether they retail it or not, but the fact is that it will be available to all retailers, and that is the point.
  The hon. Gentleman mentions the problems of refinery supply. There was a recent explosion at the Conoco refinery on Humberside, but we believe that that should have a negligible impact on supply as the refinery was preparing for shutdown for maintenance shortly. Indeed, the DTI figures anticipate the shutdown.
  The amendment is unnecessary. I have placed very good evidence before the Committee that we have made extremely good progress in implementing the commitment and that we are well on target to meet the 14 June deadline. We do not believe that it is necessary to extend a duty redaction for a fuel which will not be in use after June and which carries with it environmental disbenefits that I am sure hon. Members would want to see minimised.
  Mr. Clappison: I have listened carefully to the Minister's response and I think that the Government are in retreat. She is not prepared to back up her words and the assurances of the past with the guarantee that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has sought. Nor have the Government been able even to make good the claim by the Financial Secretary that the major oil companies were
  "on track to meet their target to supply ULSP nationwide at their retail sites by the end of March"—[Official Report, 26 February 2001; Vol. 363, c. 511W.]

  205
  The Minister has made it clear that that target has not been met by the major oil companies, let alone the independent retailers that often serve the rural communities to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) adverted.
  The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, asked what evidence the Opposition had as to what the position would be by 14 June. Of course, neither the Opposition nor, it would appear, the Government are in a position to give cast-iron guarantees as to what the position will be on 14 June, but two things are clear. First, the danger of some motorists who rely on unleaded petrol facing a 2p increase because of the non-availability on a universal basis of ULSP will be greater on 14 June than it would be on 5 April—the Government are forcing the companies to meet the deadline. That cannot be gainsaid.
  Secondly, if that scenario transpires and we have people from parts of the country complaining that they cannot obtain ULSP and that the 2p that was taken off on 7 March is coming back on 7 June, the first people to denounce the Government will be the Liberal Democrats, who will say that they argued against this all along and warned the Government of the danger of a 2p increase. We know the Liberal Democrats well. That is one thing that is absolutely certain.
  We are not satisfied by the Minister's response. It would appear that there is a risk of motorists facing a 2p increase on 14 June after the Chancellor had made a reduction of 2p on 7 March—2p off on 7 March, 2p back on on 14 June, when fuel taxes are already at a very high level because of the Government's fuel taxation policies. We think that there is that risk, perhaps especially in rural areas, and we intend to press the amendment to a Division.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 126 Noes 324.

  Division No. 191]

  [6.4 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Duncan, Alan

  Amess, David

  Evans, Nigel

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Fabricant, Michael

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fallon, Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Flight, Howard

  Bercow, John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Blunt, Crispin

  Fox, Dr Llam

  Boswell, Tim

  Fraser, Christopher

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Gale, Roger

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Garnier, Edward

  Brady, Graham

  Gibb, Nick

  Brazier, Julian

  Gill, Christopher

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Green, Damian

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Greenway, John

  Burns, Simon

  Grieve, Dominic

  Clappison, James

  Gummer Rt Hon John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hammond, Philip

  Collins, Tim

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Heald, Oliver

  Cran, James

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Horam, John

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Howard, Hon Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Hunter, Andrew

  206

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Randall, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Robathan, Andrew

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Key, Robert

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Ruffley, David

  Leigh, Edward

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Letwin, Oliver

  Salmond, Alex

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Lidington, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Loughton, Tim

  Spring, Richard

  Luff, Peter

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Steen, Anthony

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Streeter, Gary

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Swayne, Desmond

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Syms, Robert

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Madel, Sir David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Tredinnick, David

  Maples, John

  Trend, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Viggers, Peter

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Walter, Robert

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Whittingdale, John

  Norman, Archie

  Willetts, David

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Paice, James

  Yeo, Tim

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Paterson, Owen

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Mr. James Gray and

  Prior, David

  Mr. Keith Simpson.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Browne, Desmond

  Ainger, Nick

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Burden, Richard

  Allan, Richard

  Burgon, Colin

  Allen, Graham

  Burnett, John

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cann, Jamie

  Austin, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Bailey, Adrian

  Casale, Roger

  Baker, Norman

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Banks, Tony

  Chidgey, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Clapham, Michael

  Battle, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Clelland, David

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clwyd, Ann

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Best, Harold

  Cohen, Harry

  Betts, Clive

  Coleman, Iain

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Colman, Tony

  Blizzard, Bob

  Connarty, Michael

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Borrow, David

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Corbett, Robin

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Brake, Tom

  Corston, Jean

  Breed, Colin

  Cotter, Brian

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Cousins, Jim

  207

  Cranston, Ross

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hurst, Alan

  Cummings, John

  Hutton, John

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Dalyell, Tam

  Illsley, Eric

  Darvill, Keith

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jamieson, David

  Davidson, Ian

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Drew, David

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Joyce, Eric

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Edwards, Huw

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Efford, Clive

  Keetch, Paul

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Feam, Ronnie

  Kemp, Fraser

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

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

  Fisher, Mark

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Flint, Caroline

  Khabra, Piara S

  Follett, Barbara

  Kidney, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Gapes, Mike

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Gardiner, Barry

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Lammy, David

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Gerrard, Neil

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Levitt, Tom

  Gidley, Sandra

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Goggins, Paul

  Linton, Martin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Livsey, Richard

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Lock, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Grocott, Bruce

  McCabe, Steve

  Grogan, John

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hain, Peter

  McDonnell, John

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McFall, John

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hanson, David

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Harvey, Nick

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Healey, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  MacShane, Denis

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hendrick, Mark

  McWilliam, John

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Heppell, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hill, Keith

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hoey, Kate

  Merron, Gillian

  Hood, Jimmy

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hope, Phil

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Moore, Michael

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  208

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mountford, Kali

  Soley, Clive

  Mudie, George

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Mullin, Chris

  Spellar, John

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Oaten, Mark

  Stevenson, George

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Olner, Bill

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Öpik, Lembit

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Stunell, Andrew

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pendry, Rt Hon Tom

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Pike, Peter L

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pope Greg

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Timms, Stephen

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Todd, Mark

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Touhig, Don

  Rammell, Bill

  Tickett, Jon

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Rendel, David

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Tyler, Paul

  Tynan, Bill

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rogers, Allan

  Watts, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Webb, Steve

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  White Brian

  Rowlands, Ted

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Roy, Frank

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ruane, Chris

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Salter, Martin

  Willis, Phil

  Sanders, Adrian

  Winnick, David

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Woodward, Shaun

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Woolas, Phil

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Worthington, Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Mr. Ian Pearson.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
  '(3A) The rate of excise duty for biodiesel and bioethanol when used as road transport fuels, shall be 33p per litre below the rate fixed for ultra low sulphur diesel as defined by the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979.'.
  I have great pleasure in moving this amendment, which would reduce the duty rate for biodiesel and bioethanol to that for road gas fuels, which is around the 7p mark. If offers the Government and the Committee an opportunity to do a deal of good for the environment and for our distressed farming industry at one and the same time. What could be better than that?

  209
  Biodiesel offers an unrivalled range of environmental benefits as compared with alternative transport fuels. It is sustainable and renewable, with very positive energy balances; it is safely biodegradable; it is far better in terms of greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels; it offers scope for recycling waste oils; it recycles carbon; and it produces far fewer local air pollutants than fossil diesel. Bioethanol is also renewable, sustainable and environmentally friendly and has excellent emission properties. On balance, biofules offer better environmental advantages than even the road fuel gases liquified petroleum gas, compressed natural gas and liquified natural gas—LPG, CNG and LNG.
  My amendment seeks to put the biofuels on all fours with the road fuel gases. Biodiesel compares favourably with those fuel gases and enormously favourably with fossil fuels. The Government have shown environmental logic in granting a substantial reduction to road fuel gases, and the same logic directs that a similar reduction should also be made for the biofuels. Granting a major reduction in duty rates to biodiesel and bioethanol would enable those fuels to make a significant and rapid contribution to reducing atmospheric pollution.
  Biodiesel can be used straight or blended in place of fossil diesel in all modern diesel engines, without modification. Bioethanol, blended with petrol, can be used in normal engines or purpose-built bi-fuel vehicles. Ten per cent. ethanol blends are already routinely used in the United States to curtail local air pollution. Life-cycle emissions of greenhouse gases from biodiesel and from bioethanol are at least 55 per cent. and 62 per cent. lower respectively than from fossil diesel Tailpipe emission figures are also much better for the biofuels. Particulates emissions from biodiesel are 20 per cent. to 39 per cent. better than low sulphur diesel and 10 per cent. to 29 per cent. better than ultra-low sulphur diesel. On almost all normal tests, biodiesel has an extremely favourable score.
  A duty rate of 7p per litre has been promised for gas fuels for road vehicles, but the Government have merely indicated that next year there will be a smaller reduction in duty—of 25p—for biodiesel. That s not on the face of the Bill: the Chancellor has simply indicated that that will happen. A much better signal should be sent to the industries involved that they should make the investment.
  Major companies are ready to produce such fuels. The necessary crops would provide much-needed new business for agriculture, and the whole country would benefit from cleaner air as biofuels were substituted for fossil fuels.
  Mr. Clappison: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, even if the reduction in duty rate, is made next year, the price of biodiesel fuels will remain above that of road fuel gases because of the high level of duty on them?
  Mr. Beith: That is correct, and I cannot see the logic of the Government's position. It is sensible that the same chain of arguments should apply to biodiesel and bioethanol as applies to road fuel gas. In many cases, those arguments apply more powerfully to biodiesel and bioethanol. There is no logic to the Government's position with regard to duty levels—let alone to the year's delay in the implementation of any reduction.
  In fairness to the Government, it should be acknowledged that the situation has moved on because of the crisis in agriculture. The matter merits a fresh look.
  210
  A clear signal from the Government to farming that the current crisis means that there are other directions in which the industry should move would be timely and helpful. Farmers may decide to move out of livestock and into arable at precisely this stage. Those who have lost their livestock and are in receipt of compensation might be ready to make new investment in this area.
  The National Farmers Union supports the amendment. It considers that the further duty reduction proposed in the amendment
  is essential if biofuels are to become price competitive and deliver the benefits to the environment and the agricultural industry that they so clearly offer."
  The NFU also strongly supports
  "the extension of these reductions to bioethanol, which is extensively used in Brazil and the US where duty rates are more favourable to environmentally friendly fuels.
  The NFU adds:
  "You will be well aware that the agricultural industry is deep in crisis. The Government has often urged farmers to diversify into new enterprises, and we are firmly convinced that the emergent biofuels industry offers a realistic opportunity for diversification and for a new market for British farmers."
  Incidentally, it is significant that we are currently exporting oilseed rape to countries that produce and use biodiesel.
  Mr. Salmond: What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is important and welcome. Will he give the House an indication of the possible scale of biofuel use if the amendment were to be accepted?
  Mr. Beith: Such a forecast would be difficult, and it is not one that I have come prepared to make. The Government are no more prepared to give a clear indication of what they think will be the take-up of road fuel gases. Such calculations are difficult, and they are a job for industry. Making risky decisions about how extensive investment should be is something at which industry excels. Governments of all parties have a bad record in that regard.
  However, for industry to make such decisions, there must be a reasonable taxation basis. Giving industry an incentive to invest in road fuel gases and not in biofuels is likely to lead to the wrong investment decisions, or discourage investment that could be very beneficial in terms of both industry and agriculture.
  Mr. David Heath: I agree with the strong points that my right hon. Friend makes, especially on behalf of farmers across the country. However, is he aware that the Government could adopt a policy of substituting at least 15 per cent. of road fuel with ethanol as from tomorrow? The French have relaxed taxation on the ethanol component in fuel, and the Government could do the same. In that way, they could encourage what is an important and environmentally friendly industry.
  Mr. Beith: My hon. Friend makes a good point. He underlines my earlier point that conversion would be easy: indeed, people would only need to put a different fuel in their tanks at petrol stations. No engine adaptation is required, so the change would be easy to make.
  I mentioned the strong support for the amendment in the agriculture industry, and I draw the Government's attention to this week's edition of Farmers Weekly. In a

  211
  very strong editorial, it criticises the advice given by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on this subject. Referring to "misguided MAFF advice", the editorial asks:
  "Why does MAFF make so many mistakes?"
  It states that the Ministry's advice
  "could have denied UK growers their biggest break for years."
  What was that MAFF advice? It was that an increase in oilseed rape production
  "could conflict with Government targets to reduce the decline in farmland birds".
  That argument was demolished by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The RSPB supports renewable energy schemes, including biofuels. Farmers Weekly reported that the organisation considers that growing more oilseed rape
  "could help stem the decline in seed-eating birds such as linnets and bullfinches."
  Farmers Weekly reported that, although oilseed rape, as a
  "winter-sown crop … would not favour ground-nesting birds, it is better than winter cereals."
  The RSPB's secretary, Graham Madge, is reported as saying:
  "Long term if we don't do something to stem greenhouse gases there will be problems for all birds."
  Essentially, in terms of its effect on birds, growing oilseed rape for fuel is no different from growing any other crop—except for the benefits that it offers seed-eating birds. Alternative habitats would need to be arranged for ground-nesting birds, and headlands are an obvious choice in that regard. The Government's arguments simply do not stand up. Given that their policy has clearly been shown to be wrong, I hope that the Treasury will dismiss it from its calculations, and that unfortunate Ministers in the Lords will not be required to trot out an argument that makes no sense.
  Another argument that does not stand up is the one advanced by the Financial Secretary in a letter sent to the chairman of the British Association of Biofuels and Oils on 23 April. The Financial Secretary explained why road gas fuels attracted a lower rate of duty than biofuels, and said:
  "A 20 pence per litre duty cut ensures no disproportionate cost to society of securing reductions in carbon emissions, while providing recognition for the environmental benefits from biodiesel. Incentives for road fuel gases, on the other hand, are directed predominantly at improvements in local air quality where cleaner road transport has a key role to play. Because the proposed incentives for biofuels are focused on climate change improvements, a direct comparison in not appropriate."
  That is nonsense. The tailpipe emissions record of biofuels is every bit as good as that for road fuel gases, and in many cases better. The Financial Secretary was wrongly advised that the benefits arising from biodiesel and bioethanol were confined to the climate change benefits. The tailpipe emission benefits are also extremely important, and biofuels score on both counts. Now that that argument has been shown to be mistaken, I hope that it will not again figure in the Treasury's calculations.
  As I said earlier, biofuels perform very well when standard tests for local, tailpipe emissions of carbon monoxide, particulates, sulphur oxides and other pollutants
  212
  are carried out. Therefore, the comparison that the Financial Secretary sought to make was false: biofuels perform well in terms of both climate change improvements and tailpipe emissions.
  The amendment offers an attractive course for the Government to adopt. Conventional oilseed rape varieties such as are grown now could produce up to 6 per cent. of the UK's requirements for road vehicle diesel fuel. Substantial environmental benefits would be achieved. The technology already exists, and subsidies would not be needed to persuade growers to grow the crop. No new research would be heeded to develop growers' skills, as the crop is already being grown. No capital advances would be required for processing, as the UK already has crushing and esterification plants.
  In addition, the industry would be ready to increase investment, as long as is it knew that the relevant tax regime would work. Britain already exports oilseed rape to Germany and Austria, and those countries use what they import to produce biodiesel. We are denying ourselves environmental advantages that we could have. We are failing to give agriculture a benefit that could be extremely valuable at a difficult time such as this.
  The Government clearly realise that they should be doing something. That is the reason for the Chancellor's indication of a 20p cut next year. However, what they are contemplating comes too late and is insufficient. To wait until next year risks investments not being made. To preserve a significant difference between road fuel gas duty and duty on biofuels risks giving the industry the wrong signal.
  I invite the Government to accept my amendment in principle. I know that they will want to redraft it and present it in different terms—that is in the nature of parliamentary proceedings. However, it surely makes sense to secure an equivalent rate of duty.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. James Paice: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on his speech, and on his wisdom in making this proposal.
  I confess that I am slightly less generous than the right hon. Gentleman in my view of the Government's motives. I suspect that at some stage in drafting the Budget, the Chancellor said, "I had better put something green in the Budget, especially if it will not actually cost anything. What can I do?" On the face of it, the Government's proposal looks extremely green, but it is not going to cost anything because it is not sufficient to create the desired result. My cynical belief is that the Chancellor will get away with it, at least for a time, like everything else he does, until people see what is underneath. The 20p reduction, as the right hon. Gentleman said, will not change the economies sufficiently to encourage a massive increase in production and use of biofuels.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke about America and one or two other countries. Unusually for a Liberal Democrat, he did not mention Europe much, yet there are some good examples on our doorstep. Other European Union countries have already seen the benefit of such a measure. France provides a total exemption to its duties which equates roughly to 35p a litre, which is in the same ball park as the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. France has done that because it wants the use of biofuels to increase.

  213
  The energy technology support unit, the body that advises the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on biofuels, told the Science and Technology Committee two years ago that the problem with biodiesel is its poor energy balance: it produces only twice as much energy as is used in its production. ETSU also said that every litre of biodiesel used reduces carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 1.5 kg. That is a major reduction. Even if we accept that first statement at face value, it is only half the story, because what also matters is the source of that energy in the energy balance.
  Biofuels cannot emit more carbon dioxide than was taken up in the growing process in the first place—that is basic chemistry. In the simplest comparison, they are energy neutral. They are not, of course, because one must include the energy that was used in growing the crop, producing the fertilisers and the subsequent use of energy in processing it into biodiesel or ethanol. Even allowing for that, we are faced with a major net gain of energy balance. Even if the energy sources used for production and processing are from fossil fuels, as the majority of our energy is, there is still a gain. However, they do not have to come from fossil fuels. There is no reason why other forms of biofuel, such as miscanthus for producing energy at power stations, could not be used to create the first energy and produce a double benefit.
  Amazingly, the policy on this issue in Europe has not had much coverage. European Union rules allow up to 15 per cent. by volume substitution of ETBE, an ethanol derivative, in our petrol. It is already there. In answer to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who is no longer in his place, the Farmers Weekly article to which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred gave some statistics. Europe currently produces 700,000 tonnes a year of biodiesel and has set production targets of 2.3 million tonnes by 2003 and 8.3 million tonnes by 2010. Germany is on course, as are Austria, Italy, Spain and France. Britain, at the moment, will produce almost zero towards that very sensible target.
  Some people claim that biofuels are not sufficiently positive in energy use terms to justify the effective subsidy that is required, which is the subject of the amendment. Much of that opinion is based on historical studies carried out in 1991. Conversion technologies have improved considerably and, as we have heard, the husbandry and every other aspect of the scientific production side is fully covered. In addition, the price of crude oil—the main comparator—has increased dramatically. Although less than it was a few months ago, it is still much higher than it once was. At the same time, prices for grain and oilseed rape, the two major sources of biofuels, have collapsed to little more than half of what they were when these studies were carried out in 1991.
  All those arguments about energy balance could be significantly damaged if it were not for the fact that both my party and the Government have already conceded the principle of using a taxation instrument to encourage environmentally friendly fuels. As the right hon. Gentleman said, road fuel gases will be taxed at 6p a litre to encourage their use. They are inevitably much cleaner than conventional petrol or diesel, but they are still fossil fuels. All the carbon dioxide that is emitted when road fuel gas is burned contributes to global warming and carbon dioxide levels. In reducing duty for environmental benefit, I think that we must go considerably further than the 20p proposed by the Government.
  214
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the article and critical editorial in Farmers Weekly. I will not go through it again because he demonstrated clearly how daft the comments of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are. The Ministry has not exactly covered itself with glory in recent months, and this adds to the pile of criticisms.
  No one envisages that the development of the biofuels market will manifestly change the face of agriculture. As the right hon. Gentleman said, British agriculture is in serious difficulties, even without the foot and mouth crisis. However, the reduction would provide an alternative market for oilseed rape and cereals. The price of rape or grain would not rise dramatically because the market would set its own levels. If the reduction on fuel duty were fixed at the 33p that we are discussing, that would feed back to a maximum price that people could afford to pay for the raw materials. The market would therefore limit the acreage of grain or oilseed rape being produced, commensurate with that price. If the price of rape went up too much, the economics would go out of the window yet again. So it would be a self-levelling device. It would, as the right hon. Gentleman said, help agriculture at a time of desperate need.
  If the reductions in the Budget for next year are a genuine and serious attempt to encourage the production of biofuels, I hope that the Government will listen to those who say that a cut of 20p will not produce the result that they want. I can understand that the Government would look cynically on anything said from the Conservative, and perhaps, occasionally, the Liberal Democrat, Benches, but they should listen to people such as Peter Clery, to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred, who have spent the past 20 years working to develop biofuels.
  In the late 1980s, for some unknown reason, the bus company in Reading tried running buses on biodiesel. The only environmental result was that the whole of Reading smelled like a fish and chip shop because the buses were burning vegetable oil, but the technology proved its worth.
  Mr. David Heath: In case the House has the impression that buses necessarily smell of fish and chips when they run on biodiesel, can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the entire Stockholm bus fleet runs on that fuel without any such problem?
  Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right and my comment was a bit flippant, even if, since I was talking about the mid-1980s, it was true. I use that example to demonstrate that the technology was not developed in the 21st century but has been around for close on 20 years. It is time that this country gave it the promotion that it deserves. I hope that the Government will take heed of those who have studied it for many years and will realise that 20p is insufficient to bring the result that we all want. I hope that they will look favourably on the amendment.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I support the amendment and what has been said about the inadequacy of the Government's proposals. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said that the technology, far from being new, had been around for at least 20 years. In fact, it is as old as the diesel engine itself, since the first of them were designed to run on

  215
  vegetable oil, not black gold from the ground once the oil companies muscled in. Even modern diesel engines have for years been able to run without adaptation on biodiesel or a mixture of biodiesel and conventional diesel. There is no technological problem about moving to a 50 per cent. mix of bioethanol or an even greater proportion of biodiesel. Nor do they smell of fish and chips, unless salt and vinegar are added to the mix.
  The Treasury team would have done well to study in more detail the Environmental Audit Committee pre-Budget report 2000, "Fuelling the Debate" before they produced the Finance Bill. Several of our debates tonight have revealed a lack of clear thought about real environmental benefits in Government proposals that purport to bring them. Paragraph 97 of the report states:
  "It is clear that whichever the preferred fuels, past experience indicates that long-term fiscal signals will need to be maintained to provide the necessary certainty so that industry and consumers can plan and invest against a particular tax regime. In the UK there have been incentives to encourage autogas for five years, but the market is only now beginning to take off."
  My constituency experience supports that. We have only one autogas refuelling station in Ceredigion, which is a rural area, and conversion to autogas is unlikely to take off. Yet the infrastructure exists in conventional fuel stations for biofuels of all types.
  I chair a biomass working group in my constituency, which is trying to promote biomass in terms of heat production. We have also considered opportunities for farmers in Ceredigion and west Wales to produce biofuels. For the future of farming, in addition to value added products that we have advocated for years and increasing organic production, we should consider energy production. It is disappointing that we have had so many mixed signals from the Government on that.
  The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and I participated in a debate in Westminster Hall a month ago at which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food seemed to give encouraging signals about support for energy crops. Yet the Finance Bill offers only a sop, not a measure sufficient to take matters forward. The 20p reduction in biofuels barely brings the cost of production down to that of conventional petrol and diesel. We need a greater impetus and stronger long-term signals if the industry is to take off. The amendment provides those signals, and I support it.
  The Temporary Chairman (Dr. Michael Clark): Order. We must conclude our proceedings on clauses 1 to 3 by 7 pm. If hon. Members will co-operate with me, I shall co-operate with them. I intend to call Mr. Brake and ask him to be fast, and I shall then call Mr. Clappison.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Tom Brake: I shall be very quick in supporting the amendment and offering one example of why it should be agreed to. The "people, paper, oil and cans" project in Wandsworth works with the bio-regional development group based in my constituency. The core of the project is the conversion of cooking oil to biodiesel that can be used in vehicles which collect aluminium cans and white office paper for recycling. It seeks to create a virtuous circle, and the biodiesel will also be used in vehicles providing a service for users of the centre from which the project is being run.
  216
  The project sponsors say that the major stumbling block to success is the fuel duty. Even the promised 20p reduction would be inadequate, and the project would not be viable. A reduction of at least 40p—more than the amendment proposes—is required, in their view. The amendment would at least help that sort of innovation to proceed, and I hope that the Government will consider the points that have been made.
  Mr. Clappison: We welcome the debate. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made an interesting case in support of his amendment, and other interesting points have been made, particularly in the characteristically well-informed contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who has a long-standing interest in these matters.
  We have already said that we want a reduction in duty on biodiesel and bioethanol. There are environmental grounds for such a reduction. In addition, those fuels give hard-pressed British farmers the hope of another market. If farmers were under pressure before the outbreak of foot and mouth, they are even more so now. It is right to explore every avenue to see what help can be given to them, and there is potential in a market for biodiesel and bioethanol.
  The Minister has heard some expressions of farmers' opinions already. My hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred to the article in last week's Farmers Weekly, and I commend that article to her. I invite her to consider the analysis of Government policy under the headline, "Labour applies brakes to oilseed opportunity", and the opinion column, which expresses the view that the present state of Government policy
  "has left biodiesel and oilseed rape stuck on the forecourt".
  Let us see whether we can get the Government to move from there.
  Miss Melanie Johnson: I am pleased to hear support from the Liberal Democrat and official Opposition Benches for the Chancellor's Budget announcement of a new lower duty rate for biodiesel. That consensus is welcome, but the amendment seeks to cut the rate for biodiesel not by 20p per litre, as we propose, but by 33p. That is a bigger reduction than can be justified. The amendment also suggests extending the duty cut to bioethanol and bringing the reduction forward from next year. That would be premature.
  The Government are keen to stimulate development of viable alternative fuels that offer environmental advantages. Indeed, it was because of climate change benefits associated with biodiesel that the Government announced the 20p per litre reduction in duty. Although we recognise that the promotion of biodiesel can provide useful greenhouse gas emission savings, that should not be achieved regardless of cost. Many of the arguments advanced failed to take sufficient account of the costs of some of the current alternatives. Our climate change programme emphasises the principle that measures to tackle climate change must provide value for money—that is only sensible. A 20p per litre duty cut, while providing recognition for the environmental benefits of biodiesel, will ensure that there is no disproportionate cost to society in securing the reductions in carbon emissions.

  217
  Furthermore, it will take time to introduce a duty rate cut for an alternative fuel such as biodiesel. Not only do we need to settle on a UK specification for biodiesel to benefit from the duty reduction, and to seek the appropriate derogation from the EU mineral oils directive, we also need time to set up administrative arrangements to protect the revenue, and to protect legitimate biodiesel producers, motorists and hauliers by ensuring that poor quality biodiesel does not find its way into the UK distribution chain. Those are practical matters; they may involve time, but they are none the less relevant.
  Mr. Beith: Will the hon. Lady clarify why, in her judgment, the higher rate of reduction is justified for road fuel gas but not for biodiesel? She has explained that she regards a 20p reduction as sufficient for biodiesel, but she is prepared to make a much larger reduction for road fuel gas, although the same arguments apply to both types of fuel.
  Miss Johnson: The point relates to the environmental cost or the saving that will be made. I will run through a few figures. Before the Budget, the biodiesel lobby was pushing for a duty incentive of about 35p per litre relative to ultra-low sulphur diesel. That would have resulted in a cost of £2,333 per tonne of carbon saved, which would fall to £1,129 by 2010. It is true that the amendment suggests only 33p, but the cost would be nearly as large as that for a 35p per litre cut; in climate to change abatement terms, that would still be extremely high. For example, the duty incentive of 20p per litre for recovered vegetable oil relative to ultra-low sulphur diesel would actually cost £281 per tonne of carbon saved. There is a significant difference between the figures.
  Mr. Paice: Will the Minister tell us the total cost to the Exchequer of a duty of 6p per litre on road fuel gas? As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) points out, she cannot trot out the figures for one side without giving the other side. This is a question not merely of a 1p reduction, but of the whole duty concession—from that on ultra-low sulphur right down to the 6p that she rightly proposes on road fuel gas. What is that cost to the Exchequer per tonne of carbon saved?
  Miss Johnson: Biodiesel does not offer the same air quality benefits as road fuel gases—[Interruption.] The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has made an analysis; it is in the Library and hon. Members can study it. Road fuel gases provide significant benefits relative to diesel—especially with regard to particulates and nitrous oxides—but there are no such air quality benefits from biodiesel. That is one of the points that hon. Members are not taking on board.
  Mr. Paice: The hon. Lady must compare like with like. A diesel engine cannot run on gas, so we have to compare ethanol with gas and normal diesel with biodiesel. Will the hon. Lady tell the Committee how she can suggest that biodiesel is no better for the environment than conventional diesel? That is the comparison she should make—not a comparison with gas.
  Miss Johnson: What is relevant is the environmental cost of production as well as the environmental benefits—as the hon. Gentleman said during his speech, although
  218
  he did not produce any figures for actual environmental benefits and costs. His arguments were about the general idea. Indeed, we are in favour of the general idea; that is why we are incentivising it in this way. However, the particular options must work in practice. For that to happen, the sums must add up, and the options must offer value for money; all our care for the environment makes no sense if we do otherwise.
  The Budget has already given strong indications that have led at least three producers to commission the construction of large biodiesel plants. More than 100 million litres of biodiesel should be produced by the end of 2002. We have given a signal that is being read and is receiving responses.
  In his opening remarks, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked why we said that a 33p cut would not be cost-effective. I have already covered that up to a point. The incentives for road fuel gases are directed predominantly at improvements in local air quality, in which cleaner road transport has a key role to play. The proposed incentives for biofuels are focused on climate change improvements, so a direct comparison is not appropriate. The evidence suggests that a 20p per litre incentive for biodiesel is a cost-effective means of delivering climate change benefits from the transport sector, so that is what we propose. We recognise that the promotion of biodiesel can provide useful greenhouse gas emission savings, but those should not be made regardless of cost.
  The amendment also suggests a duty cut for bioethanol. The Government believe that would be premature. Greenhouse gas savings from ethanol depend very much on the feedstock used. The production of ethanol from wheat, for example, which was mentioned by several contributors to the debate, is well established, but unfortunately, on a life-cycle basis—taking account of the carbon dioxide implications of crop growing and processing the fuels, as well as its use as a motor fuel—it offers few greenhouse gas savings. I accept that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) took some account of that fact. There are few savings because wheat cultivation and ethanol production are both relatively energy-intensive processes, so the environmental case for the promotion of ethanol in the UK is weak, if wheat is to be the predominant feedstock. The feedstock does not necessarily have to be wheat, but as there was some discussion of wheat I wanted to make that point.
  Greenhouse gas savings of about 80 per cent. can be achieved by using ethanol produced from woody—lignocellulosic—biomass feedstocks; for the benefit of Members who do not know much about the subject, I should explain that those are wheat straw and forestry residues. However, that process is still very much at the research and development stage. The first generation of commercial production plants is not likely to be operational until about 2004.
  Given the potential climate change benefits, we are keen to ensure that UK industry can contribute to research and development. That is why the Chancellor announced in the Budget statement that viable pilot projects for bioethanol would be supported through duty exemptions or reductions. That will help UK industry to build on existing biomass research, which is also supported by our new and renewable energy programme.

  219
  The amendment urges the Government to introduce lower duty rates for biofuels. I assure the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that we intend to do so. However, we shall not produce rushed legislation. Indeed, if we did so, I should no doubt be hauled before the House or one of its Committees to give an explanation. Furthermore, we do not believe that we should pay over the odds for those greenhouse gas savings when the revenue forgone could be more effectively directed towards other climate change abatement projects.
  I hope that explains that although we have much sympathy with where the right hon. Gentleman is coming from, the practical difficulties have led us to adopt the present position.
  Mr. Beith: That is a very disappointing reply. It is not true that local air quality would not be improved very significantly by biofuels, nor is it true that the 20p reduction is a clear signal to industry, so I must ask the House to support me in this matter.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 162, Noes 286.

  Division No. 192]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Flight, Howard

  Allan, Richard

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Baker, Norman

  Gale, Roger

  Baldry, Tony

  Garnier, Edward

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Gibb, Nick

  Bercow, John

  Gidley, Sandra

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gill, Christopher

  Boswell, Tim

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Gray, James

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Green, Damian

  Brady, Graham

  Greenway, John

  Brake, Tom

  Grieve, Dominic

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Breed, Colin

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hammond, Philip

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Harvey, Nick

  Burns, Simon

  Hawkins, Nick

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Hayes, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Chidgey, David

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clappison, James

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Horam, John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Collins, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Cran, James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Day, Stephen

  Keetch, Paul

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Key, Robert

  Duncan, Alan

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Evans, Nigel

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Fallon, Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Letwin, Oliver

  220

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Salmond, Alex

  Lidington, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Livsey, Richard

  Shepherd, Richard

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

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

  Loughton, Tim

  Soames, Nicholas

  Luff, Peter

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spring, Richard

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Steen, Anthony

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Streeter, Gary

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Swayne, Desmond

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Syms, Robert

  Madel, Sir David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Malins Humfrey

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Maples, John

  Taylor, Jonn M (Solihull>

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Moore, Michael

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Tredinnick, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Trend, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Tyler, Paul

  Oaten, Mark

  Tyrie, Andrew

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Viggers, Peter

  Öpik, Lembit

  Walker, Cecil

  Paice, James

  Walter, Robert

  Paice, James

  Waterson, Nigel

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Webb, Steve

  Paterson, Owen

  Whittingdale, John

  Prior, David

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Randall, John

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Willetts, David

  Rendel, David

  Willis, Phil

  Robathan, Andrew

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Yeo, Tim

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ruffley, David

  Mr. Andrew Stunell and

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Mr. Bob Russell.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Browne, Desmond

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ainger, Nick

  Burden, Richard

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Burgon, Colin

  Allen, Graham

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Caplin, Ivor

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Casale, Roger

  Austin, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Banks, Tony

  Clapham, Michael

  Barnes, Harry

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Battle, John

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clelland, David

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clwyd, Ann

  Best, Harold

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Betts, Clive

  Cohen, Harry

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Coleman, Iain

  Blizzard, Bob

  Colman, Tony

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Connarty, Michael

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Borrow, David

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Corbett, Robin

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Corston, Jean

  221

  Cousins, Jim

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cranston, Ross

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Davidson, Ian

  Joyce, Eric

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kemp, Fraser

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Khabra, Piara S

  Doran, Frank

  Kidney, David

  Dowd, Jim

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Drew, David

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lammy, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Leslie, Christopher

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Levitt, Tom

  Fisher, Mark

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Flint, Caroline

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Follett, Barbara

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lock, David

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gapes, Mike

  McCabe, Steve

  Gardiner, Barry

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Gerrard, Neil

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McDonnell, John

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McFall, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  McIsaac, Shona

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McNulty, Tony

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  MacShane, Denis

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McWilliam, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Grogan, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hain, Peter

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hanson, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Healey, John

  Maxton, John

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hendrick, Mark

  Merron, Gillian

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Heppell, John

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Miller, Andrew

  Hill, Keith

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hinchliffe, David

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hoey, Kate

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Mountford, Kali

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Mudie, George

  Hope, Phil

  Mullin, Chris

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Olner, Bill

  Hurst, Alan

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Hutton, John

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pendry, Rt Hon Tom

  Illsley, Eric

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jamieson, David

  Plaskitt, James

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pond, Chris

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pope, Greg

  222

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Stevenson, George

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Rammell, Bill

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Timms, Stephen

  Rogers, Allan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rooney, Terry

  Todd, Mark

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Touhig, Don

  Rowlands, Ted

  Trickett, Jon

  Roy, Frank

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Ruane, Chris

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Salter, Martin

  Tynan, Bill

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Watts, David

  Shaw, Jonathan

  White, Brian

  Sheerman, Barry

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Soley, Clive

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mr. Ian Pearson.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  It being after Seven o'clock, THE TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on clauses 1 to 3, pursuant to Orders [7 November 2000 and 9 April].
  Clause 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 50

  CHARGE AND RATES FOR 2001–02
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 41, line 15, leave out "10%" and insert "0%".
  The amendment relates to the 10p rate of tax that the Government currently levy on the first part of people's incomes. We believe that the rate should be reduced to zero, effectively extending substantially the tax free allowance that people enjoy. Some 2.7 million people now have a marginal rate of tax of 10 per cent. as a result of the Chancellor's expansion of the band by £300 above indexation. Along with the early introduction of the 10p rate, that has been a substantial cost to him. However, instead of introducing other tax cuts, we believe that he should simply have extended the tax free allowance, taking 2.7 million people out of paying tax altogether.
  The cost to the Chancellor of our suggestion would be £4.1 billion in 2001–02 on an accruals basis and that compares with the money that he has already spent in tax

  223
  cuts. According to the Red Book, he has spent just over £3.5 billion this year, will spend nearly £4.5 billion next year and the figure rises to nearly £5 billion in the year after that. Therefore, it is clear that he had the money available to undertake the type of change that we have suggested. It would be worth just under £200 to people on incomes as low as £6,500 a year.
  7.15 pm
  The key debate is whether the Chancellor is going down the right route in seeking to introduce and then expand the 10p starting rate of tax or whether he would have been better advised, as Liberal Democrats have consistently argued over many years, to expand tax-free allowances to take many people out of paying tax. Instead, he has introduced another complication into the tax system.
  The first question to ask relates to the distributional impact of the Chancellor's policy. Would we better help people on the lowest incomes by taking the Chancellor's course of the tax complication of a 10p rate or by taking the Liberal Democrats' choice of extending tax-free allowances? Research undertaken by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that spending an equivalent amount of money on either widening the 10p band or cutting it to zero has different distributional impacts that do not affect people in the same way.
  Broadly speaking, the poorest 10 per cent. would gain twice as much by the Government cutting the 10p rate to zero than they would by the Government spending the same money on increasing the 10p band. The poorest 50 per cent. would gain more by cutting the 10p rate to zero. That led the Institute for Fiscal Studies to comment in its "Green Budget 2000" that widening the 10p band in the way that the Chancellor has chosen to do is "less redistributive". By contrast, on our suggestion of cutting the 10p band to zero, it said:
  "This approach has a number of beneficial features, including being the most progressive means of redistribution via the income tax system, as it moves some people out of paying tax altogether. Increasing the number of non-taxpayers also acts to simplify the income tax system."
  That is the second argument for the Liberal Democrats' approach. Cutting tax for people on low incomes and on the first part of their incomes would help to remove complexity.
  The Paymaster General(Dawn Primarolo): Will the hon. Gentleman explain exactly how his proposal to introduce a zero rate tax relief band on top of the personal allowance would make the tax system less complex and easier to understand?
  Mr. Taylor: If the Paymaster General had been listening, she would have understood that I said that, in effect, we would increase the allowance. The nature of this debate and our ability to table amendments to the Finance Bill gives us an opportunity to discuss these issues.
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman must be clear. Introducing a zero rate tax relief is not the same as increasing the personal allowance. It would add to
  224
  complexity in the tax system if people had to understand that they have not only a personal allowance, but a zero rate tax relief before they pay the basic rate. He has not dealt with that point.
  Mr. Taylor: If that is the best that the minds in the Treasury can come up with, I have worries about their ability to brief Ministers. I have said twice—I shall say it again—that our proposal is to increase the tax-free allowance. I shall make absolutely clear the mechanism through which we would do that. We would spend money to turn the 10p rate into a tax-free allowance at equivalent income levels.
  In case the Minister is wondering, our approach would be so beneficial in redistributive terms because it would give the maximum benefit at low income, including to part-time earners. That is exactly what the Institute for Fiscal Studies says. The Chancellor has to explain why he has chosen to take such a complex approach in preference to the simplification that we want. The Minister is right: operating two systems—a tax-free allowance and a 10p rate—is complex. If we were proposing, as she suggests, to have two different systems, we would be maintaining the complexity. However, we are not arguing that, because we want simplification. The Institute for Fiscal Studies argues, as does the broad range of those involved in the sector, that there should be a simple system that gives maximum benefit to people on the lowest incomes. Our proposal would take 2.5 million people out of the tax system.
  The Chancellor has also introduced other complexities into the tax system since he took office. The number of direct tax rates was 24; it is now 47. There were no tax credits; now there are eight, with five more proposed. The tax system is hugely complex. It benefits accountants enormously, because it allows them to earn much more, but it does not benefit those in greatest need. The money would be put to more effective use if it were given to people on the lowest incomes.
  Mr. Jim Cousins: Does the hon. Gentleman not see advantages in terms of tax simplification in aligning the system of personal allowances with the trigger rates for the payment of national insurance? The Government have moved towards that. If we bring the tax and national insurance systems together, we will achieve a massive measure of tax simplification.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman and I would probably agree to a large extent on long-term reform, for which the Liberal Democrats have been arguing much longer than others. There are difficulties in that policy, however, because we need to ensure that people are not unfairly penalised, which is why change has to be introduced gradually. I do not disagree with the principle of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Indeed, personal national insurance—employees national insurance—is an anomaly within the tax system. It does not build up an individual insurance fund. We have argued that the basic state pension should be available in full to all and not tied to a contribution record that unfairly penalises people, most of whom have stayed at home to look after children and have a reduced pension as a result. The operation of national insurance gives rise to many issues, but I will be called to order if I discuss them now.

  225
  The question mark that hangs over the Chancellor's strategy is how he envisages the tax system developing. It is not obvious from the internal logic of introducing the 10p rate and the decision to broaden the band at what point the Chancellor believes the process should be halted. Do the Government believe that the basic rate should gradually become the 10p rate? On what basis have they decided on the £300 increase? In addition, we are increasingly seeing difficult interactions between tax and savings. The tax system has been made more complex.
  People who are trying to tackle poverty have argued for our option. They want to take people out of tax altogether in preference to the 10p band. People who deal with tax, such as accountants and those employed by other professional bodies, have also argued that the Government are unnecessarily complicating the system and that it would be better to take some people cut of the tax system. There is only one reason for the Government's decision: the Chancellor is delivering a political message designed to trump the Conservatives. They argued for a 20p rate, so he came up with the 10p rate. That is the only logic behind their decision. The Government have a huge majority, which they expect to keep in the general election. I had hoped that they would have the courage to go for a sensible tax policy to take people out of paying tax instead of introducing a tax complication that is purely designed to wrong-foot the Conservative party.
  Mr. Cousins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Taylor: I do not want to hold up the proceedings, but I will give way in a moment if the hon. Gentleman still wants to intervene.
  The Government might argue that there is a difference of opinion about strategy, but at least Labour agrees—unlike the Conservatives—that the aim is to have a progressive tax system so that people on the lowest incomes contribute least until their incomes increase, when they are expected to contribute a little more.
  The introduction of the 10p rate cuts at the basic rate of income tax but huge increases in indirect taxation have made the tax system more regressive. Under the Conservatives, the rich paid less of their income in tax than the poor, but that has got worse under Labour. People in the poorest fifth of households typically pay 41.4 per cent. of their income in tax in one form or another compared with just 36.5 per cent. for the richest fifth. We know that because it is part of the information provided by the Government in table B on Page 39 of the Red Book. The proportion of income paid in tax has risen for the bottom 80 per cent. of households since 1997–98 and fallen for the richest 20 per cent. Most people are paying more; the rich are paying less; and the very poor are paying substantially more as a percentage of their income than the very rich. The process that we advocate of taking people out of tax would help to turn that around.
  It is not just a question of tax; we are also concerned about inequality in our society. The measure of inequality of income after tax—the Gini coefficient—has recorded another increase in the past year and now stands at 40 per cent. That is the highest level for any year for which the Office for National Statistics has data. Almost every measure shows inequality at its highest, or close to its highest, level. Such information is available in April's Economic Trends.
  226
  We have a Labour Government who are apparently committed to increasing equality in society, but who are actually increasing inequality. They are theoretically supporting progressive taxation, but have increased the regressive nature of tax in the United Kingdom. They have increased tax for the poorest and cut it for the richest. In the process, they have been unable to deliver the improvements in health, education and pensions that people thought they were going to receive back in 1997 when Labour came to office.
  Our proposal shows that the Chancellor had a choice about what to do with the money available to him, which he decided to spend on tax cuts. We have used figures in the Red Book to demonstrate that he could have taken 2.5 million people out of paying tax, increased equality and created a more progressive, simpler tax system which would please even the accountants. We believe that the Labour Government should have delivered on that; it is something on which the Liberal Democrats aim to deliver.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Flight: We have some sympathy with the underlying principles of the amendment, although we do not support it, in part for the reasons stated by the Minister and because it would create the equivalent of a personal allowance of £6,415 at a cost of over £4 billion, and we do not feel that that is fiscally viable right now.
  It is a great pity that a massive effort has been devoted to simplifying the wording of tax legislation but not to the principle of simplifying the tax system for the typical citizen. If anything, the Government have an almost obsessive desire further to complicate the tax system as it applies to individuals and companies, including even foreign companies operating in this country. It must be wrong that ordinary citizens are unable to understand the tax rules that apply to them and that millions of people have to use accountants to look after their tax affairs. Surely it is not an insurmountable problem to arrive at a much simpler system.
  In principle, the debate is whether to have two rates or to stay with the three rates that have been introduced by this Administration. Crucial to that, as the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) pointed out, is the Government's intention. Is the 10 per cent. band just a political gimmick or do they intend to widen it significantly so that it is more in line with a model such as that in Hong Kong? It must be inefficient to have millions of people paying very small amounts of tax at 10 per cent., as at present, when an averaged-out higher personal allowance would potentially take a significant number of people out of tax.
  The crucial point is the principle that lies behind the amendment. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the message is loud and clear, whether it comes from the Institute for Fiscal Studies or chartered accountants, that there is an urgent need to focus on simplifying our tax system. More and more people will end up doing self-assessment tax returns, so more and more people will fail to understand the tax rules that apply to them and there will be increasing trouble with people making mistakes and feeling that they have been ill treated.

  227
  The amendment is a point well raised, but the specific mechanism is not operative. The cost of raising personal allowances to over £6,000 is too great a fiscal burden at this stage.
  The Paymaster General: I understand the Liberal Democrats' main argument that personal allowances should be increased to remove low earners from the tax system. The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) knows full well that the Government's response is that an increase in personal allowances benefits higher earners to a greater extent. To achieve our objective of dealing with the poverty trap and the inequality to which the hon. Gentleman referred, we therefore introduced the 10p starting rate of tax. In this Budget we raised the allowance applicable at the 10p rate—that provision is set out in the next clause.
  I understand why the Liberal Democrats consistently advance their argument, but the Government reject it because we feel that it does not deal with our objectives of helping those on low incomes and reducing inequality. The hon. Gentleman's arguments were very confused, but I understand that the amendment is a means whereby Liberal Democrat Members can discuss their principled position on personal allowances. The amendment would introduce zero rate relief on £1,880, if the next clause is agreed to. All the arguments that the hon. Gentleman has advanced against the Government apply equally to his proposal because the amendment would result in a personal allowance, a zero rate relief band and subsequent relief bands. He knows that the cost of such a measure would be about £4.8 billion, which is not an insubstantial amount.
  The hon. Gentleman asked why there should be a 10p rate. The Government have made it clear that we want to provide an incentive to those on low wages to work harder, earn more and keep more of their earnings, so that we can tackle the poverty trap. The 10p rate is not the only policy that we are using; there is also the minimum wage and the national insurance changes to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) referred earlier. We have also introduced the working families tax credit and the children's tax credit, which deal specifically with poverty. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that, as a Minister, I favour our approach, with its balanced package, to what the Government agree with him are extremely important issues. The tax system and the supporting in-work benefits must not act as a disincentive to unemployed people to move into employment.
  I turn now to the inequality argument advanced by the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he will acknowledge that the vast number of people on low incomes are receiving benefits and are therefore not paying tax. Government policy assists them by enabling them to keep more money. By introducing programmes such as the new deal, we move people out of unemployment and into paid work. That affects the figures to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He sought to portray a simplistic relationship of cause and effect, but there are other ways to interpret the facts.
  The data to which the hon. Gentleman referred relate to the 1999–2000 tax year, and if I am not mistaken they are from the Office for National Statistics. He will know
  228
  that those figures do not include—indeed, they specifically exclude—the full-year benefits of the working families tax credit, the full effects of the introduction of the 10p rate and the reforms of national insurance, which have benefited those on lower earnings. Taken together over the whole Parliament, all the Government's measures show that we are bearing down on the inequality that the hon. Gentleman seeks to tackle in his amendment. Our judgment is that the balance of using resources is correctly set by widening the 10p band.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: The hon. Lady will be aware that statistics released in the past few days confirm that the gap between the richest and the poorest in this country has continued to widen. She has a good record of campaigning on poverty issues during the period in which I have been in the House. Does it not concern her that the Government's choice of cutting direct taxes while increasing indirect taxes inevitably increases the tax burden on those on the lowest incomes while cutting the burden on those on the highest incomes?
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman has probably, like me, read the IFS study that shows that the disposable income of those on the lowest incomes is increasing. We must both be careful about how we use the figures. I take that as a correction to myself not to stretch certain issues too far.
  As a result of the introduction of the 10p rate which, as I explained, is part of a wider set of policy objectives, including the minimum wage, national insurance reform and working families tax credit—which will move into integrated child credit in 2003–3 million people have had their tax bills halved, including 2.2 million low-paid workers. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor's proposals to increase the 10p band, which are the subject of clause 51, will halve marginal rates of tax for a further 450,000 people.
  I accept that Liberal Democrat Members always want more, and that they want us to go further this evening. However, the Government believe that targeted tax cuts are part of a broader package to help those on low pay and, specifically, to help the unemployed into employment; that is the way forward. That package is affordable for the country; the extra £4.8 billion that the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell proposes to spend in his amendment is not. While I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's principled position, I do not agree with the methods that he seeks to use to achieve his objectives, so I urge my hon. Friends to vote against the amendment, should he push it to a vote.
  Mr. Taylor: Having listened to the hon. Lady, I am worried that the Government are still advancing a case that nobody outside the House sees as anything other than a continuation of the Chancellor's political effort, begun in opposition, to rock the Conservatives. That has complicated tax. Everyone who deals with poverty argues that our route is better.
  I am glad we have had an opportunity to debate the issue and I hope that the Paymaster General and her colleagues will reflect on it. Perhaps it is better to have movement on that after the election, rather than before. People are aware of the penny that we would put on tax for education and the higher rate that we would introduce

  229
  for people with an income of over £100,000 a year to pay for our education, health and pensions policies, but this is an opportunity to make the point that we are also arguing for a tax cut for those on the lowest incomes. My hon. Friends and I believe that the Government have made the wrong choice; the Paymaster General has not addressed that in arguing that the amendment should be rejected on a technical point. We therefore wish to press it to a vote.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 41, Noes 281.

  Division No. 193]

  [7.43 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Livsey, Richard

  Baker, Norman

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Moore, Michael

  Brake, Tom

  Oaten, Mark

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Öpik, Lembit

  Breed, Colin

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Burnett, John

  Rendel, David

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NF Fife)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Chidgey, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Cotter, Brian

  Sanders, Adrian

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

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

  Stunell, Andrew

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Gidley, Sandra

  Tyler, Paul

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Harvey, Nick

  Willis, Phil

  Keetch, Paul

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

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mr. Steve Webb and

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Mr. David Heath.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Cann, Jamie

  Caplin, Ivor

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Casale, Roger

  Ashton, Joe

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Chaytor, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clapham, Michael

  Austin, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Banks, Tony

  Barnes, Harry

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Battle, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clelland, David

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cohen, Harry

  Best, Harold

  Coleman, Iain

  Betts, Clive

  Colman, Tony

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Connarty Michael

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cooper, Yvette

  Borrow, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Corston, Jean

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cousins, Jim

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Cranston, Ross

  Browne, Desmond

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Cummings, John

  Burden, Richard

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Burgon, Colin

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  230

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Davidson, Ian

  Joyce, Eric

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Khabra, Piara S

  Doran, Frank

  Kidney, David

  Dowd, Jim

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Drew, David

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Edwards, Huw

  Levitt, Tom

  Efford, Clive

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Fisher, Mark

  Linton, Martin

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Flint, Caroline

  Lock, David

  Follett, Barbara

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McCabe, Steve

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gerrard, Neil

  McDonnell, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McFall, John

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McIsaac, Shona

  Godsiff, Roger

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Goggins, Paul

  McNulty, Tony

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  MacShane, Denis

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McWilliam, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Grogan, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hain, Peter

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Maxton, John

  Hanson, David

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Healey, John

  Merron, Gillian

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hendrick, Mark

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Miller, Andrew

  Heppell, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hesford, Stephen

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hill, Keith

  Mountford, Kali

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mudie, George

  Hoey, Kate

  Mullin, Chris

  Hood, Jimmy

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hope, Phil

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Olner, Bill

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Pendry, Rt Hon Tom

  Hurst, Alan

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Hutton, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pike, Peter L

  Illsley, Eric

  Plaskitt, James

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jamieson, David

  Pond, Chris

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pope, Greg

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  231

  Rammell, Bill

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Roy, Frank

  Timms, Stephen

  Ruane, Chris

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ruddock, Joan

  Todd, Mark

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Touhig, Don

  Salter, Martin

  Trickett, Jon

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Tynan, Bill

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Skinner, Dennis

  Watts, David

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  White, Brian

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Winnick, David

  Soley, Clive

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Woodward, Shaun

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Woolas, Phil

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Worthington, Tony

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stevenson, George

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Mr. Ian Pearson.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Flight: The issues that we wish to raise in relation to clause 50 are represented by amendments that were not selected. Our argument is that the clause does nothing in the area of tax policy to relieve or compensate those who have suffered most from Labour's 48 stealth taxes, equivalent as they are to a 10p increase in income tax. The categories that we believe should be compensated are savers, married people in cases where one spouse has chosen to stay at home to look after the children, and those who are retired.
  The Conservative view is that it would be correct to remove the starting and basic income tax rate on savings; to abolish the 10p ordinary rate of income tax on dividends; and in particular to restore to individuals who are non-taxpayers but who are in receipt of dividends their right to claim a 10 per cent. tax credit in cash. The failure to address that is, in our view, Labour's single most unjust policy in respect of personal taxation. The issue has been raised many times and it affects 660,000 people.
  People's savings have been accumulated out of income that has been taxed. It is therefore a question of principle as to whether the fruits of that taxed income should again be taxed. A further issue is the volatility in the savings rate that has occurred under the present Administration, and the economic good sense of seeking to achieve a much more stable savings rate.
  It may surprise the Government to learn that of the 12 million shareholders in this country, almost 60 per cent. belong to socio-economic groups C1, C2 and D/E.
  232
  We want to encourage saving by the many. Proposals to relieve savings from basic and lower rate tax would also go some way to offset Labour's £5 billion a year stealth tax on pension funds. It will cost the average family an extra £400 a year to keep its pension fund capable of producing the same pension as it would have done before the removal of the advance corporation tax credit. The Government are no doubt aware that Tesco, for example, has advised its staff that contributions need to be increased by some 15 per cent. a year just to stand still.
  On the wider issue of savings and the volatility of savings, there is a major point to be made about the Government's overall fiscal policy. They love to boast of the extent to which they have reduced Government debt, but they do not comment on the fact that personal debt has increased by almost the same amount as Government debt has gone down. They do not reveal the fact that disposable incomes have grown by considerably less than the economy as a whole—on average, by 1.7 per cent. The reason why the savings rate has more than halved is that individuals have been borrowing more in order to keep up their consumption.
  The danger of this posture, especially now that we are entering much more difficult economic climate, as the Chancellor now admits, is that individuals will look to de-gear and to rebuild their net savings, quite sharply reducing their consumption in the process. That is precisely what leads to the ups and downs—the booms and busts—of the business cycle. The Chancellor is making optimistic noises about the British economy. I trust that they will prove well founded, but the Minister knows that growth it the first quarter was only some 0.3 per cent., annualised at 1.2 per cent. The evidence is that the savings rate is bouncing back up rather more sharply than is desirable. Our view is that the tax policy in relation to savings should be designed to stabilise the savings rate as far as possible.
  8 pm
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as he is an acknowledged expert on these matters. In the context of the halving of the savings ratio, which is common ground among all hon. Members, what assessment has he made of the likely impact on that state of affairs of the substitution of the inferior ISAs for the superior TESSAs?
  Mr. Flight: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. As everyone knows, the main issue with ISAs is that they are too complicated. People still do not understand clearly the difference between mini-ISAs and maxi-ISAs. In terms of the savings that ISAs have attracted, the figures appear reasonably satisfactory—excepting those for recent months. The relevant figures are difficult to distil, as large sums have been transferred into ISAs from building society accounts that did not qualify in the past.
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically disingenuous. Perhaps he will tell the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that, as he well knows, a third more people are investing in ISAs than invested in TESSAs and PEPs together in their last and most successful year. In total, 8.5 million people

  233
  invested some £28.4 billion in ISAs in their first year. ISAs are doing extremely well, especially for people who want to save smaller amounts.
  Mr. Flight: I thank the Paymaster General for those figures, but I point out that they do not tell the entire story. The preponderance of ISAs involves people who were already building society savers and who merely switched a modest cash element of their savings from outside an ISA to within one.
  Dawn Primarolo: Good for them.
  Mr. Flight: Yes, but the argument that ISAs have created huge numbers of new savers does not stand up.
  Let us consider also how total volumes of savings in the various good years of TESSAs and PEPs compare with those in the best years of ISAs. When the Government introduced ISAs, they admitted that their primary objective was to reduce the tax cost that was previously associated with PEPs and TESSAs. Indeed, that objective was set out in their Green Paper. Although they have been forced by the pressure of public opinion to keep the ISA level at £7,000 rather than to reduce it to £5,000, the benefits to the community in terms of tax incentives have been marginally less than those of PEPs and TESSAs.
  In respect of the tax positions of people who are retired and of those who will be retiring, one of the particularly objectionable aspects of the Government's fiscal policy was the removal of married couples allowance for all people who were going to retire in future. The spin was that retired people would continue to receive the allowance, but that applied only to people who were already 65 and receiving the money. Many people made their retirement plans on the basis that they would qualify for the allowance, but reached 65 this year and cannot receive it.
  The Opposition propose to increase the age allowance by £2,000 a year for everyone over 65; that would more than compensate for the circumstances that I am describing. It would take 1 million retired people out of tax and benefit almost 3 million more people by approximately £400 a year. It would also be a powerful antidote to the major swing towards a means-tested society that has occurred under the current Administration. The proportion of retired people on means testing has increased from 37 per cent. to 56 per cent. It is especially demeaning for people in the latter part of their lives to have to come cap in hand for means-tested benefits. Many pensioners are paying tax and also qualify for means-tested benefits. The measures that we propose for 2003–04 would be a major swing back towards enabling people to stand on their own feet and allowing most pensioners to come out of the tax net altogether.
  I want to comment now on tax and marriage and on couples in which one spouse wants to stay at home and bring up young children. We propose to restore a tax incentive for marriage and to acknowledge the importance of stability for people who are bringing up young children. We would recognise the contribution made by parents who are looking after young children or caring for elderly relatives by allowing the non-working spouse who is staying at home to transfer his or her personal tax allowance, which is now £4,535 a year, to the working spouse.
  234
  That arrangement would be worth up to £1,000 a year, depending on tax rates and full usage of the personal allowance. In particular, it would enable many people who would prefer to work part time rather than full time to do so, in order to give them more time to look after young children. Such a tax change would offer a tremendous benefit to almost 4 million married couples with children aged under 11. In more than one respect, the Government have penalised through taxation—I trust that they have not done so intentionally—married couples where one spouse wishes to stay at home to look after children.
  Let us also consider widows. We are supposed to have a caring Labour Government, but the position of widows has deteriorated under this Administration. Unlike the Labour party, we propose to cancel any tax burden for widowed parents by making the continuing widowed mothers allowance and the new widowed parents allowance, both of which are worth £87.50 a week, free of tax in future.
  Our concern is what the clause does not do. It merely repeats the tax bands as they were last year and does nothing to compensate the main sufferers under Labour's tax policies. We want to put on record the key areas in which the future Conservative Government would propose to use by 2003–04 the £8 billion—not £16 billion—of tax savings that we have identified, in order to do justice to the people who have suffered and to return a stable savings regime throughout the country.
  Dawn Primarolo: I want to contribute very briefly to this short debate. I begin by reminding the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) of something that he knows well: household wealth is at a record high and the ratio of household debt to wealth has fallen. As he follows such matters very closely, he knows also that the Bank of England said in its quarterly bulletin for spring 2001 that the UK household saving ratio did not seem unusually low when adjusted for changes in inflation rates in the past 30 years. When I challenged him, he had the good grace to concede the success of ISAs in assisting people who wish to save. He also acknowledged that they were more successful than their predecessors, PEPs and TESSAs.
  I am a little surprised at the hon. Gentleman, who knows a great deal about the subject, because once again his point about the tax on savings is a red herring. He tried to claim that the same money is taxed twice. He knows that that is not the case: the tax applies to earned, additional income that has not already been taxed. He slipped quickly over that point because he does not try to mislead the House. He seemed to claim that the same money was taxed twice, but I am sure that he did not mean that, because he knows that it is not so.
  The hon. Gentleman made several points, and presented the Conservative party's manifesto on tax on pensions, the age-related allowance, savings and the married couples allowance. He failed to point out that 90 per cent. of the age-related personal allowances, which Conservative Members say they will provide for the over-65s, would go to the richest 30 per cent. of pensioners. Sixty per cent. of the gain would go to the richest 20 per cent. He also failed to point out that only four out of 10 pensioners pay tax. Some of our pensioners experience poverty not because they pay tax but because their income is low. The Government have therefore introduced the minimum

  235
  income guarantee, increases in the state pension, and the £200 winter fuel allowance, and made a commitment to the pension tax credit. I shall go no further because I am straying beyond the clause.
  Mr. Edward Davey rose—
  Mr. Flight rose—
  Dawn Primarolo: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who is itching to intervene.
  Mr. Davey: Will the Paymaster General confirm that using the money that the Conservatives propose to spend on a so-called tax cut for pensioners to increase the basic state pension, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats, would be much more effective in reducing pensioner poverty?
  Dawn Primarolo: I shall not act as a referee between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives about which party has the marginally better policy. I believe that the Government have the best policy.
  Mr. Flight: The Paymaster General may have misunderstood our proposals. Pensioners who pay tax at the rate of 40 per cent. would not benefit from our proposals. The 3 million pensioners in the middle, who pay the standard rate of tax, would be the main beneficiaries.
  Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that not all pensioners would benefit from Conservative party proposals on the age-related allowance. The publicity and—dare I say it?—the spin implied that all pensioners would gain from the change. Clearly, that is not the case.
  Mr. Bercow: The Paymaster General invariably makes the best fist of a poor case. It is, none the less, a poor case. We are considering a position whereby the interest earned on income that has already been taxed is at stake. It is mere casuistry for the hon. Lady to dance on the head of a pin. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs, whose expertise the Paymaster General has graciously and rightly acknowledged, made the point that people are being taxed twice for the same money. That is so blindingly obvious that only an extraordinarily clever person could fail to see the point.
  8.15 pm
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman is extraordinarily clever. If he cares to study the way in which investments are taxed, he will realise that they are taxed on the interest that they earn. That money has not been taxed before.
  Mr. Bercow: That is very cheeky.
  Dawn Primarolo: That is how tax law works. If Conservatives want to explain the benefit of their suggested policy change in that way, that is fine. However, they should not suggest that the money is taxed twice.
  236
  I dealt with savings in my intervention on the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs and in my initial comments. He also considered the married couples allowance. First, the Conservatives said that they would reintroduce the married couples allowance, then they said that they would not. They then claimed that they would limit the number of those who would gain from it. Again, the proposals lack clarity. Eight out of 10 married couples and eight of 10 families with children would gain nothing. Single parents and married couples with both partners working would gain nothing. That also applies to married couples with children of secondary school age. However, the Government's policies—the 10p starting rate, the working families tax credit, the minimum wage, the children's tax credit, increases in child benefit and reform of the national insurance system—are all targeted at helping families on low income.
  Clause 50 establishes income tax for 2001–02. It shows that the Government have kept their promises on tax rates. We promised not to increase the top rate of tax, which remains at 40 per cent. We promised not to raise the basic rate of tax. The Chancellor's stewardship of the economy, ably assisted by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, has meant that we were able to make a cut of 1p in the basic rate last year, to 22p. We promised to introduce the new starting rate of 10p and we have done that. The next clause expands that provision.
  We are halving the marginal rate of tax for nearly 3 million people. Our policies mean that the direct tax burden on a single earner family on average earnings and with two children will fall from 21.5 per cent. in 1996–97 to 18.1 per cent. by 2001—the lowest since 1972. The Government keep their promises on tax, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51

  STARTING RATE LIMIT FOR 2001–02
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Flight: Although the increase in the band by £360 per annum will be welcome to all citizens who benefit, and the Government boast that they have increased it by more than the statutory indexed increase, it is worth pointing out that it is equivalent to 69p a week. At the same time, the increase in the upper limit for national insurance from £535 to £575 a week has resulted in an additional national insurance bill of £2.09 a week for 2.9 million people.
  The Chancellor did not announce that in the Budget; in retrospect, we knew that another stealth tax was on the way. Therefore, nearly 3 million people are £2.09 a week worse off and 69p per week better off. There may be justifiable reasons for such redistribution—it depends on one's view of what is best for the economy. However, the Chancellor's failure to make it clear that, for 3 million people in the middle, more was being taken away with one hand than given with the other shows a lack of transparency and is simply electioneering.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I want briefly to put on record my concern at the continuing complexity in the tax system

  237
  that the 10p band represents. The arguments against the 10p band are as powerful as those that were used against the 20p band when it was introduced as an election gimmick by the former Chancellor, now Lord Lamont, just before the 1992 election. The problem with these bands of lower tax over a small amount of income is that they do not target the most tax relief on the poorest people. They also add unnecessary complexity to the tax system.
  If one is trying to target precious resources on those who need them most, one should always increase the allowance. That takes people out of tax altogether. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has been arguing this for years, and it has been right for years. One used to hear from many Labour politicians—including some very reform-minded politicians—when they were in opposition, that they understood that argument. Simple arithmetical calculations can be made to show that, for every extra £1 million that the Government have to spend, it is always better for the poorest people if that money is spent on increasing the allowance because that takes the poorest people out of tax altogether.
  Mr. Bercow: It is very difficult to contain oneself in these circumstances because, frankly, the amiability of the hon. Gentleman is equalled only by his effrontery. He has the brass neck to grumble about the complexity of the system—which has undoubtedly been exacerbated under the auspices of this Chancellor—but, unless he is going to argue, as my hon. Friends and I consistently do, for simplicity and for lower overall taxation, he has a cheek, as he is arguing for higher overall taxation. He can rest assured that his cheek in this debate will be relayed by me to the next Conservative Member of Parliament for his constituency, Mr. David Shaw.
  Mr. Davey: I am sure that the former hon. Member for Dover, to whom the hon. Gentleman refers, will be pleased that his election expenses have now been started by the hon. Gentleman.
  It is rich for the hon. Gentleman to accuse another Member of the House of having a brass neck. He raised the issues of the level of taxation and of the simplicity of the system. I make no bones about the fact that the Liberal Democrats have argued, continue to argue, and will argue at the forthcoming election that the basic rate of income tax and a new top level of tax for incomes above £100,000 a year should be raised to provide revenue to fund our public services and to ensure that pensioners have a better deal. However, I shall not continue down that line, Mr. Lord, because you will rule me out of order.
  I was making a point, separate from the hon. Gentleman's argument, about complexity. Whatever one's view on the overall burden of taxation, surely there can be consensus on the need for simplifying the system and getting rid of bureaucracy and unnecessary costs, whether in relation to individuals or the corporate sector. New tax measures such as this add extra complexities.
  Dawn Primarolo: Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether a balance needs to be struck between simplicity and fairness? If he believes that to be the case, where and how should such a balance be struck?
  Mr. Davey: The point that I was making was that if one increases the personal allowance—the 0 per cent. band of
  238
  taxation—one gets the benefits of both worlds: the benefits of greater fairness and of greater simplicity. That is the whole point of the argument made not only be party politicians but by academics, accountants, members of the tax profession and members of the business sector.
  Dawn Primarolo: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making now. However, when he started his complexity argument, he was advocating raising the marginal rates of tax and the average rates of taxation by a combination of policies that he said his party would advocate at the next election, whenever that is. Will he explain why it would be fair to put up the marginal rates of tax and the average rates of taxation at the same time?
  Mr. Davey: The hon. Lady is making a similar mistake to the one made by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), which, to her credit, is very unlike her. The Liberal Democrats have always made it clear that marginal rates of tax should go up to fund essential expenditure. That is completely different from the argument that I am making, which is that if the Government have a certain amount of money to spend on making the tax system fairer, as sure as night follows day it would be a better use of that money to increase the income tax allowance, the 0 per cent. tax band. That would have the added advantage of not adding these unnecessary complexities to the system.
  That is a simple point that has been made many times by hon. Members in all parts of the House. I want to use the opportunity of this clause stand part debate to make the point again. We have a tax system that is far too complicated, and we should argue at every opportunity for simplifying it. One of the Government's major economic mistakes has been to make the tax system far too complex, and I hope that, as they think again about tax policy, which they may or may not have the chance to implement in a future Parliament, they will understand that reducing complexity is an important issue. It is important in the personal sector, in the move to greater self-assessment, and in the reduction in complexity for the corporate sector. This is a microeconomic issue that has macroeconomic outturns, and the Government should take it very seriously.
  Dawn Primarolo: The clause fulfils the Government's commitment to introduce a 10p starting rate of income tax—the lowest rate of income tax since 1962–63. We are also introducing a range of other measures, on income tax, national insurance contributions and tax credits, to encourage people into work and ensure that they keep more of what they earn. The allowance with which the clause deals is part of that package.
  Both the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in the debate seem fundamentally to misunderstand the purpose of the Government's policy, particularly when it is coupled with the new deal. One of the Government's many tasks is to assist those who are unemployed into paid employment. That requires us to ensure that there are low marginal rates of tax, so that those people can move from unemployment into employment and then up the ladder, earning more and more.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) makes a simple point, and he makes it regularly. He wants things simple, simple, simple. However, a balance has to be struck in policy objectives

  239
  between fairness and simplicity. We have had the discussion a number of times in the House, in Committee and in Select Committees about how the Government should balance their objectives and keep the tax system as simple and as clear as possible.
  If the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton looks closely at his proposals he will realise that, if implemented, they would cut directly across the objective of moving people from unemployment to employment—an objective that I believe his party shares with the Government, but which he is in danger of undermining. That is what the hon. Gentleman has seemed unable to grasp during our discussions about the 10p rate and the 10p band rate.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I thank the Paymaster General for giving way so generously, but can she explain how a policy objective of moving people from unemployment to work is better served by a 10p rate band than by a 0p rate band?
  Dawn Primarolo: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was present when I explained to his hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), who had spoken to a Liberal Democrat amendment, about the importance of giving unemployed people incentives to move from benefits to work and ensuring that they keep more of what they earn. The desirability of reducing, wherever possible, the marginal rate of tax in order to maintain that process is the rationale of the 10p rate and the 10p rate band. I know that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Government have other motives, and that our proposal is not part of the welfare-to-work programme and is not related to our objective of securing full employment. If he examines the full range of our policies, however, he will see that they are all targeted in the same direction.
  This has been a short but interesting debate on a very narrow clause. I commend the clause to the Committee.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52

  CHILDREN'S TAX CREDIT: AMOUNT FOR 2001–02 AND FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Flight: The Government may have forgotten that three or four years ago—unfortunately, the Chancellor's office arranged a little leak—the Select Committee on Social Security advised strongly against arrangements of the type that the children's tax credit represents, suggesting that such arrangements were ill-conceived and not the best way of helping children. Of course, an increase in the maximum receipt to £520 a year will be welcomed by those who qualify, but the principle of CTC remains flawed. It tends to benefit the lowest earners with children least; it is complicated and regressive in its interaction with working families tax credit; and it is unfair in that its impact on families with a single earner is different from its impact on families with double earners.
  240
  The proposed increase will, in many instances, reduce entitlement to working families tax credit, as well as creating yet more complexities and administrative problems for the employers who have been forced to administer CTC. The Chancellor himself has admitted that the arrangement is unsatisfactory by announcing that Labour would abolish it in future, and make it part of an integrated child care element—or rather that the child care element of working families tax credit would be replaced by an integrated child benefit.
  As has been widely recognised, it is morally wrong for a child benefit to discriminate against single-earner couples. If the combined income of a working couple is £65,000—it may be £60,000; I have forgotten the precise figure—that couple are likely to qualify. If only one earner is involved, the couple will not qualify, although the same children are there to benefit. After tax, the single earner may have less than two earners receiving the same gross pay.
  There is an administrative nightmare when divorced and separated parents and couples involving new partners come together to look after children. The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, expressing the feelings of many, has complained that the application form is so complex that, for a number of people the task of completing it is too difficult, and they will lose out as a result. I believe that some 500,000 have failed to apply in time this year, and they are likely to be those most in need of support. Even the BBC news, that great organ of the Labour party, has admitted that citizens need a guidebook to work out what family tax credits they will be entitled to.
  The Conservatives are pledged to review the position, to introduce a fairer and simpler child tax credit and to increase the cash benefits by a further £200 per annum in respect of children under five. We will set out in due course how we will do it. The principle of providing greater support to children must be right—I should declare an interest: I have four children. The cost of child rearing is a major burden. I go back to the cross-party Social Security Committee, which advised against trying to apply a means-tested approach. The mechanism is not working. The Government themselves admit that, in their proposals to make changes in due course.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Let me start by saying something that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) did not say: it is welcome that more money is going to families with children.
  Mr. Flight: I did say that.
  Mr. Davey: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He corrects me from a sedentary position. I withdraw the remark. It is important to target extra money on families with children. This Government have done so, which has been a welcome change: the previous Government did not do so. It is worth acknowledging that, and putting it on the record.
  Having said that—
  Mr. Graham Allen(Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household): Ah—there's a "but".
  Mr. Davey: There is; the hon. Gentleman from the Whips Office is right. The children's tax credit is a very

  241
  complicated way of targeting money on families with children. Simplicity is of the essence in many of these issues. Let me explain how complex a system of child care support we have. We have child benefit, a children's tax credit, the child care tax credit and the working families tax credit. It is incredibly complicated. There is a plethora of forms and of civil servants and a range of guides, and the different tax credits operate in different ways.
  Mr. Flight: In contradictory ways.
  Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is not surprising that not everyone who is entitled to the children's tax credit is taking it up. It is so confusing. That is what happens when we have complexity.
  As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the Government have realised their mistake. They have realised that they have made the system complex, so they are going to get rid of the children's tax credit. We are debating an increase in the credit that has come into force only this month, when the Government have already announced that they will get rid of CTC by 2003. They have admitted that this was the wrong way to go about things. Although it is welcome that more money is going to children and families, this is not exactly the most effective way of governing. It suggests that there is a lack of strategic thought in the Treasury. The extra money is welcome, but the piling of change on change and the extra complexity leave one questioning the way in which the Government have gone about things.
  Although it has been said before, and I am sure that the Minister is almost fed up of hearing it, it must be said again that some of the support mechanisms for families, particularly the working families tax credit, have imposed severe burdens on business. Small business in particular has been hit by the burden of administering the credit, which was previously administered in the form of family credit by the Department of Social Security. Businesses have effectively been asked to get involved with social security mechanisms. As a principle, that is not sensible.
  As we consider the clause in the knowledge that the Government have those plans—and particularly as the clause increases the value of the children's tax credit—it is worth asking how they propose to get around some of the problems that they have created for themselves in not having a coherent strategy from the start. When they move to the integrated children's tax credit, if they do, it will, we are told, be assessed on household income—the incomes of both parents. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs made the valid point that a single-earner couple is discriminated against in the administration of the children's tax credit as compared with a dual-earner couple who have earnings below the higher-rate tax level. That lacuna in the current legislation will cause a problem when the Government introduce the integrated tax credit. A couple who both earn an amount just below that which qualifies for higher-rate tax, and who therefore receive the full children's tax credit, will have their incomes added together when they are assessed for the integrated tax credit and, unless the scale is increased significantly, they will lose a substantial amount of children's tax credit—and possibly all of it.
  The Paymaster General is giving me one of her quizzical looks, which suggests that she may have thought of that point. If she has, I hope that she will enlighten
  242
  the Committee further, because we have had no public announcement of how the Government intend to overcome that very real problem. Some families in that situation can benefit to the tune of £520 a year from the children's tax credit, and they will stand to lose a significant amount when it is integrated. If the Government try to take £520 a year away from such families, they will soon hear all about it.
  I welcome the extra money for families with children, but—as the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said—more than 500,000 people who are entitled to the credit have not yet claimed it and will not benefit from the increase in its first year. The Paymaster General may have more up-to-date figures and I hope that take-up has increased. My party wants the take-up to be 100 per cent. and we hope that the Government are successful in achieving that, because no one wishes to see families with children denied money to which Parliament has decided they are entitled. However, the question is how we can ensure that those families with real financial problems are getting the credit, and that is an important policy objective for everyone. I hope that the Paymaster General will be able to tell us how the Government will be able to ensure that their extra generosity goes to the people who need it most.
  Dawn Primarolo: Clause 52 will increase the amount paid for the children's tax credit so that it is worth up to £520 a year, or £10 a week. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in his pre-Budget report last year that he was minded to do that, and he confirmed it in the Budget. The increase of £1.50 a week is the equivalent of a 3p cut in the basic rate of tax, and will be very important for those single-earner families on average earnings who will particularly benefit.
  The hon. Members for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) and for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) both welcomed the proposals, but they raised several points of detail, including the treatment of single-earner families compared to dual-earner families; the position in cases of separation or divorce; the complexity of administration; the numbers who have applied; and the transition to the integration of the full panoply of support that is offered to families. I shall deal with each point, briefly.
  8.45 pm
  First, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton ended his speech by referring to the complexity of the current child care support structure. That structure includes child benefit, income support—which the hon. Gentleman omitted to mention—working families tax credit and the children's tax credit. The Government intend to move in 2003 to an integrated child credit, based on a household income paid to the carer. That move will enable the Government to tackle some of the matters that have been raised this evening.
  I can tell the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton that that move will be a substantial change affecting a huge number of families. The Government took the view that the move should be taken step by step. At each stage, we will ensure that we can get resources quickly to those families who need it most. That is why the working families tax credit will separate in 2003: there will be an employment tax credit for adults, while the child support

  243
  element will be made part of the integrated child credit. Those changes are part of a coherent strategy that will enable us to deal with the problem, identified by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, in connection with single-earner and dual-earner families.
  The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs should know—I hope that he does—that the treatment in the tax system of the difference between a single-earner family and a dual-earner family is the direct result of the introduction of independent taxation by the previous Government. I hasten to add that independent taxation is a good thing for millions of women. It means that each taxpayer has allowances and access to tax rates. As a result, a family with two earners clearly has access to both earners' allowances, and the tax rates.
  The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said that that produces direct discrimination. In fact, it is merely a function of a tax system that respects and recognises individuals equally. We are working to resolve the matter, although the solution is not simple. Moving to the integrated child credit means that there will be a move to a household assessment which the present tax system does not allow us to make. The different treatment of dual-earner and single-earner families will thereby be dealt with, as the amount of tax payable will be assessed according to each household's income.
  I reject the suggestion that we should have waited and not used resources currently available for the children's tax credit to help the families involved immediately over two years.
  Mr. Flight: I accept that the reason for the distortion is a function of our tax system, but I refer the Minister to the deliberations of the Select Committee on Social Security. Two or three years ago, the Committee focused on just that problem, and made some suggestions for dealing with it. The Government therefore did not have to go down the route that resulted in the functional problem that the Minister describes.
  Dawn Primarolo: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the latest report from the Social Security Committee on child support and the development of the integrated child credit, and if he reads its comments on the children's tax credit, he will find that the Committee now recognises that matters have moved on. It accepts that an attempt to bring together for the first time support for children into one place, to be paid directly to the main carer, is the correct way to advance. The Committee now acknowledges that the children's tax credit is an important element in providing immediate support to those families.
  The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs referred to the complexity of the system with regard to separation and divorce. The arrangements for the children's tax credit were agreed in the Finance Act 2000. I do not recollect the hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues referring to the very unhappy circumstances in which a couple separate and there has to be a fair and decent apportionment of entitlement to a tax relief if there is joint care of the children. The children's tax credit approach to that is sensitive and fair. It has not been criticised before. Compared with the huge complexities of the married couples allowance and the additional personal
  244
  allowance in terms of entitlement, the arrangements in the children's tax credit are as fair and straightforward as possible, given that they apply to complicated personal circumstances where a family is under considerable pressure and stress.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the form was complicated. I am sure that he cannot have seen what is a straightforward form for claiming tax relief. He might be confusing it with some other form, but I do not want to speculate which one it might be. The application form for claiming the children's tax credit was researched and tested on a sample of about 1,000 people to see whether they understood it clearly or whether it would put them off making a claim. The most recent figures show that 3.5 million PAYE taxpayers—some 85 per cent.—have returned their forms. The other 1 million people are self-employed and pay their tax in arrears anyway. Under the self-assessment scheme, their relief will be available to them when they account for their income in the current tax year.
  I agree that we need to find those people who are entitled to claim the children's tax credit but have not yet done so. The Chancellor wrote to every hon. Member asking them to encourage parents at every opportunity to apply for the relief. It will be paid from the beginning of this tax year, whenever they apply for it. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will continue to encourage parents to claim the children's tax credit, because up to £10 a week is no small amount for those families.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I know that the Paymaster General has not been speaking for long, but she has not answered my point about a two-earner couple—[interruption.] The Minister says that she will answer it, but I will just make the point for the record. In my example, both people earn just below the base rate limit. When the integrated child credit is introduced, will they be protected against losing the £520 provided for in the clause?
  Dawn Primarolo: I had not forgotten the hon. Gentleman's point; I was trying to work through each subject area.
  When the Government introduce the integrated child credit in 2003, the Chancellor will have to look closely at the distributional impact of the introduction of the children's tax credit with regard to whether it benefits families as well as its predecessors did. I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton would not expect me to commit the Chancellor to future decisions, although he might wish that I would. However, the hon. Gentleman's point must be crystal clear to all those who understand the position—that is, why would we create a system to help families that did not do so?
  Finally, specific points were made about entitlement to children's tax credit and its interaction with the working families tax credit and the 10p rate. The combination of those three things will ensure that the families in greatest need receive maximum benefit from the provision that the Government have made available. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53

  CHILDREN'S TAX CREDIT: BABY RATE
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Flight: I shall speak about clause 53 and touch on schedule 11, which relates to it. The objective of the clause is to provide, from 2002–03, a full year's child tax credit in respect of a child born in the current tax year. I am not clear whether the credit will be given pro rata, but my understanding is that it will not. Would a couple who have a child in September 2002 and who qualify for full child tax credit receive the full £520 or six months' worth? The wording is slightly obscure about whether they would receive a full year's worth or a pro rata amount.
  Schedule 11 adds complex changes to the rules when a qualifying baby is resident with more than one adult during the year of assessment. Will the Minister explain, in understandable language, what that means? The fact that the schedule refers to a "qualifying baby"—a qualifying child born in the relevant year—implies that there must be babies who do not qualify.
  Disqualification under section 257AA of the Taxes Act echoes the definition of a qualifying child, and where a husband and wife or the relevant two people split up, they may lose some relief, which cannot then be claimed back. The schedule is so complex and obscure that I have read it several times without understanding precisely how it is intended to operate. My main request, therefore, is for a practical explanation of what people will receive and what the angle is on qualification and disqualification.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I shall focus on the policy point, and why the Government are going down the route taken in the clause. They want to provide extra money for families with children aged under one—babies—and that aim is laudable. The question is whether the clause is the best way to do it.
  In the past, new parents could claim a maternity grant on registration of the birth of their first child, and that provided a lump sum up-front that they could use for the expenditure well known to arise when one has a baby—on prams, cots and all the other things that one needs. Incidentally, perhaps I should declare an interest—although I am not sure whether it is required by the Register—as an unmarried male who hopes to be married and have a child.
  9 pm
  As regards political policy, the question is whether a maternity grant or a tax credit is the most effective measure. With a tax credit, the money is not up-front. Presumably, one has to wait for the monthly pay cheque, so the benefit will be received over a period. Perhaps some families buy everything on hire purchase, but many want to pay up-front, so the benefit of the Government's laudable aim of putting money in the pockets of families with new-born babies could be more effectively delivered if they chose a different route. The old maternity grant achieved what I am advocating—money up-front for the purchases needed at the beginning of a child's life.
  There is a strong argument that a tax credit may not be the best way of delivering the Government's policy objective. Of course, there are arguments on both sides.
  246
  The Government might say that a universal maternity grant would be claimable by higher-rate taxpayers, while the tax credit is, in effect, means-tested. However, there are not many people in that category; the means-testing necessary to achieve the Government's aims would not involve a huge amount of money.
  Moreover, it is possible that the Government's chosen method might reduce take-up. That is important. What about families who do not pay income tax for a short period? What about families who have not applied for the credit and are not aware of it? They will miss out. We have heard about the problems of take-up of the children's tax credit, which is a recurring credit. How much greater will the problems be for a credit that lasts for only one year? I am not convinced that the Government are taking the right route to ensure that families who need extra help at that time receive it. I hope that the Minister can persuade me, but I am not sure whether she can.
  There may have been take-up problems with the former maternity grant, but my recollection of the days before the Tories abolished it is that there was a high take-up rate. It was one of the benefits for which take-up was almost universal. It was advertised in maternity clinics, GP practices and so on, and it was fairly easy for people to apply. Young mothers might be reluctant to get involved with tax credits; it all sounds terribly financial and difficult. They might be more reluctant to go for that form of help than for a straightforward maternity grant.
  I hope that the Government will be able to explain their policy objective. I am not convinced that it is the right way to go.
  Mr. Steve Webb: I should like to explore further the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) was making about take-up. The Paymaster General said that children's tax credit forms had been returned by about 4 million families on PAYE—so 15 per cent. have not yet claimed it. As my hon. Friend says, we do not know whether that 15 per cent. will claim the new baby tax credit. Obviously, it is not too late for them to do so, but they have not yet been found. Given that the Government invented the children's tax credit two years ago, and have thus had two years to find people but have failed to find that 15 per cent., there is a question about whether the new tax credit will eventually reach them.
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable on such subjects, so he will recall that the take-up of family credit, for example, which ran for a considerably longer period, did not reach the heights that the children's tax credit has already achieved in the year in which it has become operational. Yes, we must find the 15 per cent. or so—the 500,000 people who have yet to send in their forms—so I am not complacent, but by any measure, the Government should be congratulated on the very high take-up that we have already achieved for the children's tax credit, notwithstanding all the other issues that the hon. Gentleman raises.
  Mr. Webb: Well, that is interesting, is it not? The Paymaster General said, "by any measure", and there is an alternative yardstick to the family credit or the working families tax credit take-up rates—the child benefit take-up rate, which, as she will know, is approximately 100 per cent. She may know someone who is not claiming it, but the rate is about 100 per cent.

  247
  The Government have decided that they want to support families who have a new baby, and they know where every single one lives, because when the child is registered for child benefit, the Department of Social Security sends back a response and issues a benefit book or notifies the family that the money can be paid into their bank account. They are precisely the people at whom the child tax credit is aimed, so instead of having a baby tax credit—the subject of the clause—why do not the Government simply put a £500 cheque in the post when those people claim child benefit on day one? As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) says, that would give them a lump sum up-front, with which they could buy cots, prams and so on. I speak as a father of young children, which is why I thought I would take part in the debate.
  Another point, which has not been mentioned so far, is that when the money becomes part of the monthly income for the first year of the child's life, there is a danger that the family will adjust to that pattern of income. Parents will have £40 a month extra for a year, but when their children reach the age of one, they will come to our surgeries telling us that the Government have just taken £40 a month from them.
  There was never any pretence that the payment would continue—it is just for the first year—but the families will have become used to a pattern of regular income that includes the £40 boost. They will not have been able to smooth out the payments to buy the lump-sum items, because they will have had to buy those items at the beginning. The danger is that families may get used to that standard of living, and then have the money taken away from them. However, there may be a hidden agenda in that idea—to get the mum back to work.
  The clause is not really about supporting families in poverty when babies are born, because that policy is now known as the sure start maternity grant, or whatever. I believe that that is largely the same initiative, but it has to be renamed. There is a maternity grant system, so the baby tax credit is not really about poverty among families with new babies; it is about the Government's agenda of getting more people into the labour market. They seem to suggest that a year is enough. The financial support for families with young children drops after a year, so how will they make up for the loss of that £40 a month? Perhaps they will start pin-money jobs or work a day a week at Tesco, or whatever.
  I should be interested to hear the Paymaster General expand a little more on the Government's thinking, because they have not taken the action that they were expected to take on paid leave and so on. I wonder whether that is why the tax credit will last only a year—but what does that say about the Government's views on whether people should return to work a year or so after their children are born?
  The Government clearly have a mechanism to get the money to every one of those families if they wanted to, but the problem is that they would have to use the benefits system. The second fundamental criticism is that the Government's dogma says that this is a tax credit. It is not in the tax code, and it is assessed on the family, not on the individual, but it is called a tax credit, so it will probably not feature in the DSS accounts and expenditure.
  248
  A system that would have given money to everyone who was entitled, with 100 per cent. take-up, has been ditched—or rather, not adopted—in favour of a system that misses 15 per cent., and does not help families so effectively because of the Treasury dogma that it is better to provide things called tax credits rather than social security benefits. Sometimes the benefits system is the best way to help families. Sometimes take-up is better in the benefits system than with a tax credit, so I am disappointed that the Government have not gone down that avenue.
  Dawn Primarolo: Contributions to this debate have fallen into two categories. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) talked about the clause and how it relates to schedule 11, and the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and for Northavon (Mr. Webb) referred to the support policies that go alongside the children's tax credit, which is designed to support young families.
  I shall deal first with the points made about schedule 11 and the clause, and describe what they will do. They will introduce the additional children's tax credit that will be payable from 2002 for the first year after a child's birth. It will not be paid pro rata but for the whole year. The clause also provides for an additional £5,200 of children's tax credit in 2002–03, and that will be paid at the rate of 10 per cent.
  The clause establishes the principle of the baby credit within the children's tax credit. Subsection (1) will insert a new subsection (2A) into section 257AA of the Taxes Act 1988, and will provide for an additional £5,200 of children's tax credit in the year after a child's birth. Similar provisions were made last year to introduce the children's tax credit, and although the figure of £520 already appears in the Taxes Act, this clause inserts the principle of the credit of £5,200.
  The clause also describes the basis on which the baby credit can be claimed and defines the qualifying child. A child must be born within the tax year to qualify for the relief. The clause also relates to schedule 11 and provides for the introduction of the baby credit in 2002–03.
  Schedule 11 will place those principles in the Taxes Act 1988 to sit alongside the existing provisions for the children's tax credit which will be worth up to £520. Paragraph 2 introduces the higher rate and provides that it can be shared in the same way as the lower rate. Paragraph 4 provides for a re-election in year, which means that when a baby is born within the tax year, a family will be able to apply for the credit immediately and will not have to wait.
  The schedule also makes it clear that however the credit is paid—it may be shared between two members of the family who live together or between two people who have separated but have equal responsibility for the child—the combination of their entitlement can never exceed 100 per cent. of the credit. However, if the family structure changes, their entitlement to the credit remains.
  9.15 pm
  If a family separates having claimed the baby credit and decides to share the remainder, the schedule provides for the two periods to be added together as a tax year. Otherwise, the baby would not be a qualifying baby.

  249
  Paragraph 5 sets out how the arrangements will work. Only one credit is paid for a child. Irrespective of whether the parents live together or are separated, they are still entitled to only one credit, which they can divide between them. I hope that that is crystal clear to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, but I shall give way—with some reluctance—if it is not.
  Mr. Flight: I have a simple and obvious question. As I understand it, depending on the extent to which the new-born baby qualifies, the parents will get both the children's credit and the baby credit in the first year of that child's life. However, the provision could also be taken to mean that it is not possible to get children's credit if the baby is born within the tax year. In those circumstances, the parents would have to wait until the child was six months, nine months or whatever and the next tax year started. The wording could mean either that a double credit is provided in the first year, or that it is not.
  Dawn Primarolo: It is based on the year in which the child is born. However, I shall consider my explanation of schedule 11 and if for any reason I was not precisely correct, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. I believe that what I have said is right. The provisions for the baby credit operate in the same way as those that were used when we introduced the children's tax credit in last year's Finance Bill. Clause 53 and schedule 11 add the baby credit, which will operate on the same basis in terms of proportionment.
  The hon. Members for Northavon and for Kingston and Surbiton inquired about the best way in which to assist families, especially when their children are very young and the burdens are greatest on the family budget. I know that one of them is very knowledgeable about such matters and the other is hoping to be so soon. They asked whether the children's tax credit and the baby credit were the best way to proceed.
  The pressures on families in the first year of a child's life are acute when one parent is unable to work. Certainly the woman would not work during her confinement and maternity leave. The baby credit should be seen as part of the package of changes that the Government are progressively making to maternity pay and maternity leave, which we are extending. The sure start maternity grant has been increased to £500 from April 2000 and is paid up-front. The children's tax credit and the working families tax credit will follow the income support premium for children, so that they are included in the integrated child credit. That will be paid directly to the carer and will be a regular income.
  I was puzzled by what the hon. Member for Northavon said about the Government's hidden agenda to force women out to work. I can speak from personal experience.
  250
  When I was a single parent, I met many people in the same circumstances. Indeed, I continue to meet single parents and know that many women want to be economically active. The debate centres on managing the balance between work and life, and the need to enable women to do that.
  There is nothing sinister about the Government's advancing that agenda and taking the opportunity to introduce the children's tax credit, which gives immediate help to families. We are publicising the children's tax credit in bounty packs. I am sure that the hon. Member for Northavon, who must be knowledgable about those packs, will explain later to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton what they are and what their significance is, to mothers in particular.
  The argument about dependency could apply to any payment. I agree with the hon. Member for Northavon that we must use the method of giving the support that works best, whether that comes through the social security system or through tax credits, which the Government believe are the best way to deal with questions of welfare to work and the work-life balance. Lowering marginal rates of tax provides incentives for family members to be in paid employment. The hon. Gentleman's point about families having to adjust to the loss of the baby credit could apply equally to child benefit. When a child becomes economically independent, the family lose child benefit, which is not an insubstantial amount, thanks to this Government, and if an unemployed person finds employment, the child premium will be lost.
  I reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is not a sinister message behind the measure. I understand that he and his party do not see eye to eye with the Government about the use of tax credits, but I will continue to advocate them, and I am sure that he will continue to explain why he does not like them. There is no hidden agenda, and the Government have not concealed the fact that the children's tax credit will become part of the integrated child credit in 2003. Important decisions about the structure of that credit will be made. Those are not the subject of this debate, but hon. Members will want to be aware of them.
  I have explained how clause 53 will operate and how schedule 11 supports it. I have made it clear how the Government's broad approach of using tax credits, maternity pay and grants to support families with young children is the best way forward. I commend the clause to the Committee.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedule 11 agreed to.
  Bill (Clauses 1 to 3 and 16 to 53 and Schedules 4 to 11) reported, without amendment; to lie upon the Table.

Road Traffic
9.23 pm
Mr. Robert Syms: I beg to move,
That the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 561), dated 26th February 2001, a copy of which was laid before the House on 28th February, be revoked.
The motion is in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and other colleagues. It concerns a highly controversial statutory instrument and two important issues, which is why, unusually, we have requested that it be dealt with on the Floor of the House. When debating statutory instruments in Committee, on a number of occasions I have spoken about the importance of the matter under consideration, only to be asked why, in that case, I did not deal with it on the Floor of the House. Tonight, therefore, we are in the Chamber to deal with several issues relating to the road vehicles regulations.
Basically, two issues are involved. First, there are the proposals for a number plate with emblems on it—the letters GB and the European Union flag. Secondly, there is the matter of American cars, which involves deeper issues. If the regulation is passed, it will be difficult for many in the American car business to continue and people may be forced out of it.
I shall begin with the first and most important issue. In this country, we have a long tradition of not having any logos or flags on our number plates except a registration number. In 1998, the Government agreed in Europe that we would move to ensure greater commonality on number plates and would introduce the statutory instrument, which makes provision for plates to show the GB symbol and the EU logo. There is a choice, as people can continue with existing number plates, with nothing else on them. However, as we have already seen, even before the regulations become law, car manufacturers have been producing vehicles with the new logos.
May I ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), whether it is legal for manufacturers to produce number plates to the new standard, which the House has not approved? For many people, having a symbol with the EU logo on a number plate is upsetting. Symbols and flags are important and carry meaning. Tonight, we stand in a palace above which flies the Union Jack flag from Victoria Tower. This is about who we are and to whom we owe allegiance.
If the nation is going to depart from having a plain number plate and have one with logos, I take exception to the fact that the regulations will mean that it will bear the GB symbol and a Euro flag, and that if people wish to put a Union Jack on their number plate, they could be criminalised and fined up to £1,000.
Sir Teddy Taylor: This is important for Back Benchers like me. In view of the significant issue raised by my hon. Friend, can we have an assurance that, as we are likely to have a Conservative Government soon, they will introduce legislation to change the position and ensure that people will be able to have a Union Jack on their car number plate if they wish? Can my hon. Friend give a clear commitment on behalf of the Conservative party, particularly as it is likely that
252
there will be an election soon? Many people would love to have a clear answer, which we always get from those on the Conservative Front Bench.
Mr. Syms: Yes. The issue is important.
Mr. Alex Salmond: As the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said, for many people, this is quite an important issue. We have just been joined by a Labour Whip, but it should be recorded that only he and the Minister are on the Government Benches, and no one else. It is 9.30 pm, and I cannot believe that Government Members are canvassing in their constituencies. Where is new Labour on this important issue, as defined by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms)? Hansard should record just how lightly the Government view the importance of having a saltire on number plates in Scotland.
Mr. Syms: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. If people wish to have a Euro logo and a GB symbol on number plates, we are not against that. However, we are in favour of choice. If people wish to have the Union Jack on their number plate, they should be allowed to do so. Equally, if they wish to have the Scottish saltire or the Welsh dragon, we would be perfectly happy with that.
The statutory instrument has been laid by a Government who have no sense of what our nation is about—a Government who gave us the contents of the dome, and who do not understand the deep importance that the symbols of our nation hold for the vast majority of our constituents. That is why the Conservative party has already announced that it will revisit the regulation. As I said, in government we will allow people to have the Union Jack, the Scottish saltire or the Welsh dragon displayed on their car, if that is their wish.
Symbols are important, as can be seen around the world. The current debate in the United States about the old confederate flag in the south shows that that symbol still stirs great passions. The Union Jack stirs passions in this country. The Government aim to introduce regulations under which the European Union flag would be allowed, but displaying the Union Jack would be criminalised and people could be fined for doing it. That would be extremely unfortunate. Our position is clear. I should like to hear from the Minister a full explanation as to why his Government cannot support the display of the Union Jack as an important symbol on a car.
It is interesting that the position of the Labour party in opposition was different. The then shadow Secretary of State for Transport, now the Minister for the Environment, wrote on 16 August 1995 to T. R. McLennan of Jepson & Company of Sheffield:
"Thank you for your letter regarding the harmonisation of number plates throughout Europe.
At the present time, the Labour party has no plans to replace the British number plate with an E.U. flag and typestyle plate. We are also of the belief that the British number plate is probably the most legible and easily memorised plate in the world and that reducing the size of the characters would be a mistake."
There we have it: the Labour party in opposition saying something different from the Labour party in government. If this important matter is the subject of a deferred Division tomorrow, the Conservative party will make its feelings known and will vote against.

253
A further important issue is the problem faced by American car owners. The number plate on American cars is smaller than that on British cars. The American cars, which are imported into the UK mainly by businesses, have a 12 in by 6 in number plate with motor cycle-style font lettering. The regulation would make it difficult for any such car number plate to be legal. At present, it is not the easiest thing in the world to become an American car owner. A number of businesses import the vehicles, which must undergo single vehicle approval.
The regulation would mean that modifications would have to be made to the rear of the vehicles in order for them to be legal. That would be entirely against the principle of SVA, the purpose of which is to certify that the vehicle is safe. It would not be a simple job to put a larger number plate on many of those vehicles, because safety regulations on extended projections from vehicles, particularly sharp edges, mean that alterations would be necessary to the boot and the lights, which would to some extent ruin the line of the vehicle and diminish its appeal.
In the UK there are between 50,000 and 75,000 American cars, and 500 to 600 are imported each year. That represents an important minority in the UK. The individuals who participate in that business do not feel loved, either by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions or by the Government, because of what is proposed.
There has been endless correspondence between American car owners and importers, and various other individuals. So far, those who are anxious about the regulations do not seem to have had much joy from DETR or the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. They have been making suggestions about how their vehicles could be made legal. For example, there is a specialised vehicle category in which their cars could be included. They think that they should be able to carry on purchasing and driving the vehicles if they continue to use smaller number plates with the motor cycle-style font.
There are currently 175,000 motor cycles in the UK whose number plates have a smaller font than those of other vehicles. Nobody says that reading those number plates is a problem. One should also take into account the fact that the number plates of most motor cycles are illuminated by one light, whereas an American car with a similar number plate will have two lights, so the characters will be easier to recognise.
The key point is this: if the Government do not recognise that people with American cars have a special case, they will be criminalising all such people and causing great difficulty for the businesses that are involved. So far, those businesses have spent more than £300,000 in trying to fight the regulations. They have been given some comfort by the European Commission, which has said that, on open-market grounds, there is no need for the Government to encompass many of the vehicles within the regulations.
In a letter to Mr. Harry Tune, the DVLA vehicle policy group set out some of the reasons why it does not wish to allow people with American vehicles to use number plates with a smaller font. The letter states
"Extending the use of the smaller font to vehicles imported from America was carefully considered during the consultation period. The police and road safety organisations had serious concerns over the ability of witnesses to read the smaller characters with the naked eye. The Government is keen to bear down on criminal activity involving the use of the motor vehicles. In many cases the successful
254
apprehension and conviction of criminals relies on a witness sighting a number plate and being able to recall a part of its number. The success rate will be substantially enhanced with a standardised font as provided for in the new regulations."
That is clearly nonsense. As I mentioned, a car's number plate will be illuminated by two lights, so it will be easier to read than those of motor cycles, but apart from that, a Buick, Pontiac or Chevrolet will be one of the most easily recognisable vehicles in the UK. I put it to the Under-Secretary that a person who was going to do a blag in Streatham would not turn up outside a bank in an American car.
Mr. Edward Davey: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Surely, a person who is doing a blag in Streatham or wherever else will be more likely to use a motor cycle, which would not be covered by the regulations. The Government have got it wrong on both counts.
Mr. Syms: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point.
Many people enjoy owning American cars. They take great pride in their vehicles and like them to be admired. If the driver of such a vehicle breaks the law, it will not be the most difficult thing in the world to track down the perpetrator, given the limited number of these vehicles on our roads. I think, therefore, that the argument that the regulations should be strictly applied is wrong in this instance. The Government could easily agree to the motor cycle-style font and accept that the cars are easy to recognise on our roads.
The various individuals who are involved have been in touch with the European Commission to ask whether the Government can exempt them from particular aspects of the regulations. I should be interested to know whether there has been any correspondence between the European Commission and DETR. My noble Friend Earl Attlee asked a question in another place about whether relevant letters had been sent by the European Commission in relation to the free movement of markets. The answer was no, but I understand that there has been further correspondence. I should be interested to know whether the Minister could confirm that.
The regulations do not do justice to our national symbols and flag. They do not allow people to exercise choice. If they were not amended, all manufacturers would produce vehicles that displayed the GB symbol and EU flag. They would resemble Henry Ford's Model T Ford, which one could buy provided that it was black. Number plates displaying the GB symbol and EU flag would become standard. If we move away from the normal British number plate, which displays no symbols, we should be able to opt for the display of the Union Jack.
Mr. John Bercow: In eager anticipation of the Under-Secretary's comments, would my hon. Friend care to reflect on the fact that in the Standing Committee that considered the Vehicles (Crime) Bill in January, the Under-Secretary unwisely said that there was and would be no obligation to display a flag or other symbol that some people might find distasteful? If the production practices that my hon. Friend predicted occur, people will find themselves in that predicament.
Mr. Syms: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The regulations risk putting American car importers and

255
enthusiasts out of business. We are considering a small number of people who nevertheless invest a lot of money in their businesses. They fight a constant uphill battle with the SVA regulations in order to get vehicles into the country. They are not the big battalions; they are not major international firms. They are individuals and I do not understand why Parliament should not protect their right to conduct their business and provide products that people wish to buy and cherish. I hope that the Under-Secretary will consider the matter carefully and amend the regulations so that businesses, jobs and livelihoods are not lost.
9.42 pm
Mr. Edward Davey: I agree with everything that the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) said. I want to focus on his second point because I have a constituency interest in the matter, and it is also important to many vehicle and business owners throughout the country. Livelihoods are at stake. Although I accept that Conservative Members and others wish to raise issues of principle about flags, I believe that our priority should be businesses.
The American Carriage Company on London road in Kingston is a successful, long-established family firm, which is owned by the Ouvaroffs. It could be put out of business if the Government do not have a speedy, major rethink about the regulations' application to a tiny section of the car market, namely the imported American car market, which the hon. Member for Poole mentioned.
Some owners of American cars live in my constituency. Mr. Don Rolt, who owns an 88 Pontiac Fiero, is worried about the implications of the regulations for him and other owners and aficionados of American cars.
We are considering between 50,000 and 75,000 car owners; that is a lot of people. I should not be surprised if every Member of Parliament had a constituent who owned an American car and could be affected by the regulations. Between 100 and 200 businesses will also be affected. I want to explain the services that they provide to our constituents. About 40 businesses and organisations are directly involved in the importation and sale of American cars. They are involved in sourcing bespoke vehicles. We are talking about a very low-volume market: not many end-users desire these cars. That is why the sales and importing business is so specialised.
As well as those involved in the sales and importing businesses, many people are involved in after-sales service. They service the cars, provide the equipment to do so, and ensure that all the Government safety requirements are dealt with. Many people are employed, including qualified mechanics and servicing personnel. In addition to the 30 or so servicing businesses, about 20 companies are involved in supplying parts to the garages and owners who service the cars. People specialise in providing certain parts, such as the special glass and tyres that American cars need.
It does not end there. Other businesses are involved, including specialist insurance companies. In the larger insurance companies, there are special sections dedicated to insuring these cars, which are often of very high value and require specialist insurance capabilities. Finance houses and warranty suppliers are involved, and there are
256
also clubs where people who own the vehicles get together and organise. We are, therefore, talking about quite an extensive number of people and businesses.
The Minister should be in no doubt about the effect of the measure. Some people say that this is a small niche market. Compared with the overall market, of course it is. However, a lot of people and businesses are involved, and that is why we should pay special attention to the American car business. I hope that the Minister will show some movement on this matter, and show that he is sympathetic to these demands.
Mr. Simon Thomas: I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has said about the American car market with some interest. He said that all constituencies probably contained owners of American cars. That may well be the case, although no one from my constituency has contacted me on the matter. However, between 5 and 10 per cent. of my constituents drive around with a Welsh flag incorporated in their number plates. The proposal, as well as affecting American cars, will make criminals of those ordinary, law-abiding citizens. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address that point as well.
Mr. Davey: As I said earlier, I support everything that the hon. Member for Poole said, and I intend to address that point. However, I want to concentrate on the people that I have been describing, because they have businesses and they have investments in these cars, some of which are worth an awful lot of money. They put their hard-earned savings into them. Their hobby, their pleasure, their pride and joy is going to be affected by the regulations, and I make no apology for taking up some of the House's time discussing the issue. The regulation is not justified. It is bad government, bad economics and bad politics.
I want to explain a little bit about the technicalities. The hon. Member for Poole performed some of that task for me, but it is important for the House to realise what is involved. This is, as the hon. Gentleman said, about the size and space allowed for the fixing of a rear registration plate. If the regulation goes through unamended, or is not amended in due course, more than 90 per cent. of left-hand drive American cars imported to the UK will have to be modified. The hon. Gentleman went into some detail about the modifications required. If anything, I think he underplayed the problem of making the modifications.
One of the reasons people own American cars is for their look, their aesthetic value. [Interruption.] People drive round in them and want people to look at them; they want people to see that they have an American car. They are proud of their car, and quite rightly so. However, if they have to modify the boot and the rear of the car, it will change it to some degree. It will no longer be a genuine American car, and a lot of people will no longer want to buy it. The modification will reduce these cars' value.
Mr. Bercow: I am really quite shocked by what I have just heard, and I am not easily shocked. Did the hon. Gentleman, while making his point about the attractiveness and physical beauty of American cars, hear the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) chunter from a sedentary position "No style"? I do not want

257
to be unduly provocative—I rarely am—but does the hon. Gentleman agree that it ill behoves an enthusiast for the displaying of the EU symbol to lecture others about style?
Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman makes his point in his usual extravagant manner—flamboyant, perhaps, or even stylish—but I do not want to be tempted down that route. I have serious points to make which are not about style or substance.
I was talking about modifications. It is not as if those who are importing American cars, or buying them, were not prepared to make modifications—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston listens, he will realise how serious this is. People in his constituency will be affected. The hon. Gentleman laughs again: I find that shocking.
Those who buy such cars have to make modifications in order to conform to regulations already imposed on them by the British Government—modifications involving their lights, for example. It is not as if car owners and businesses were not used to making modifications; the question is whether this is a modification too far, which will completely change the way in which people view cars. I believe that it will. I believe that it will eventually destroy the market—not the overall market for cars, which will continue because, I am delighted to say, we have a European single market, but the market in the United Kingdom that is owned by British business people and used by British customers.
People will go abroad, to continental Europe, to buy their American cars. That means that we shall be exporting jobs. It will be child's play for someone who wants to buy an American car to get to Holland, where the car will be approved by the Dutch authorities and can then be imported. The Government and other authorities here will have to accept that, because the car will have been approved by another member state. The Government have been defeated in their regulatory enthusiasm by the fact that we have a single market.
This is an example of the European Commission's riding to the help of British industry. The British Government, in this instance, are doing very little to support British industry. I have a letter from D-G XV, which was sent to someone who wanted to complain about the Government's draft regulation, signed by an official called S. Lecrenier. She—I think it is a she—says at the end of the letter that the Commission is to call on the British authorities to include left-hand vehicles in the specialised vehicles category. The hon. Member for Poole mentioned that.
The Government would have the support of the European Commission if they decided to exempt imported left-hand drive American cars. They would not be isolated; they would be joining the Commission in ensuring that there was no barrier to trade. In this case, the European arguments are on our side and also on the Conservatives'—which is good, as it happens very rarely.
The hon. Member for Poole made a couple of points about the way in which the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department of Trade and Industry had gone about things. Their initial consultation suggested that they were quite happy for registration plates the size of those on motor cycles to be fixed on all vehicles, but after that, and their second consultation, they changed their minds. Worse
258
still, during the consultation those whom I am representing tonight—people who import American cars—were not themselves consulted, and received no consultation documents. They therefore could not register their disapproval at that stage, which meant that the regulatory impact assessment made by the Government following the first consultation did not take account of the industry—of all the people who would be affected. The whole consultation exercise has been discredited, which is another reason why the Government should think again.
When we begin to analyse the pros and cons of the fact that the Government have yet to provide an exemption for imported American vehicles, we are prompted to ask what is behind it. Why are they deliberately pushing the regulations, which will hit that small and entrepreneurial sector so hard? One thinks that there might be some conspiracy. Perhaps it is the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders in this case that is trying to ensure that there is no extra competition in the sale of cars.
I would not want to impugn that organisation unfairly, but the Government are rightly putting pressure on it, to reduce car prices and perhaps this is one of the pay-offs. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that that is not the case. If it is not, I wonder whether he could comment on something that I have heard: officials at the DTI who are responsible for trying to promote competition in the motor vehicle market are concerned about the attitude of DETR. That is not joined-up government. One part of Whitehall is saying, "Let us promote competition" and another part wants to pass protectionist regulations.
Mr. Andrew Miller: If there were any logic in the hon. Gentleman's argument, General Motors and Ford, two rather large American companies, would surely, through the SMMT, have raised objections. Is he aware of such objections?
Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman shows that he knows nothing about the subject, because the cars that he is talking about have regulatory approval as a class. The cars that we are talking about must go through single vehicle approval. General Motors and Ford make, to my knowledge, very few cars in that sector. We are not talking about the mass car market. We are talking about a niche market. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants to say that I am wrong, I hope that he will intervene on me formally to try to make his point and to prove his case, rather than shout from a sedentary position, which certainly does not become him.
I do not believe that the Government have made any attempt to defend the proposal. The letters that I have seen passing between the industry and the Department are unconvincing. The argument does not stand up. I am sure that the Minister will use the debate to reflect very carefully on the matter and to bring his civil servants to book. I do not believe that he intends to damage the sector. He needs to ensure that his civil servants are not misleading him about that sector.
There have been other cases—for example, those involving type approval—where bureaucratic pressure and problems have been put in the way of that reputable car market sector. It has had to battle at great legal expense, employing expensive QCs, going to Brussels, regulating, and getting Brussels to tell the British civil

259
service that it should not be gold-plating regulations from Brussels. It is having to fight the whole time. This is not the right way to promote business. The Minister is in a position to bring those civil servants to book, to listen to the Commission and to British industry, and to get it right.
I want to talk about the issue that many other hon. Members wish to talk about. I agree—I signed the early-day motion—that if the Government are, through the regulations, introducing a new option to have a flag on the registration plate, that option could be multiple. One understands the argument following on from the discussions in Europe for the right to have a European flag. That enables people to meet the requirements of the Vienna convention without necessarily having the nationality indicated on the registration plate when they go through the countries of the European Union, although hon. Members may wish to correct me on that point. One can understand why the option came about in the first place. The Government have the chance, because they want to implement the regulations and to give people that option, to give people other options.
That has never been done by a previous Government, so let us not have too much hypocrisy. The previous Government did not want to make that option available. When Conservative Members speak later, I hope that they will realise that their Government did not make that option available to people.
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Pearson.]
Question agreed to.
Question again proposed.
Mr. Davey: I am tempted to use a French phrase—revenons à nos moutons—to come back to the point that I was making, but I am sure that some Conservative Members would not appreciate it.
If we are making new regulations to allow the European flag on registration plates, it makes sense to allow some flexibility. There is no European plot and no harmonisation of registration regulation is proposed. It will be an option, and we should remember that no right is being removed, only given. The real issue is how many other rights should be given, and I agree with the hon. Member for Poole that we should have the right to have the UK, Welsh and Scottish flags, as well as the flag of St. George. I speak as a pro-European, because it is an issue of choice.
The Minister may argue that he cannot act because of problems with space on the registration plate or with visibility, but those problems are not insurmountable. If a European flag can be fitted on a registration plate, so can another flag. I hope that the Minister will show flexibility in the American case and in this.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is right that it is possible to have the union flag in place of the Euro stars. He may care to examine
260
my car, which is standing at the Members' Entrance and which displays an illegal number plate with a blue strip down the left-hand side, proudly bearing a union flag.
Mr. Davey: That does not surprise me.
I hope that the Minister will not be intimidated by the anti-Europeans who will contribute to the debate. This is not a debate between anti-Europeans and pro-Europeans, although some of the hon. Members present are certainly more Eurosceptic than Europhile. The issue is one of choice, and I hope that the Minister will give the English, Scottish and Welsh peoples that choice.
10.4 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans: I speak as someone who is Welsh and proud to be so, and British and proud to be so. That is something that some Labour Members fail to understand. I do not see why I as a Welshman ought not to have the opportunity to display the Welsh flag on my car registration plate if I so wish. Indeed, when I was in Wales a month ago I saw a Welsh flag displayed on somebody's registration plate. I have also seen Union Jacks and Scottish solents—[Hon. Members: "Saltires!"] That is what I mean.
The Government should say whether the Home Office has given guidance and advice to police forces throughout the country as to whether people who display symbols other than the union flag will be prosecuted. I pointed out a union flag on a car to someone the other day. I said that that was illegal and that the owner could be prosecuted. I was asked who would be stupid enough to prosecute people for displaying the union flag on their cars, and in reply I asked who would be stupid enough to prosecute someone for selling bananas by the pound instead of the kilogram. That happened the other day in Sunderland, where there is clearly no other crime.
The Government say that they are tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, yet they have created a new crime. There are fewer police on the streets than four years ago, but the police will have to check out cars to see if they are displaying anything other than the union symbol.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) said that between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. of his constituents drive cars that proudly display the Welsh flag. They are breaking the law, and are therefore criminals. They can be stopped by the Welsh police or their counterparts in the United Kingdom, and prosecuted for displaying the fact that they are Welsh.
That comes very rich from this Government, given that the census forms that we have to return by 29 April allow people to say that they are Scottish or from Northern Ireland, but not that they are Welsh or English. What is wrong with the Government? Why do they not believe that people should be able to say whether they are Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, or English?
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Although I recognise the right of people to put a Union Jack on their cars if that is what they want, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that our advice to the thousands of drivers in Wales whose cars bear the Welsh flag should be that they carry on showing the flags and ignore these stupid regulations? If the Government insist on introducing them, they will be bringing the law into infamy.
Mr. Evans: This is a bad law. A law that is widely flouted needs to be looked at again. I do not believe that

261
the consultation procedure that the Government followed was right. They did not consult widely with the motoring organisations, which would have told them that the introduction of space for symbols on registration plates would mean that people in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England would want to display their nationality. People would also want to display the Union Jack as well. I cannot believe that that was not pointed out to the Government in the consultation that was held.
The Minister must tell the House what the guidance is. Will people driving around with their national flags displayed proudly on their cares be told that they are breaking the law? Will they run the risk of being stopped by the police and prosecuted, and of having to pay a fine of £1,000? If the Government want to create martyrs, they are going about it the right way—they will create thousands, as people ensure that they change their registration plates to show the flags of the nations of which they are proud.
I am not one of the nutters who wants to throw up whenever they see the euro symbol—[Interruption.] However, I do not jump for joy when I see it. In contrast, when I see the Union Jack, there is a flutter in my heart. When I see the Welsh flag, there is a bit of hwyl about me. I am also proud to represent an English constituency. Thank goodness the Government had the good grace not to insult us all by having this debate yesterday. I am also proud whenever I see England playing football or the flag of St. George being displayed throughout England and people wearing red roses, as they did yesterday. It is quite right that they should be proud as well.
I find it incredible that we do not have the Minister for patriotism here. During one of their frights, the Government decided that they were being charged with not being sufficiently patriotic. They therefore dredged up a Minister who not many people had heard of and gave him the title of Minister for patriotism.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman some latitude, but he must now return to discussing the regulations.
Mr. Evans: I was going to say that although the Minister for patriotism is not here. I suspect that the Minister for Europe would have been here had he not been indisposed.
The Government must give the House an explanation. They have an opportunity to do so tonight. It has already been noted that there are no Scottish or Welsh Members of Parliament on the Labour Benches for this debate. Because we are using this dreadful procedure, people debating the issue are not allowed to vote on it tonight. The vote will have to be deferred until tomorrow. I will be looking very carefully at how Labour Members representing Scottish and Welsh constituencies vote. The people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland ought to know exactly how their Members of Parliament vote on this issue.
I am staggered at the necessity for this debate. We are given a choice that we can either display the European Union symbol or nothing. It is Europe or nothing with this Government, and that sickens me. I am proud to be British, I am proud to be Welsh, and I demand the right to be able to display those symbols on my car if I so wish and not have the European Union pushed down my throat.
10.12 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) said that if the Conservative party were returned to power, it would be content with the flexibility that we seek. I am pleased at that indication, although it may be academic for the next few years. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman wholeheartedly.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: That is a start.
Mr. Llwyd: While I am at it, perhaps I should admonish the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) for being so personal about the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and saying that he throws up whenever he sees the European Union symbol. That was really out of order.
In an exchange on this subject between my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and the Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Executive were consulted on that and … raised no objection.
I am happy for the issue to be raised in Committee."—[Official Report, 18 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 31.]
To my certain knowledge, neither body was consulted. That brings me back to what the hon. Member for Ribble Valley said. What kind of consultation process was this?
Mr. Wigley: I give my hon. Friend a categoric assurance that the National Assembly, as a whole, was not consulted on this. The Executive may have been, the Labour Government, or Lib-Lab Government in Wales may have been, but the Assembly was not. That is certainly the truth.
Mr. Llwyd: What makes it even worse is that quite recently, when the matter was discussed by the National Assembly, virtually all Labour, Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru Members decided that this flexibility should be introduced and that people should have the right to display the Welsh flag if they wanted to do so. That opinion is now being totally ignored by the Government. They want to steamroller this measure through with an apparent complete disregard for the feelings of thousands of people in Wales, criminalising them on the way. Interestingly, they are taking the same approach as they did when denying Welsh people the right to say that they were Welsh in the census, given what has been said about the Welsh "tick box".
The Government are not listening to the people of Wales. It is the wrong way to proceed, and I am sure that they will pay a heavy price for it in the next few weeks.
Mr. Simon Thomas: One of my constituents, a professor of physics at the university of Aberystwyth, is currently in Davos in Switzerland undertaking international research. He drives a great deal on the continent, between Wales and his international work. He has a doctorate in physics, and he happens to be my parliamentary agent. He will be criminalised by this measure because he, a committed European, chooses to display the Welsh flag on his car. Is that the sort of person whom the Government should seek to criminalise?
Mr. Llwyd: Absolutely not. That gentleman is one of many law-abiding people in Wales who will similarly fall

263
foul of this wrong, stupid and senseless regulation. My hon. Friend has spoken about this matter before and made his feelings clear. There is a resonance across the House on this matter: whether one wants the flag of St. George, the Union Jack, the Welsh flag or the saltire should be entirely up to the individual.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this matter goes further than flags? Many people in Wales and Scotland choose to display "CYM" or "SCO" on their numberplates. Previously, there was no rule about whether one should have a "GB" sticker or any other sticker. That, too, is entirely new.
Mr. Llwyd: I agree. What I say, I am also saying on behalf of the Scottish National party—at least until I am pulled up for saying something wrong.
The consultation process is interesting. The follow-up consultation letter was sent on 20 January 2000, and a summary of responses was published on 10 May. The Minister looks perplexed, but my information comes from the House of Commons Library. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions asked for views, but I do not know how far the consultation went. Will the Minister tell us how wide it went and who and which bodies were consulted? Why, even at this late date, are the views of the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament being ignored? That cannot be right.
Whether or not one favours devolution, it is wrong to bring in bad law by the back door. That law will have no credence in the country and will not be adhered to by law-abiding citizens. It will create a class of people who will be in court for the first time in their lives because of this action by the Government—though inaction might be a better description.
The Department has been cackhanded in its dealings with the European Commission. It submitted draft proposals, which came back duly amended and rewritten. The Commission has made it clear that there is no intent to harmonise registration plates across the community. That makes it clear that what the Opposition seek is perfectly legal under EU law. There is no impediment to what we want. Even at this late stage, will the Minister take a message to his Department asking that the matter be reconsidered. There could be a huge outburst of feeling in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The regulations are offensive to many of us.
We were initially told that the big problem lay in the fact that the Commission would dictate the regulation to the Government. That is not the case. It is the Government's intransigence that is causing a growing crisis. I appeal to them to reconsider, and swiftly. It is all very well for the Minister to put his hands in his pockets and look at the ceiling, but the regulations are grossly offensive to us all. [Interruption.] I repeat that this matter is grossly offensive to many of us. It is noteworthy that no Scottish or Welsh Labour Members are present—either they have no mind of their own or they could not care less about their native countries.
When we were told that the Commission was at fault, Ian Titherington—soon to be the Member of Parliament for Swansea. West—held discussions with the DVLA and
264
was told that the matter had nothing to do with the Commission; the proposed regulations could be implemented with no problem whatever. At some point, the Government will have to come clean. Just as the census form is insulting and offensive and may lead to law-breaking, so too will the regulations.
I listened carefully to the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) about American vehicles. I am a German-vehicle person myself, but that is beside the point. I do not know anyone in Meirionnydd Nant Conwy who can afford to run American cars, given the current price of fuel.
I shall briefly and swiftly conclude my remarks as other hon. Members want to speak. The Government claimed that the Assembly raised no objections—I doubt whether that is true. The Assembly and its Ministers have said that they want recognition of national flags—as did the Scottish Parliament.
The DVLA was led to believe that the order was mandatory under European law—that is also nonsense. Will the Minister please allow the people of the constituent nations of the British state to have their say and show respect to their nations?
10.22 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: It had been my intention to make a lengthy speech about European number plates and national number plates, but there is now no need for me to do so. Tonight, we have seen something dramatic: it has emerged that, in a few weeks' time, the new Conservative Government—with the support of the Liberal Democrats, the Welsh nationalists, the Scottish nationalists, our friends from Northern Ireland, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly—will bring back the right for people to use the number plates and the flag that they think most appropriate.
Obviously, I hope that my hon. Friends will not end up in a European prison as a consequence of their bravery. However, a popular front has been established; we know what can happen if the right decision is made in the general election. For that reason, I want to say a few words about the American car issue.
My sincere appeal to the Government is that they reconsider the matter. What on earth can be gained by the regulations? What will be lost? I am sure that there are such car dealers in the constituency of every Member. In my constituency, there is a small firm—Route 66—at 41 Purdeys Way, Rochford; another little firm, the American Car Company, is located in the area of Southend represented by one of my colleagues.
As the Minister knows, no big firms are involved in that business. There are only small firms—tiny businesses—which do not make much money. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that only about 500 American cars are registered every year—it is a small sector. What the blazes will happen under these regulations? Unless a way of fitting a new number plate can be found—usually that cannot be done—about £1,000 will have to be spent on altering those cars. Great expense will be involved for many businesses. Why are we doing that?
Will the Government include an exemption? They have done that already for left-hand drive cars. On the advice of the European Union, the Government brought in

265
legislation in schedule 2 of the Motor Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 2001, to give an exemption for left-hand drive vehicles. The Government could easily introduce an exemption if they want to.
I know that people have been writing to Ministers and civil servants to ask why the Government are introducing the regulations. In fact, one of the American car importers—a nice man called Mr. Cohen—wrote a letter to the Department asking why the proposal was being introduced. He received an answer from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, whose only argument was that some people in the police thought big letters were easier to see than small letters and that that could help in the battle against crime.
I ask the Minister to tell us how many big American vehicles were involved in crime last year or the year before. I think he will find that they are not the kind of vehicles purchased or used for that purpose. If the Government are concerned about crime, why the blazes do we allow motor cycles to have small number plates? If it is difficult to see an American car plate because it is too small, what about criminals who ride around on motor cycles?
Mr. Edward Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Teddy Taylor: Certainly—but the hon. Gentleman spoke for a very long time.
Mr. Davey: I want to reinforce the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. The DVLA argued that smaller number plates might not be visible to speed detection cameras—until the owners of American cars sent the DVLA their speeding fines.
Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman refers to another point that has been mentioned.
If the Minister considers the issue, he will discover that there is no argument. He must ask himself what is to be done. He will know that we are not dealing with the big battalions of the motor industry and with big firms that can spend a lot of money on alterations. He will know that those businesses have difficulties because American cars cost a lot of money. If the regulations involve more discomfort, more trouble and more expense, what is the point?
The Minister could very easily include an exemption for American cars. That would be as easy as pie. It could be done specifically for left-hand drive American vehicles. However, people might ask why an exemption should be made for American cars. We want such an exemption because American number plates are different and the structure of American cars is different. The modifications will involve a lot of extra work. The manufacturers calculate that, apart from a tiny number of cars to which bigger number plates can be attached, the alterations will cost more than £1,000.
I am afraid that Governments of all parties have sometimes introduced legislation that involves a lot of expenditure, bureaucracy and distress, and I ask myself,
266
"Why on earth do they do it?" Can the Minister give us any good reason for introducing the regulations? I can see no advantage of any sort to anyone; I can see a great deal of trouble and distress. That matters to a small number of people who might be daft enough to want to own an American car. Some people love owning American cars; some of them look terrific. This is a country where people should have that freedom, and it must not be taken away. So why should more unnecessary bureaucracy be introduced?
The Government should be aware that there is no need to aim for consistency. There is almost an obsession with ensuring that everything is the same—but there is no need. We have repeatedly asked the Government to tell us what is the argument for introducing the regulations. The argument about crime does not stand up, given what has been said about motor cycle number plates. The argument adduced about speed cameras is not very relevant. Given the recent test case in Scotland, the Minister will be well aware that we may have to do away with speed cameras because of the European rules.
Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the ruling in the case to which he refers was overturned by the House of Lords.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I am well aware of what happened. I have had the pleasure of being a Member of Parliament for a very long time. When something stems from European law, it can be stopped in various ways in the House of Lords. I do not want to be ruled out of order, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider what happened in relation to the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, when many hon. Members cheered their heads off because Parliament's decision was overturned. The hon. Gentleman is always trying to cause trouble, but there is no need. If he really thinks that democracy is safe from European rules, he honestly has a lot of rethinking to do, and I ask him to think about that very carefully indeed.
I simply tell the Minister that we should forget about the big issues because they will be resolved at the next election. If people want to go the Government's way, they can vote them back into power. If they want to retain their national freedoms, they can vote for the Conservative party, along with the Welsh nationalists and all our other new friends—the popular front. The crucial question is this: why should we introduce a measure that will cause a lot of trouble, involve great expense and make many people unhappy when no one can see any benefit from it?
I hope that the Government will show common sense and agree to a tiny amendment to the regulations. That would be better for everyone and save a lot of trouble and unhappiness when there is no benefit to be obtained. I hope that the Minister will at least say that the Government will reconsider the matter and perhaps bring in a minor change to help decent people who deserve some attention.
10.30 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: This is an historic night because there has been such a broad consensus among the Opposition parties. We are all united in our belief in the concept of choice—choice which the Government wish to extinguish. Had it not been for the perception of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and the determination of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) to pray against the regulations and to seek to have them revoked, there would have been no debate on the matter. I salute them for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.
The regulations are extensive and they are made up of 19 paragraphs that do not relate to just a couple of issues. In them, the Government are guilty not only of crushing individuality and choice, but of being something of a spoilsport.
The first issue that I wish to raise relates to paragraph 11 on the nature of registration plates and the way in which the characters are laid out. Sub-paragraph (2) states:
"A registration plate must not be treated in any other way which renders the characters of the registration mark less easily distinguishable to the eye or which would prevent or impair the making of a true photographic image of the plate through the medium of camera and film or any other device."
Sub-paragraph (3) adds that a registration plate must not be fixed to a vehicle in such a way
"which has the effect of changing the appearance or legibility of any of the characters of the registration mark, which renders the characters of the registration mark less easily distinguishable to the eye or which prevents or impairs the making of a true photographic image of the plate through the medium of camera and film or any other device."
The effect of such provisions will be that those of us who have an enormous interest in looking at number plates and at the ingenious way in which our fellow countrymen manage to order the letters of the alphabet and numbers in such a way as to make their number plates interesting reading will have that possibility denied to us. For example, I see a Jeep Cherokee near where I live in London—I have no idea who owns it—which has the registration "L10N TV". For all I know there may be a production company called Lion TV, but I find it interesting to see the way in which that number plate is laid out. Other obvious examples spell out names such as "SUS1E" and "ANG1E", although I do not know the ladies in question. Hon. Members may have seen some rude examples, but I will not repeat them to the House because even though it is after the watershed and sensitive journalists have gone to bed, they may be videoing our proceedings. My son's girlfriend Tammy has a car and the number plate on it spells out her name—"T4MY"— and that makes her car recognisable. Such registrations are so much more noticeable, visible and memorable than the boring old number plates that there will be if the regulations come into effect.
Those of us who have had the displeasure of engaging libel lawyers know that there is a splendid firm of libel lawyers called Peter Carter-Ruck and Partners, of whom I have been the beneficiary.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: They are expensive.
Mr. Howarth: They are extremely expensive, but they were very good value in my case. Peter Carter-Ruck
268
wanted a particular number plate. When the DVLA auctioned licence plates, he asked me whether I would be prepared to help because he did not want to be seen to be bidding in case it pushed up the price. Instead, his partners bid for "L1BEL" and he now drives around in a Rolls-Royce with a plate that reads "libel". That makes two statements: "Don't mess with me" and "My profession warrants a Rolls-Royce". However, in my case, the BBC paid, not me.
The Government are determined to crush individuality. They are in favour of big brother. They want our number plates to be uniform so that we can be photographed and our movements recorded everywhere we go. We do not know why. It might be fine to do that to catch criminals, but for what other purposes are we to have our vehicles photographed?
Mr. David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman's example of "ANG1E" is fascinating. Perhaps the vehicle in question belongs to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). On the matter before us, the regulations on the sequencing and placement of letters on number plates have been in existence for many years. Did the hon. Gentleman raise concerns in previous debates?
Mr. Howarth: It was not necessary. The citizens of our country enjoyed the freedom conferred on them which was not allowed in other European countries. In addition, the DVLA cashed in on specialist number plates and coined money for the Government by flogging them. It will be interesting to see how the agency will be affected by the regulations and whether they will reduce substantially its receipts from the sale of specialist number plates.
Mr. Bercow: Although it is true, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said, that the European Commission is not currently planning to impose complete uniformity on this country, the Government are preparing to soften us up for that scenario. Is my hon. Friend aware that, when challenged to commit the Government to oppose rigorously any such intended uniformity, the Minister came over all shy and reticent in the Standing Committee on the Vehicles (Crime) Bill? He said:
"somebody in my position, as a mere Under-Secretary of State, is not in a position to make commitments on behalf of the Government."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 11 January 2001; c. 134.]
Very touching, but not very convincing.
Mr. Howarth: Indeed not. However, the Minister is modest. No doubt he will be even more modest by the end of the debate and will not want to have anything to do with the measure. He will ascribe to his Secretary of State the responsibility to take the decision.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): The buck stops here.
Mr. Howarth: Unfortunately it does not; we know that only too well. However, the Minister would enhance enormously his standing in the Chamber, and, no doubt, in his constituency of Streatham, if he persuaded the

269
Secretary of State to abandon the measure. No Opposition Member—I suspect this is true of many absent Labour Members—wants the measure enacted.
The second issue that concerns me was splendidly covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) and the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). The fact is that it is not legal for cars to travel around the country with blue strips on the left hand side of their number plates bearing the letters GB and the European symbol. They will be made legal only if this measure is enacted.
That is fine, but the Government have tried to smuggle the business through the House and they have been less than open about the way in which that has been done. [Interruption.] The Whip, the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), suggests that I am being unfair. I invite hon. Members to read paragraph 16(2) of the regulations, under the heading "Miscellaneous", which says:
"Where a mark is displayed on a dual purpose plate—
(a) no material other than the international distinguishing sign of the United Kingdom displayed in accordance with the Council Registration may be placed in the space provided on the plate for that purpose".
To all intents and purposes, the casual reader seeking to understand what the Government are on about would think it perfectly in order to display a United Kingdom international distinguishing sign, which for many of us is the union flag.
What does the reference to "Council Registration" mean? Does it refer to local authorities? Are we talking about Buckinghamshire county council, Hampshire county council or perhaps town councils in Streatham or Hawley? Fortunately, there is an explanatory note, and sub-paragraph (g) on page 25 of the regulations refers to:
"The making of provision for the display of the international distinguishing sign of the United Kingdom adjacent to the registration mark in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No. 2411/98 (a copy of which can be obtained from the Stationery Office)."
Therein lies the secret of what this is all about.
One has to go to another document—the European Council regulation of 3 November 1998, to read, if not the full story, at least part of it. The preamble to that document reads as follows:
"Whereas several Member States have introduced a model registration plate which, on the extreme left, displays a blue zone containing the 12 yellow stars representing the European flag plus the distinguishing sign of the Member State of registration; whereas for the purpose of intra-Community transport this distinguishing sign meets the objective of identifying the State of registration as provided for in Article 37 of"—
the Vienna convention of 1968, I can tell the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. That is the only indication that the only international symbol that will be lawful is the EU flag. One has to turn to the annexe to the regulations to see what is proposed. All that will be permitted is the European symbol with the national symbol beneath it. It will be a criminal offence to display any other symbol. It is a circuitous way of introducing a measure that will greatly offend our fellow citizens once they discover the enormity of what the Government are up to.
To some, this may seem a trivial matter, but it is not trivial to all the hon. Members in the Chamber tonight. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said that as
270
far as he is concerned it is a matter of choice. The hon. Gentleman is a committed pro-European, and he has chided us for the anti-European motives that he believes lie behind our opposition to the measure. I have explained why I am opposed to one part of it. I oppose the requirement to authorise only the European symbol. I say to the hon. Gentleman that I see this as another attempt to foist a European identity on this country. We have a European Parliament, a European Court, a European currency, a European anthem and a European flag, and we are about to have a European army, so we have all those symbols of nation statehood. That is what worries us: our driving licences have to have the Euro symbol—we cannot have the union flag—and now our registration plates have to have it as well. It is an affront to the British people to authorise motorists to bear the Euro symbol on their cars and make it a criminal offence for Englishmen proudly to proclaim the cross of St. George on their motor cars, for hon. Members from Wales proudly to bear the Welsh dragon on their number plates, and for the saltire of Scotland to be borne on Scottish number plates. Indeed, my French car—a blue Picasso—is outside the Members' entrance and carries the Union Jack, but I would be made a criminal if I put such a new number plate on it after 1 September this year. People in this country will find that deeply offensive.
However, there is a solution. Between now and 1 September it will be possible for us to have things other than Euro symbols on our cars. I can tell the House that I have a number plate with a blue strip bearing the Union Jack and the letters "GB" on the left-hand side because there is a splendid company called I-N-M(UK) Ltd., which, for the sum of £27, provided me with a set of number plates. It is based at 22 Kingswood Gardens, Leeds LS8 2BT, and Mr. Peter Rogers, a company director, has said that he is prepared to make to order a set of number plates for Members of Parliament, whatever their shade of opinion. I am sure that he will provide a Welsh dragon or indeed, a fish symbol for those who wish to proclaim their Christian faith on their vehicles. Members can have whatever they like on their registration plates and Mr. Rogers will provide it not for £27, which I was charged, but for £25. There will be no commission for me; I am doing this in the interests of our country and to ensure that we retain some individuality and maintain pride in our national symbols, which should not be taken over by the dreaded Euro flag.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I endorse everything that my hon. Friend has said. Does he believe that on the blue strip on the left of the registration plate one should be able to put not only the Union flag—the Union Jack—but the cross of St. George? Why should we not boast not only of the Union of the United Kingdom but of England, which comprises the greater part of that union?
Mr. Howarth: As my hon. Friend said, that is a possibility. I do not know what is in Mr. Rogers's extensive range, so I cannot say what he can provide, but I am sure that a call to him—
Mr. David Taylor: Is this a commercial break?
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is perceptive; this is an unashamed commercial in support of a man who, I believe, is doing good for our country and providing us

271
all with the means to proclaim pride in our country—and, if I may say to the Minister, for whom I have high regard, metaphorically to put two fingers up to those who would have us behave in a uniform fashion. As Mr. Churchill might have said, that is something up with which we will not put.
Of course, the House cannot vote on the regulations tonight because we are muzzled under our new arrangements and are denied the opportunity to vote. However, when the measure does come to a vote, I hope that the House will ensure that it is thrown out, because a comprehensive case has been made across the board. In conclusion, may I ask the Minister for an assurance that cars bearing those number plates perfectly legitimately after 1 September 2001 will not fail their MOT on the grounds that they do not have the appropriate symbol on their number plates? I seek an assurance from the Minister that there will be no attempt to stop people having such number plates after 1 September by making it a requirement that their cars fail the MOT if the number plates do not bear the Euro symbol, should they choose to put any symbol at all on their number plates. With that, I rest my case.
10.50 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I shall be brief, not from any uncharacteristic compassion for the sentiments of the House, but simply because I want to enjoy the spectacle of the Minister, who is a popular and intelligent person, having to justify the wholly unjustifiable.
I have not always led a blameless life. I have been in the House for 18 years, but before that, I was a humble country lawyer—or at least, I was a country lawyer. One of the attributes of humble country lawyers is that they have a certain interest in good law being passed. Good law is not necessarily popular or welcome, but it is obeyed. I remember that many years ago, before I came to the House, there was a great feeling of outrage when we made safety belts compulsory. It was thought to be an infringement of civil liberties and there was a great brouhaha about it, but the day that law came into force, it was observed. No matter how much people may grumble about it, everybody now puts on a safety belt, because they acknowledge that the law is right.
As a lawyer and a parliamentarian, I am worried when I see that the House is prepared to enact law that will not be obeyed. We Conservatives have learned the lesson. We saw what happened with the council tax: excellent measure though it was in many ways, it lacked the essential ingredient, and ultimately, people would not accept it. That was an isolated case under the Conservative Government, but the present Government have shown time and again that they are prepared to enact legislation which ordinary, decent, law-abiding people will not obey.
We have seen that, and we will see it again in due course if the Government win the next election. We will see them outlawing foxhunting. They will take a swathe of ordinary, straightforward, decent, law-abiding human beings and provoke them into breaking the law. I appreciate that there are passions on both sides of the argument, and it might be argued that the issue is so
272
important that Parliament is entitled to take a view. However, there is no earthly reason why the regulations before us should be pushed through the House.
If Labour win the next general election, we face the prospect of pointing out to any policeman whom we may see that some horse boxes on their way to a foxhunt, which have stopped off to buy some non-metric bananas, have dodgy illegal number plates. Is that the choice that we are to present to our police forces? Are they to chase non-metric bananas, foxhunters, or those with dodgy number plates? That is the nonsense that the Government are prepared to inflict.
I warn the Government that there are many people who, on an issue such as foxhunting, may feel deeply upset but will not break the law. However, with the regulations before us, the Government could face a string of vehicles parked all the way up Whitehall, with people rattling the gates outside No. 10, saying, "Come on, big boy. Come and prosecute me on the grounds of public policy." That is what the Government are in the business of doing. The one thing that they do not have in the slightest degree is any sense of humility or propriety about what they are and are not entitled to do.
I shall now sit down to watch the Minister, who is extremely popular, and who has great charm and intelligence, standing at the Dispatch Box to justify the unjustifiable. It will not be a pretty sight.
10.53 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: After that introduction, I hesitate to rise and speak. I am almost tempted to quote the number plate "VOMIT", which is the reaction of most of us to the measure proposed. This will probably be my shortest ever parliamentary speech, but I hope that it will make up in quality what it lacks in quantity.
There are three points to make. First, why are the Government introducing a measure to allow the European symbol to be put on number plates, when, as everyone knows, the law that prevents people from doing that now is not being enforced? The answer is fairly obvious. The Government are introducing the measure to allow that to be done in preparation for the time, which they know will come, when it will be made compulsory. Otherwise, there is no reason for them to introduce the provision. They are trying to make it legal for the EU symbol to be displayed on number plates throughout the United Kingdom and the European Union only because they know that it will be impossible to order that to happen if the practice is technically illegal.
Thus the first point—or question—is why the Government are doing this, and the second point is the answer to that question, which is that they know that what is now to be permitted will later be made compulsory.
The third point is this: what are the various pressure groups that oppose the creeping federalism of the European Union going to do about the regulations? As somebody who was once arrested for playing the national anthem in public, I have a certain amount of experience of what pressure groups do in such circumstances. I predict that they will commission quality printing firms to prepare union flag stickers with permanent, self-adhesive backs that can easily be stuck over the European symbol on future number plates.

273
That will have a double effect. It will mean that people who want the union flag to cover the relevant part of their number plates can stick it on. Such people can claim when they are stopped by the police that some opponent must have stuck the symbol on, and that they did not do it themselves. Alternatively, it will be possible to place stickers on the number plates of car owners who support the European Union, which will mean that they are done for a criminal offence and fined £1,000.
Will the Under-Secretary address that problem and explain how it will be dealt with? How should the police respond when they discover that somebody is driving around with a regulation number plate on which the British flag is displayed in the form of a sticker of the sort that I have described? Will such a person be fined, or will it be enough of an excuse for him to say that he did not do it himself? Will he be obliged to check his number plates every time he takes his car out? Will he be required not to take the car out because he cannot remove a sticker and make his number plate legal again?
The whole process is fatuous, unenforceable and deeply sinister. The provisions are not permissive, as the Government are trying to suggest. They are being introduced to pave the way for a compulsory measure, and I predict that that measure will not be long in coming down the line.
10.58 pm
Mr. William Ross: I did not originally intend to speak in this debate, but a few minutes ago I picked up the statutory instrument and opened it up to find out about its extent. Hon. Members will know that when one reads legislation, one usually finds a little sentence saying that it extends to somewhere, wherever it may be. It might extend to England and Wales, to Great Britain or to the United Kingdom. I cannot see such a provision anywhere in the regulations, but at the top of page 11, I see a paragraph stating that particular regulations introduced for Northern Ireland in 1973 "shall cease to apply".
I am curious to know whether the regulations are a United Kingdom measure. What is their extent? If they are United Kingdom regulations, as they seem to purport to be, what is the position with regard to the powers of the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland? After all, it is responsible for the registration of vehicles in Northern Ireland. As was pointed out earlier, many number plates are sold, and the Department of the Environment has a number of public auctions every year. Once upon a time, I tried to get a message to a member of the Government to tell him that a number in which I thought he might be interested was coming up for sale. Unfortunately, the message was not passed on, and the hon. Member in question missed the number "VAZ 1". I thought that he would have been more than interested in such a number plate. The sale made only £3,000 or £4,000, but it gives some idea of the value that some people place on such number plates.
As the Under-Secretary knows, the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment holds back the first 1,000 numbers in every run and sells them off. One sees Northern Ireland number plates all over London because people buy them. There is a huge trade in them; tens of thousands are advertised for sale in the press. They bring in a lot of money to the Northern Ireland Exchequer. Will we be deprived of that in future? If so, who will receive it?
274
Are we considering United Kingdom regulations? Has any discussion taken place with the devolved institutions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? If not, why not? Their finances could all be adversely affected.
Mr. Evans: England is the one nation that the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned. What consultation occurred with the English about the changes?
Mr. Ross: Is there not a rising tide of anger throughout England? Do the English feel bereft of a Chamber? Or would they, like me, be much happier if we had only this one? I could live with that. I believe that especially given that I have to live with a Chamber that, if it ever had hopes of being democratic, has proven since its inception that democracy does not rule there.
I simply raise the question of responsibility and the extent of the regulations, which has financial implications. I hope that I shall receive a clear reply from the Under-Secretary.
11.1 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Our debate has been fascinating, and all too brief. It has been an evening of passion, even atavism—and it was not entirely predictable that the subject of vehicle number plates could provoke that. I shall deal with several key issues. First, however, I shall try to put the subject in perspective.
I doubt whether any hon. Member, with the possible exception of that well-known libertarian the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), would disagree that it is important for law enforcement and road safety that number plates should be clearly legible to the naked eye and to enforcement cameras.
Over the years, apprehending criminals in many high-profile cases, often involving serious crimes, has depended on the successful identification of a motor vehicle. The number plate—in many cases, only a part of it—has often provided the only clue that the police have had to work on.
The Government are determined that there should be no dilution that might adversely affect the legibility of number plates. Indeed, the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001, which we are debating this evening, will strengthen the existing 1971 regulations and introduce for the first time a standard character font to improve clarity. In passing, let me deal with the point that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) made. We are considering a United Kingdom measure; the matter is not devolved to Northern Ireland.
The regulations also introduce a new British standard to make number plates more durable. Furthermore, they introduce a new format to replace the existing one, which, as has frequently been pointed out, runs out at the end of August. The format last changed as long ago as 1963. No doubt some of those present, but perhaps not all, recall that. We are therefore experiencing a once in a lifetime event. Because of its rarity, the Government took the opportunity to consult widely before drafting the regulations. I shall revert to the subject of consultation later.
I assure the House that we have carefully considered representations from all interested parties.

275
We have listened in particular to those from the independent American car importers business who are quite rightly keen to foster, preserve and encourage wide use of what, for many, are highly desirable vehicles.
I shall respond to a couple of the observations made on this point during the debate. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), who introduced the debate, asked whether the European Commission had written to the United Kingdom Government asking for left-hand drive vehicles to be included in the list of specialist vehicles allowed to use the smaller font size. The answer is yes, the European Commission wrote to the Government in January 2001. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) asked about the import of American cars. The regulations do not change the position on American vehicles—it has never been legal for them to display small number plates.
The point at issue is that vehicles manufactured for the north American market have, in many cases, a restricted space for the vehicle number plate, making it difficult for owners to fit a standard UK number plate. However, that problem is not exclusive to vehicles arriving here from across the Atlantic. Vehicles made for markets in Japan and the far east—in other words, vehicles not manufactured to European standards—have a similar difficulty in displaying a legal UK plate. It is estimated that up to 50,000 vehicles are independently imported here annually from those markets. So, we are dealing with a sizeable number.
Many of those vehicles currently display plates made for motor cycles. These are smaller in size and not intended for display on cars. They are illegal under the current regulations, and owners who display them are liable to prosecution. Enforcement of the regulations is a matter for the police who, for operational reasons, have—to my mind, quite rightly—concentrated their efforts on more serious offences. [Interruption.] My old sparring partner, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) says that the law is an ass. I would say that this is a splendid example of British pragmatism. We have heard much about great British qualities this evening and, in my humble submission, that is one of them.
The easements in the new regulations, and those carried forward from the 1971 regulations, as amended, continue to permit two-wheeled and three-wheeled vehicles, quadricycles, agricultural machines and road rollers to use small characters on their number plates. In the case of motor cycles, smaller plates are necessary for safety reasons, and they could not reasonably accommodate larger plates. The other vehicles that may use the smaller plates are tightly defined. They are not generally high-powered or used on the public road. When they are, they are usually driven slowly or for very short distances.
We have carefully considered the representations made on behalf of the importers of American vehicles who wish to be granted a similar concession. I want to assure the hon. Members for Poole, for Kingston and Surbiton and for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that we will, of course, continue to take account of those representations. Perhaps I should add that a complaint has been lodged with the European Commission, which has urged the UK to provide an exemption. If such an exemption is not given, the Commission has reserved the right to challenge the provisions if they create an
276
unjustified barrier to trade. If it is eventually decided that an exemption has to be provided, all that would be required would be to make a small amendment to the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001. However, for the purposes of the present regulations it has been decided that, for the reasons that I have given, there should be no change to the existing position that American vehicles should fit standard plates.
Mr. Edward Davey: Will the Minister go slightly further than he has done? He seemed to suggest that we needed to wait for the Commission to take on the Government. Could not the Government listen to the argument that has been put very strongly from all parts of the House and—rather than wait for the Commission to take the Government on using European law—move to anticipate the outcome, given that they might well be contravening European law by introducing this measure?
Mr. Hill: I have just spent a long time explaining why there are powerful safety reasons for the regulations. It is possible that they will be found to be defective according to the European Union's commercial legislation, but I cleave to the view that we have the right to assert our commitment to road safety in this regard.
Mr. Syms: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hill: I will, very briefly.
Mr. Syms: Small businesses that have already spent considerable sums on sending letters to the European Commission, the DVLA and DETR feel very frustrated because no one has listened. We are at the end of the process. The Minister acknowledges that there is a problem. Why can we not sort it out now?
Mr. Hill: I have spent some time telling the hon. Gentleman and the House that we are talking not just about American imported vehicles, but about up to 50,000 vehicles from the far east and Japan that fall into the same category.
Mr. Evans rose—
Mr. Davey rose—
Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
Mr. Hill: I do not want to engage in a protracted discussion, but I will give way to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East, because he spoke about this issue specifically.
Sir Teddy Taylor: The Minister has implied that we have not been applying the law correctly—that what we have been doing has been illegal, but that we have not been bothering about it because the police have been concentrating on other issues. Would it not be appropriate to apply the same policy until some decision is made by Europe? I appreciate that that is not an easy thing for a

277
Minister to say, but is it possible that the new law might not be applied in the foreseeable future, given that the police have much to do and many issues to face up to?
Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman would hardly expect me to incite people to break the law from the Dispatch Box. Let me add that this is essentially a matter for the discretion of the police force.
Mr. Davey: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hill: No. I have given way sufficiently, and I dare say I shall give way again later.
Let me deal with an issue that was raised with rather more passion: voluntary provision for the display of the GB national identifier and the European circle of stars on number plates. I must confess that I cannot deal with the extraordinarily complicated question asked by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) about permanent adhesive, but I shall Peruse Hansard carefully and in due course, if I am able, respond to the hon. Gentleman in writing. The hon. Member for Poole asked whether it was illegal to produce plates featuring a European Union symbol. It is not illegal: there is no provision relating to the symbol in current legislation. Use of it, however, might be illegal if it affected the size or legibility of a registration mark.
The hon. Member for Meirior ydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) asked about consultation. Letters were sent to both the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Executive. How those devolved authorities have dealt with the issue is, of course, entirely a matter for them, but they had two bites at the cherry, because they were involved in the two rounds of consultation. The hon. Gentleman also asked—as did others—who else was consulted. The Automobile Association, the Royal Automobile Club, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Road Haulage Association, the Confederation of British Industry, the number plate industry and the Association of Chief Police Officers were all consulted and welcomed the regulations.
Mr. Llwyd: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hill: Let me answer the questions first—this set of questions, at least.
The hon. Member for Aldershot asked for an assurance that after 1 September the display of a number plate not conforming to the regulations would not be a cause for failure of an MOT test. I consider that an important and interesting point. I confess that I do not have the answer; however, I give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that I will make it my business to find it, and write to him. I am grateful to him for raising the issue.
Mr. Llwyd: The Minister said that the Welsh Assembly had had two bites at the cherry. At the time of the first consultation, the Assembly did not even exist.
Mr. Hill: I am tempted to say, Touché!" I take that point, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if it had been in existence, the Welsh Assembly would certainly have been consulted.
I would like the House to be clear about the issue of the European symbol on number plates. There is no provision within the regulations for either the GB logo or European
278
flag to be mandatory on vehicle number plates. All the regulations do is to allow motorists to take advantage, if they so wish, of a European Commission regulation that allows vehicles displaying the Euro symbol on their number plates to dispense with the need for a separate national identity sticker for journeys within the Community.
Where the Euro symbol appears on the number plate, it must be accompanied by the GB national identifier. It will also be possible for neither logo to appear. It will also be possible for neither logo to appear on the number plate and for the conventional GB decal, as it is known, to be attached to the rear of the vehicle. All those options will be available and acceptable, entirely according to the voluntary desires of the vehicle keeper.
Mr. Evans: Will the Minister now give a direct answer? If motorists in the Ribble Valley display the flag of St. George alone or the Union Jack alone, will they face prosecution because of the regulations?
Mr. Hill: Not if they are displayed as a decal on the rear of the vehicle. There would he no question of a prosecution in those circumstances.
Mr. Evans: I am happy to clarify the situation for the Minister. If a motorist does not have the European Union symbol on the registration plate and just has the union flag on the plate, which I have already seen in the Ribble Valley, could the motorist be stopped and prosecuted because of that?
Mr. Hill: I think that the answer is yes. [Interruption.] There are roars of surprise from Opposition Members but I think that they already knew the answer to that question.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Given that the police are not enforcing the law in respect of those number plates anyway, why are the Government changing the law to allow this practice to be made legal, unless it is because they know that, further down the line, it will be made compulsory?
Mr. Hill: Let me come back to the deep-dyed suspicion of a conspiracy. The fact is that the essence of the scheme is to permit ease of circulation in certain European countries. That is the whole basis of the use of these symbols, which after all are 98 mm by between 40 to 50 mm—4 by 2 inches in the old measurement, for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman. This is not a major deal.
Mr. Bercow: Whenever the Minister has not a leg on which to stand, the decibel level of his oration rises proportionately. Given the concern that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) has expressed—that this measure is the prelude to a compulsory imposition of an EU symbol, a concern that I expressed to the Minister in the Vehicles (Crime) Bill Standing Committee in January—why will he not now abandon his procrastination, give up the coy nonsense about being merely a junior Minister and pledge in front of you, Mr. Speaker, and the House that he will always oppose any such compulsory EU imposition? It is blindingly simple. Is he up to it?
Mr. Hill: The British Government have no intention of making such a symbol compulsory on number plates. I cannot go further than that.

279
I stress the voluntary nature of the arrangement. I know that many of our compatriots are keen to exhibit their national identity, whether it be through the display of the Union Jack or other flags from within the United Kingdom. The Government have absolutely no desire to impede perfectly proper displays of national pride. Of course, as I have said, vehicle keepers may continue to use stickers and transfers on their vehicles. We simply do not believe that the number plate is the right place for such flags or logos. The watchword here is clarity and the need for a standard mark on the number plate.
Mr. Edward Leigh rose—
Mr. Hill: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, although he is a somewhat belated, if not entirely unpredictable, sojourner in our proceedings.
Mr. Leigh: If it is unhelpful to road traffic safety to have certain symbols on the number plate, why have any symbol on it? It would surely be easier to exclude all symbols and have neither national nor EU symbols. What is it about the EU symbol that, alone among any other patriotic or religious symbol in the world, makes it the only one that should be allowed on our number plates? Where is the logic in that?
Mr. Hill: I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is entirely up to the individual vehicle keeper whether he or she has the symbol on the number plate. The reason for the use of the EU symbol is to permit ease of circulation in the European Community. It is also a standard symbol, not a confusing or distracting symbol. The hon. Gentleman may not have been here for the beginning of my speech, so I shall repeat that the object of the exercise is clarity. The recognition of a number plate is vital for law enforcement and it is for that purpose that the Government have decided to legislate to ensure that number plates are easy to read and free from other potentially distracting marks. The EU symbol does serve a particular purpose and is to be permitted on a voluntary basis. There is no good reason to allow other variations.
I appreciate that strong feelings over national identity have been expressed here tonight. However, I hope that the House now fully understands the intentions of the new regulations and that the Government, by making the display of the Euro flag optional, have preserved that freedom of choice which is the birthright of every self-respecting Briton.
Question put:—
Mr. Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
Hon. Members: No.
Division deferred till Wednesday 25 April, pursuant to order [7 November 2000].

Battersea Primary Care Group
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Touhig.]
11.22 pm
Mr. Martin Linton: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the funding of Battersea primary care group. I make no apology if this sounds like a cry for help, because the health service is seriously underfunded in Battersea by comparison with neighbouring areas. I do not wish to drown my right hon. Friend the Minister in statistics, but he will know from his Department that Battersea is underfunded by £4 million and he will be familiar with the figures produced by the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority. Battersea primary care group has an allocation of £70 million, its target spending is £74 million, and that leaves a shortfall of just over £4 million, or roughly £43 a head.
Battersea is not even in the flush of good health. Among the six primary care groups in the health authority, Battersea is in the unenviable position of having the highest rates of heart disease and respiratory disease. Indeed, it may have the highest asthma rate in the country, but this comparison is solely with the other primary care groups in the health authority. Battersea also has the highest neonatal mortality rate; the highest mortality ratio for all ages; the highest admission rate for respiratory diseases; the highest admission rate for men and women over 65; and the highest admission rate for diabetes. I am sorry if the list is long, but it is important to establish the facts. It also has the highest admission rate for epilepsy, the highest conception rate for under-age mothers—three times the London average—and the highest conception rate for teenage mothers. It has the highest proportion of single, widowed or divorced households. Battersea also has the highest proportions of one parent families and of pensioners living alone. All those factors are indicators of medical need.
Battersea also has the highest rates of claims for income support, jobseeker's allowance, attendance allowance and many other benefits. The NHS needs index is the Department of Health's measuring tool for medical need. It shows that Battersea comes top on the indices for acute needs, for community mental health, for district nurses, for health visitors, for community maternity, and for chiropody. Battersea comes top in every single category.
The needs are high in national as well as local terms; Battersea is 26 per cent. above the national average on the community mental health index, and 19 per cent. above the national average on the mental health index. It is 10 per cent. above the national average level for the chiropody index, and 10 per cent. above that for the health visitor index.
Battersea also has the highest limiting long-term illness ratio, according to the normal standardised basis that takes account of age. It has the highest proportion of adults in-household who are recorded as unable to work because of permanent sickness. Battersea has the highest mortality rate for people over 75, and for people under 65. That is extremely worrying, because the population is very young. Of all the 659 constituencies in the country, Battersea has the highest ratio of people aged between 25 to 34.

281
The last census showed that Battersea had the second most mobile health authority population in the country. I am sure that the new census will show that we have reached the number one spot—certainly in the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority and probably in the entire country. The electoral register shows that Battersea has gained 37,000 new voters since the 1997 election: that is, 53 per cent. of electors in Battersea were not living at their present addresses in 1997.
When Battersea is not first in terms of medical need, it is often second after the neighbouring primary care group of Balham, Tooting and Wandsworth, part of which is in my constituency. Balham, Tooting and Wandsworth is not much better off financially, having an allocation that is nearly £4 million under target. It has the highest mortality rate from lung cancer and diabetes, with Battersea in second place in both cases.
The Battersea and Balham, Tooting and Wandsworth primary care groups are at the top of every relevant league table bar one. Both are at the bottom of the spending league table, at roughly £4 million below target. This is not a simple demand for more cash. I want to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister about the criteria according to which funds are allocated to primary care groups. Should the guiding principle be equity, need or demand?
If the Government believe that the guiding principle should be demand, I concede that in some respects the Battersea primary care group has low demand. We have the lowest admission rate for cancer, for instance, and for bypass operations, even though we have the highest incidence of heart disease.
That sums up the problem: Battersea has low demand in some areas, but that is not because needs are low. We have the highest emergency admission-to-hospital rate, but a low admission rate from GPs. That is a classic symptom of people on low incomes in the inner city who need the NHS more but use it less. It is not because they do not believe in it—quite the reverse: it is usually because such people lead hard, stressful and chaotic lives. It is much easier for such people to miss an appointment with a GP or a hospital. To go through the system from diagnosis of a heart problem to a bypass operation often requires a lot of tenacity.
The Government believe that the national health service should be founded on the principle of treatment on the basis not of demand of need. The health service should not simply meet the needs of the articulate or the well organised. We need a proactive health service that can find the people who need the treatment most.
The Government's system is based on measuring need, producing target figures based on need and providing more growth money to be distributed to health authorities with higher need. Primary care groups that are under target should be levelled up. Pace of change money is provided, but what happens? Health authorities have so many "must do" targets, such as reducing waiting lists, fulfilling the quota of cancer operations—all good aims in themselves—that it is easy to lose sight of the most important target of all, which is to meet medical need.
Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority ended up with pace of change money of only £500,000. That may sound like a lot, but the portion that went to help Battersea PCG reach its target was only £281,000—just 0.4 per cent. of its annual budget. Wandsworth council has calculated that at that rate it would take 21 years for Battersea to catch up with its fair share of the budget.
282
I understand the reluctance of the Department of Health to reduce budgets. I understand why there is a principle of non-disinvestment, as it is called, and that PCGs should not have money taken away from them. It is not my aim to take money away from any of the neighbouring primary care groups, but I want the growth money to go to the primary care groups that need it most and to close the gap not in 21 years but in two or three years—the foreseeable future. That must be a "must do" target.
I remind the Minister that Battersea primary care group has been a pace setter. It was a pilot for locality commissioning schemes back in 1997–98. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health was Minister of State, he visited Battersea primary care group when it was set up as a pilot because it was seen as a model of good practice. I pay tribute to the work done by the chairman of the primary care group, Dr. Sian Job, by Dr. David Finch, and by all the other members of the board who have set up a model PCG. It is involved in its community, it has good relationships with its general practitioners and it consults and listens to local people.
If the Government set up primary care groups, they must listen to them. If they have targets, they must make progress in meeting them. If they give more money to health authorities in deprived areas, they must ensure that the redistribution occurs not just between health authorities but within health authority areas. Wandsworth is in inner London, but in a health authority that is mainly in outer London, taking in the whole of Merton and Sutton. The danger is that this system of funding will turn into a huge disadvantage if money is allowed to drift towards demand rather than need. That argument has all-party support. The Minister will hear it from Wandsworth council as well as from me, as the Member of Parliament for Battersea.
Just as the deprivation of Wandsworth, as an inner London borough, is diluted and, to some extent, disguised by being joined with Sutton and Merton, so the deprivation of Battersea as the most inner London, deprived part of Wandsworth can be disguised by the creation of a new Wandsworth primary care trust, which would average out some of these inequities.
I do not seek to make a purely local point. The aim of this debate is to draw attention to a wider problem through the example of Battersea. Primary care groups need to become intelligent primary care organisations—the very point of setting them up in the first place. When general practitioners were purely reactive, one could not expect them to go out to discover the health needs of their areas. Battersea PCG provides a role model of a group determined to be proactive and intelligent in tackling its job, seeking out health needs and pushing preventive care programmes. It can make sure that the people who most need the health service receive the help.
I appeal to my right hon. Friend to take another look at the formulas used to determine how soon PCGs will meet their targets. While the situation that I have described has come about for the most understandable of reasons and out of the purest of motives, it would be unacceptable, having set targets, to allow it to be possible to take more than 20 years to achieve them. The Minister and his hon. Friends have set up PCGs and a system that can deliver intelligent primary care, but he must either provide the money for health authorities to make that a reality or

283
loosen the system so that more resources can be put towards the most important health objective of all—medical treatment in relation to need.
11.36 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing an important debate on the funding of the Battersea primary care group. PCGs and primary care trusts are at the forefront of modernising the national health service, and we see them playing a key role in leading the way towards better patient services. I am aware from the debate and from recent correspondence of my hon. Friend's concerns about funding for Battersea PCG.
Before I address my hon. Friend's specific concerns, I want to clarify how PCGs and trusts receive funding, and to set out the background to my hon. Friend's points. Health authorities in partnership with primary care trusts, primary care groups and other local stakeholders should determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services.
Prior to the establishment of primary care groups in April 1999, health authorities established contracts with NHS trusts and other bodies to provide health care services to meet the needs of their populations. Since then, health authorities have been responsible for allocating resources direct to their primary care trusts or primary care groups within national guidelines.
The formula used to set targets for PCTs and PCGs is essentially that used for health authorities. Health authority PCT and PCG allocations are based on a weighted capitation formula that combines the population number for the area with the levels and types of problems historically found in that area. The aim is to distribute NHS funds fairly on the basis of health care needs in the local population. Although the weighted capitation formula is largely based on utilisation, it includes a wide range of socioeconomic variables associated with the need for health care. It takes full account of the age profile of local populations.
A review of the existing funding formula used to distribute resources is under way. The NHS plan has made the direction of travel clear. We want reducing inequalities to be a key criterion for allocating NHS resources, as the NHS plan specifically says. The review is being carried out under the auspices of the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation, which has NHS management, GP and academic members. We are adopting an incremental approach to the review of resource allocation. ACRA will make regular reports to Ministers as the review proceeds, and will move towards fairer resource allocation as improvements become possible.
When my hon. Friend described the situation in Battersea, he made no acknowledgement of the substantial increase in resources invested in the NHS in his area—as has occurred throughout the country. Although I understand his concerns, to talk solely about distance from target may be inadvertently to give the impression that substantial investment is not going into the NHS in his area. An increase of about 24.9 per cent. in resources in
284
the area covered by the Battersea primary care group in three years is, by any measure, a more substantial investment in the health service of that part of London than was experienced in most previous years. Of course, we are only at the beginning of the unprecedented expansion of resources announced in the second spending review, which underpins the NHS plan. That is important in setting the context for the remainder of my remarks.
Overall, health authorities are receiving an increase of about £3 billion for 2001–02. That represents an average cash increase of 8.9 per cent.—a real-terms rise of 6.2 per cent. Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority received an increase of £42.4 million—a 9.3 per cent. increase. That health authority received the ninth largest increase of any health authority in England.
Within national guidelines, health authorities determine the pace of change at which individual PCTs and PCGs in their area move towards their fair share. For 2001–02, the national guidelines state that all PCTs or PCGs should be given a 2.5 per cent. uplift on their unified baselines. All health authorities should distribute the funding for implementing the NHS plan to PCTs or PCGs on the same basis as allocations have been made to health authorities.
Within those parameters, health authorities are encouraged to make progress towards fair shares, especially for those PCTs or PCGs that are most under target. That should take into consideration the service investment that all PCTs or PCGs will need to make this year. In addition, health authorities will continue to follow the principles of pace of change guidelines that we set out in 1998, including moving towards equity, maintaining continuity and stability.
It is true—and, I think, right—that we do not want to take funds away from PCGs even when they are over target, although that is allowed in exceptional circumstances with their agreement. We want PCGs instead to move towards target through levelling up—by allocating bigger shares of the extra money that we are giving the NHS to those PCGs that are furthest under target.
Battersea PCG is one of the five PCGs and one PCT within Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority, covering the three local authority areas. Battersea PCG consists of 51 GPs working in 17 practices, six of which are single handed. The PCG covers a very mobile and multicultural population of 99,000, which has a wide variety of health needs.
In terms of funding, Battersea PCG and Balham, Tooting and Wandsworth PCGs are under target. The Nelson and East Merton PCT and PCG are close to target, while Putney and Roehampton and Sutton PCGs are above target. We do recognise, however, that Battersea PCG is still about £3 million, or 4 per cent., below the figure suggested under the allocation formula.
Nothing in national policy prevents under-target PCGs from moving towards their ultimate target. Although national policy has stipulated a minimum increase in allocations for all PCGs and PCTs during the past three years, there is still scope for all health authorities to allocate extra funds to under-target PCGs and PCTs, provided that does not destabilise services.
Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth and all its stakeholders—including the primary care groups and trusts—agreed how the additional 9.3 per cent. funding should be allocated. They agreed to focus on maintaining stability within the local health economy by levelling up

285
under-target PCGs and PCTs. A sum of £500,000 was made available for pace of change for Battersea and Balham, Tooting and Wandsworth PCGs within the borough of Wandsworth. That has moved the two under-target PCGs in Wandsworth 0.6 per cent. closer to target. This is the third year the health authority has set aside funding for the pace of change initiative. Battersea PCG has received the largest increase of any of Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority's PCGs this year.
It is worth noting that all PCGs in the health authority, including Battersea, have confirmed in their 2001–02 service and financial framework that they will deliver the main NHS plan targets this year. One of the aims of the guidance issued nationally was to ensure that the targets set out in the NHS plan would be met in every area of the country.
My hon. Friend has mentioned that although Battersea has poor health indicators, that has not been reflected in the use of services. The health authority's public health department and the two under-target PCGs are working together better to understand the relationship between health needs and utilisation and the range of actions that may be most appropriate better to address health needs.
My hon. Friend mentioned many of the borough's specific problems, which relate to high teenage pregnancy rates, lung cancer and respiratory disease, coronary heart disease and diabetes. I understand the points that my hon. Friend made about funding, but it is also worth acknowledging the many initiatives that are currently in place in Battersea PCG to tackle those problems. The PCG is piloting a "young person friendly" GP practice in Battersea. There is the smart heart campaign, with the London ambulance service and the British Heart Foundation. Work is being done with Battersea research group, through the conduit project, to create active coronary heart disease registers in all practices. A multidisciplinary diabetes taskforce is being established, and there is a relatively new walk-in centre at Tooting.
Those initiatives reinforce what my hon. Friend says about the PCG's ambition and vision. Although I have absolutely no doubt that the PCG would like to make faster progress towards the target than has so far been possible, I am sure that it will recognise that the rate of increase in resources is far greater than practices in the area might have expected under the previous Government.
Of course, health needs are not always met just by increased funding; existing resources need to be matched to health needs. Currently, a health impact assessment is being undertaken in Clapham, which is expected to be completed in the autumn. Such reviews should enable the health community to develop appropriate pathways of care between primary and secondary care, ensuring that the right person delivers the right treatment at the right time in the right environment.
The concerns that my hon. Friend has raised about funding and health inequalities are those that drive the Government's policy to modernise primary care services. They are the very reasons why the NHS plan sets out the
286
vision and the ambition that all PCGs will be in PCTs by 2004. The PCTs will have control of much larger budgets. They will have greater flexibility and influence over local health care decisions, as PCTs, rather than health authorities, will be responsible for commissioning services in the future.
I am aware that the PCGs in Wandsworth are considering applying for PCT status as one PCT for the whole borough next year. As I might well have to take a decision on that proposal in the future, my hon. Friend will understand that I should not comment further, but it is legitimate for me to say that, as part of any consultation on any PCT proposal in any part of the country, the question of how the trust intends to deal with health equality issues, patterns of under-provision and unequal access to services are perfectly legitimate issues to be raised by the public, local authorities, patients or others as part of the consultation process. Indeed, such issues are included among those that should be addressed in any application for a PCT. So there will be opportunities for such issues to be addressed as part of any PCT proposal in any part of London.
As part of the allocation to health authorities, more than £54 million was made available last year to improve access to primary care in the United Kingdom, of which London received £8 million. In Battersea, that has enabled an enhancement of the intermediate care team and packages of care; the extension of the falls prevention project; a reduction in waiting times for community-based physiotherapy; and the employment of a PCG-wide phlebotomist. It is good to see that, in that part of London, the additional funds allocated to primary care are being put to good use.
PCGs and, increasingly, PCTs play a central role in the development of primary care itself and in the future shape and direction of the health service. Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority has followed national policy in its funding allocation for 2001–02 and it is inevitable that, as with the national allocation in which there are over-and under-target health authorities, there may at any one time be over-and under-target PCGs and PCTs. The speed at which we can move health authorities towards their targets and the speed at which health authorities can move PCTs and PCGs towards their targets has to balance two issues: the desire to move health authorities progressively towards equity as represented by weighted capitation targets, and the need for across-the-board increases to maintain continuity and stability in the service and to make progress nationally in priority areas.
I hope that I have indicated to my hon. Friend that we are making progress nationally and in the health authority. Substantial additional funds are available to the national health service and, in the longer term, a review of the national funding formula that is under way will seek more explicitly to tackle the issues of health inequality that he raised in his speech.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Twelve midnight.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Hampshire Ambulance Service
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
9.30 am
Sandra Gidley: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss issues surrounding Hampshire ambulance service. Although some of the examples that I shall cite give grave cause for concern, I have the greatest respect and admiration for those at the sharp end, who deliver the service every day under difficult conditions.
My interest in the local ambulance service was awakened not long after my election, when I was contacted by the clerk of Lockerley parish council. She described the tragic case of an elderly gentleman who had suffered a heart attack at home; an ambulance had been called. Hampshire's is a rural ambulance service, and the target then was that an ambulance should arrive within 19 minutes for 95 per cent. of calls. In this instance, the ambulance took over half an hour to arrive. It had been sent from Hythe, which is not local, as there was no nearer one available. The driver later admitted that he did not know where Lockerley was, and that he had come via Dunbridge because it was a village that he knew. He also said that, had someone not been waiting on the main road running through Lockerley Green to direct him to the property, he would not have been able to find it. There is no happy ending to this story. The patient died. We shall never know whether the early arrival of an ambulance would have made the crucial difference, but the situation of the delayed ambulance was stressful for everyone concerned.
Having spoken out on this issue, I was contacted by a number of concerned ambulance men. One letter said that it was
"far from unexpected, and not a rare occurrence. The problem stems from a shortage of vehicles, and how that shortage is used.
In 1990, ORH (Operational Research into the Health Service) carried out a survey of Hampshire Ambulance Service—the workload, available vehicles, their location in relation to the workload—and made recommendations as to how the vehicles should be deployed. This involved an element of re-deployment—which was accepted both by the management and staff-side (prior to the publication of the report)—and the main statement that stands out is that the level of vehicle cover, and its deployment would provide the minimum cover required to achieve the necessary response standards. Actual ambulance figures are available, but ranged from a total of 23 at night-time to a maximum of 47 between 11.00 and 17.00 during the week, with reductions at weekends, resulting in a…daily…average of 30.87.
Since that time there has been a progressive reduction in vehicle availability, with a drastic increase in workload".
The figures bear out the increased work load. In 1995–96, there were 62,800 emergency calls. That figure had risen to 85,500 by 1999–2000—a 35 per cent.
2WH
increase in four years. I am told that the work load has increased by 50 per cent. in six years, but I have not checked the figures.
Vehicle availability is down to 20 at night. That is an average of one ambulance per 75,000 population. The maximum varies daily from 41 to 43 between 3 pm and 5 pm and the overall average has dropped to 30.45. That might not sound like a huge drop, but set against the background of increasing work load, it shows a highly stretched service. These figures are for the whole of Hampshire and in each case the number is the maximum rostered. The figure is frequently not achieved because of sickness, holidays and training.
Many people are concerned about the fact that, at night, Southampton city has only two vehicles to cover a population of 220,000. There are ambulance stations at Bursledon, Eastleigh and Totton, but they have their own catchment areas to serve.
It would seem that, in addition to the problem in rural areas, towns and cities are not receiving a five-star service. I witnessed an example of that when I was out with the police in Eastleigh and an ambulance had to be called. It came from Whitchurch. There are six or seven ambulance stations closer to Eastleigh than Whitchurch.
In June the national response times were published. They made grim reading, and not only in Hampshire. Hampshire is regarded as a rural trust and has rural targets. That means that 50 per cent. Of calls should be responded to within eight minutes and 95 per cent. Within 19 minutes. I want to make it clear that those targets are for the whole of Hampshire. Many people think that shorter target times apply for built-up areas such as Southampton or Portsmouth, but I am afraid that that is not so. Anywhere in Hampshire is regarded as rural. Targets are exactly the same for the towns as for the villages.
Hampshire ambulance authority previously had a good record of achieving targets, but in the past year the percentage of responses made within eight minutes dropped to 44.5 per cent. and that for responses within 19 minutes dropped to 92.6 per cent. Both figures are well below the targets. However, to be fair to Hampshire, the performance of a majority of ambulance trusts declined sharply. The results are very worrying. I learned of other relevant incidents in the Lockerley area. On 11 May, an ambulance called at 2.30 am took one hour to arrive. On 18 May, an ambulance took 45 minutes to arrive. The crew admitted to getting lost.
I have met the chief executive and chief ambulance officer of Hampshire Ambulance, who have been frank and open. Various problems are apparent, but the basic one is underfunding. I have a letter from Richard Mawson, the chief ambulance officer, in which he refers to the funding discussions with health authorities with respect to 1999–2000. He states:
"Despite having faced an increase in demand of over 36 per cent. over the previous 5 years the service has managed to exceed the performance outcome year on year without significant additional funding. However, it was recognised, prior to 1999/2000 that the service faced a 'step change' which required additional funding if an unacceptable further erosion of workplace conditions for staff was to be avoided, whilst attempting to maintain standards. Unfortunately…we were unable to secure adequate additional funding to meet our identified needs."

3WH
That suggests that there is a problem with the morale of ambulance men and women. Since taking an interest in the subject, I have spoken to many of them, and some common themes emerge from the concerns that they express. I have been universally impressed by those people, who do a difficult job under extreme pressure. They do not like the feeling that, for various reasons, they have not been able to give of their best.
The work load is hectic, which means that meal breaks are constantly interrupted, if they happen at all. The staff do not mind, but the system is now so tightly run that it is an everyday occurrence. No one appears to have undertaken a risk assessment to show the effects on performance of long hours without food. None of the staff members minds working extra hours, but many of them described a trend towards being called out increasingly often just before the end of a shift.
I spent a day with the Hampshire ambulance service and witnessed some of the problems at first hand. The pace was constant and we were lucky that nothing too horrific happened. However, one ambulance man said: "The problem is, if we have a death or something unpleasant, we are often straight on to the next job. Sometimes you just need a quiet quarter of an hour to help to come to terms with something. If you can't do that, the stress just builds up and there are an increasing number of personnel suffering from stress-related illnesses."
The ambulance men and women in Hampshire were also universally scathing about the new command and control system; the falling standards were partly attributed to it. It is worth mentioning some of their concerns. The system looks very good. The ambulances keep in touch with the control centre by means of a satellite navigation system. The computer operators in the control centre can in theory see at a glance which ambulance is closest to any emergency. Unfortunately, back in the ambulance, the system is not very high tech. The ambulance is informed of the address of the emergency and given a page number and rough grid reference, such as A4, from the appropriate Ordnance Survey map book. Once the ambulance is mobile, the navigator has to trace the journey by turning over pages of the book. There is no ambulance navigation system. I have used those OS books myself, and it is not easy to work out a long distance when one has to turn over a number of pages.
In addition, the crews are no longer in radio contact with one another. That might not sound like much of a problem, but it means that ambulance crews can no longer help each other out. Previously, there were frequent occasions when an ambulance crew could point out to control that its ambulance was better placed to respond to a call than that of the designated ambulance. The system does not always take into account problems such as one-way systems or motorway hold-ups. Also, if an ambulance is dispatched slightly off its usual patch, an ambulance man with local knowledge might be able to supply additional verbal directions, which could be the difference between life and death. Another aspect to the lack of communication is that, on occasion, a crew will have prior knowledge that a potential patient could be dangerous or abusive. They might even advise police
4WH
back-up before entering a property. A way of communicating such information seems to be missing from the new system.
I witnessed some of the problems at first hand. On one occasion, the control centre thought that we were in Winchester, when we were in fact in Southampton. That was closely followed by my crew's returning to base, only to cross the path of an ambulance going to an emergency, travelling in the direction that we had just come from. We should have been directed to that emergency, but were not, and the crew's response was, "At least you have seen it for yourself now." I am glad to say that the trust has now acknowledged some of the issues relating to command and control and has spent time and money on further training for staff.
Other issues relate to a lack of consultation and frequent references to a top-heavy management structure. Recently, ambulances have been deployed to strategic points around the county in an attempt to improve response times. Theoretically that is a good idea, but the knock-on effect on the staff is that, in the rare event of a short break, they must sit in a cold, uncomfortable ambulance with no access to refreshment.
When I visited the ambulance station, staff were also somewhat demoralised because the response times had not then been published for some months. Conspiracy theories abounded, but the common response was, "The times must be really bad now; otherwise, they would be put up on the notice board."
Mr. Philip Hammond: Will the hon. Lady clarify something that she said? At the outset of her remarks, I think that I heard her say that in rural areas a 14-minute response for category A was acceptable. Will she confirm that Hampshire Ambulance—a rural service—is targeting an eight-minute response time across the county?
Sandra Gidley: I think that I said that the response time was 19 minutes for a rural area for 95 per cent. of calls. The eight-minute response time is for the new core categorisation, which I shall clarify later.
There was a problem, because the new command and control centre was installed shortly before the ambulance service moved towards core prioritisation. That prioritisation means a change in targets, and I wholly support the Government's aim in establishing new targets. The new system means that calls are now categorised. Category A calls are emergency or life-threatening. The new standard requires that, by 2001, ambulance services should reach 75 per cent. of category A calls within eight minutes. Response times for other categories remain unchanged.
How is the Hampshire service doing now? In March 2001, the category A response figure for the county was 43.62 per cent. However, for the Southampton and South West Hampshire health authority, which covers the bulk of my constituency, it was only 37.94 per cent. Over the past month, there has been an improvement, and it is only fair to acknowledge that the movement is in the right direction. The latest figures are 53.6 per cent. for Hampshire as a whole and 48 per cent. for the Southampton and South West Hampshire health authority.

5WH
The fact remains that those figures fall well short of the required target of 75 per cent. This year, Hampshire Ambulance has managed to secure the extra funding that it has been seeking for the past two years. A visit from the NHS executive team resulted in a confirmation that the working practices were not at fault, the case for additional funding was strong and the money should be found from the county's health budget.
Securing that funding has been a problem in the past, and has been something of a hit-and-miss affair. I have been told that the health authorities do not purchase to the targets. North and Mid Hampshire health authority is widely known to be undergoing financial difficulties, and in the past would have funded only 90 per cent. NHS trusts in Southampton and Portsmouth purchase services at a 95 per cent. level.
That leads me to some fundamental questions about the way that the nation's ambulance services are organised. Is it right that we use an arcane system of funding whereby the ambulance authorities have to go cap-in-hand to each of the health authorities in their area? Health authorities already have a hard enough time balancing budgets and setting priorities. It is simply not right that an ambulance service will not necessarily receive the amount of money that it requires.
There appears to be no nationally agreed formula for working out the desired level of ambulance provision for any area. There is a carefully worked out formula for fire service provision, so it seems logical that the same sort of exercise should be undertaken in respect of the ambulance service.
Dr. Peter Brand: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we are to have a national formula, it should be funded? The Home Office has set a formula for the Isle of Wight fire brigade, but the standard spending assessment from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions falls short of the Home Office figure by about £1.25 million.
Sandra Gidley: Yes, there should be funding to meet the identified need.
Just as there is no national standard for ambulance provision, it is regrettable that there appears to be no single body to which the disparate ambulance services are accountable. Currently, each ambulance service decides many of its own procedures and protocols. That means, for example, that if a patient who needs a tracheotomy keels over on the Hampshire-Wiltshire border, we must hope that the ambulance comes from Wiltshire, because Hampshire ambulance men are not permitted to carry out that procedure. Similarly, there are variations throughout the country in the types of drugs that paramedics are allowed to administer. Surely it is time to introduce a set of national guidelines on all those matters. It appears that there are no mechanisms in place for sharing practice and spreading best practice—something that is done wall in other areas of the health service.
The question is how best to achieve that aim. Many of the staff to whom I have spoken believe that the ambulance service should be accountable to the Home Office and should work more closely with the fire service. I am not advocating that that step should be taken here and now, but more accountability should be
6WH
demanded by the health service. In addition, ambulance men would like their conditions of service to be more closely allied to those of the police and fire services because they feel that they are a Cinderella emergency service—an expression that I have heard repeated many times.
To return to Lockerley, have things got any better during the past year? A letter from Frances Hanks, parish clerk of Lockerley parish council, to the director of operations at Hampshire ambulance service refers to an incident on 8 December when a woman
"made an emergency call at 8.30 am when she found her husband and thought he was dead. She gave specific instructions"
as to how to reach her property, and the ambulance arrived between 9.5 am and 9.10 am—
"definitely over 30 minutes and probably as long as 40 minutes. The ambulance came from Hythe and told her all they were given was a grid reference 'which didn't help at all.'"
On 4 March,
"A GP call was made for an ambulance…The ambulance drove past the property and was found circling Top Green. The ambulance had to be redirected by a lady walking her dog. (Unfortunately the lady—
Mrs. X—
"lost her husband to a heart attack last year, when she had to wait over 30 minutes for an ambulance to arrive. As you can imagine, this incident caused her further distress)."
On 7 March,
"An emergency call was made at approximately 9.15 am by…the proprietor of Lockerley Stores…The ambulance arrived at 10 am, 45 minutes later."
So the situation is not getting any better. Unfortunately, despite the fact that the letter was written on 9 March, there has still been no reply, which is less than reassuring.
However, my main concern is that constituents who live in rural areas will always fall within the 25 per cent. of the population who can expect a response time of more than eight minutes. It is the responsibility of all of us to ensure that people are not penalised just because they happen to live in a rural area. It is simply not good enough to trot out the tired old argument that they choose to live there knowing the risks. We have a duty of care to everyone and should be providing that care.
Mr. David Chidgey: Does my hon. Friend agree that plans to regionalise the ambulance service, so that there is one centre of control for most of the south-east, will only make the disparity between rural and urban areas greater? For example, if the county of Surrey were in the same organisation as Hampshire, there would be a gravitation of resources to the critical mass of the urban areas of Surrey at the expense of rural areas in Hampshire.
Sandra Gidley: That is a concern. I will address it later, but bigger does not necessarily mean better, and I remain unconvinced that that will be the case with ambulance services.
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Lady talked about her rural constituents always being in the 25 per cent. Who would have a response time of longer than eight minutes. The

7WH
Government's target is that, by 2003, 90 per cent. of category A calls will receive an ambulance within eight minutes.
Sandra Gidley: I was not aware of those targets; perhaps the Minister could clarify them, but I thought that the 95 per cent. target related to a 19-minute response time. I hope that I was wrong.
There are new problems associated with the measures that are being introduced to reach response targets, specifically with the use of rapid response vehicles. They are crewed by one person only, and the aim is for that paramedic to arrive within eight minutes—so that the targets are reached—to stabilise the patient. However, because a rapid response vehicle then requires the back-up of a fully manned ambulance, the system is heavy on staff. If it saves lives, every penny will be well spent. However, what assessments have been made of the various ways of dealing with emergencies? Are overall outcomes better when a paramedic rapidly arrives on the scene or when transport to hospital is regarded as a priority? Those are fundamental questions, to which I have as yet been unable to find the answers.
I ask those questions because of a recent highly publicised case in Havant, which illustrates the problem. A motor cyclist was injured and a paramedic arrived—17 minutes later, although that is not the point in this case. A fire crew were already there and had administered first aid, but the patient then lay waiting in the road for another 30 minutes as his condition deteriorated. All ambulances in the area were tied up, so the firefighters took the decision to transport the injured motor cyclist in the fire engine. Obviously, fire engines are not designed for patient transport, and one fireman had to kneel on all fours to support the stretcher on his back, while a second fireman sat on the floor to hold the stretcher and prevent it from moving. If that does not illustrate the fact that Hampshire ambulance services are overstretched, I do not know what will.
Hon. Members should not be lulled into a false sense of security by convincing themselves that that story was a one-off. I have been told of several incidents in which firefighters have ended up either driving an ambulance or attending to a patient in the back of one; such incidents are almost always as a result of a singly manned ambulance arriving at the scene. We all know that ambulances should have two ambulance men on board.
Coincidentally, I picked up a copy of the Andover Advertiser yesterday, which had the front-page headline, "Ambulance crisis looms". I notice that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) is present, and I expect that he will want to elaborate on this. The first paragraphs of the story say:
"Andover firefighters are becoming increasingly concerned about the time it's taking ambulances to arrive at incidents. They say financial limits imposed on Hampshire Ambulance Service are putting firemen under increasing pressure. But the ambulance service is denying there's an ongoing problem.
'We're frustrated and angry,' said Lud Ramsey, Andover's Fire Brigades Union representative. 'Ten years ago we would have attended fire calls, road traffic accidents etc. and we knew the ambulance would be only minutes behind us.'"
I have heard from a high level in the Hampshire fire authority that those incidents are being repeated in towns throughout the county. Indeed, the fire service is
8WH
facing demands from firefighters for more first aid training and is considering whether defibrillators should be standard fire engine equipment. That is because firefighters feel that they can no longer rely on ambulances to arrive quickly enough.
When I was out with the ambulance service, one incident brought home to me the fact that ambulances are sometimes called out for what can only be described as non-urgent reasons. A letter in the Romsey Advertiser from Liam Sizer, the southern area convenor of Unison, sums that up. It says:
"Calls to people with rings stuck on fingers; to people with minor cuts often needing no more than a small Elastoplast; to people with toothache, earache and backache; to people who have been feeling 'unwell for a few days and it's not getting better' (I could go on, but it would become boring). These people account for such a large proportion of 999 calls that they are the biggest cause of the delays experienced by patients who really do need our speedy attention.
Finally, could I please ask that all people, notwithstanding where they live…make sure that their house name or number is clearly visible as close to the road as possible."
I urge the Minister to consider running a public information campaign in a similar fashion to that aimed at dissuading people from calling out their general practitioner for trivial reasons. Abuse of the system costs money and lives.
The final item on the agenda is the proposed merger of the Hampshire and Surrey ambulance trusts—mentioned hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey)—which will shortly go out to public consultation. To show my linguistic roots for a moment, let me say that the merger strikes me as a completely barmpot idea if ever there was one. I have not seen the final consultation document, but the following points need to be addressed.
Bigger is not necessarily better, but often results in an extra tier of management. Cynics have pointed out that, before the merger's announcement, the Hampshire ambulance trust board mysteriously increased in size and most new appointees were people who had recently retired only to return suddenly. Many people regard that as a cynical ploy to appear to be cutting jobs when, in reality, a few jobs were created for a short period to provide a cushion. The reality is that most long-serving people will keep their jobs under the new scheme.
Change is disruptive. Hampshire is experiencing problems in trying to get to grips with the new control system and is still nowhere near achieving the targets. Further disruption will result only in a worsening of response times in the short term, with no guarantee of an improvement in the long term.
Many people in the ambulance service regard the merger as a done deal, because it has been said that the status quo is not an option. Although I am here today highlighting problems with the status quo, I am still not convinced that there are any advantages to the merger. Surrey and Hampshire are not natural partners. Hampshire looks more readily to Dorset and Wiltshire, but those counties are now officially in the south-west, so we cannot consider a merger with a more like-minded county. The huge problem is that Surrey is an urban trust with urban response targets, but, as has been mentioned, Hampshire is rural; so what targets will the new trust have? I am sure that Surrey will not settle for a diminution in service, but it will cost a considerable

9WH
amount of money to bring Hampshire up to Surrey's standards. Hampshire is not even meeting its own standards at the moment, so heaven help us if we have to achieve higher standards.
In addition, reorganisations cost money. Who will pay for reorganisation? Hampshire secured extra funding this year only because it demonstrated that there was an operational need for it, but that need does not cover the likely costs of reorganisation. Why is the merger proposed when Operational Research into the Health Service conducted a survey two years ago on the regional office's behalf and concluded that there would be no benefits in a merger? There will also be pay differentials, as the two trusts are paid differently. I do not believe that recruitment and retention will be improved.
If the Minister is minded to consult on the scheme, I ask that the consultation be real and, if opinion is against it, for her to take note of that. Will she also make clear the cost to the public purse of the proposed administrative upheaval?
The speech that I have made today may sound somewhat negative. Most people who call for an ambulance get one quickly, but the problems that I have highlighted show that the system is under considerable strain. There needs to be serious consideration of Hampshire Ambulance Service NHS trust and other trusts to try to sort out some of those problems.
It would help if we had a set of national standards and guidelines that were matched by funding that automatically meant that those standards were attained. Clear accountability is also needed, because one thing that I have noticed in all this is that no one seems to have put their hand up and said, "It's our fault."
9.59 am
Sir George Young: The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) for the opportunity to debate the ambulance service in Hampshire. As she says, it is a topical matter in my constituency. Last week's edition of the Andover Advertiser, the voice of Andover, led with the story to which she referred. She quoted extracts from Caroline Inman's report, in which a fire brigade representative said:
"Ten years ago we would have attended fire calls, road traffic accidents etc and we knew the ambulance would be only minutes behind us.
Now, we're having to get more and more of our staff trained in emergency first aid".
I visited the Andover ambulance station in my constituency, the command and control centre in Winchester, and NHS Direct, which I understand is run by the ambulance service. Like the hon. Lady, I have a high opinion of those who are at the sharp end as well as those who are providing back-up services, those who are managing the command and control centre and those who are trying to run the service.
The debate that the hon. Lady initiated is symptomatic of a broader debate, which confuses my constituents and should worry the Government. We are coming to the end of a Parliament in which the health service has been a Government priority. We have all seen the NHS plan that was published last July, and we have seen the Prime Minister on the Frost programme,
10WH
promising more resources. Many of us were in the House last November when the Secretary of State made a statement about more resources for the NHS. Yet the rhetoric does not match the reality of the everyday experience of my constituents.
The hon. Lady mentioned some worrying incidents. The delays for out-patients are now worse than they were. For example, in the third quarter of 2000, 1,058 out-patients were waiting 26 weeks or more, which was up from 548 a couple of years earlier. People are waiting for wheelchairs. Someone waiting for a wheelchair in my constituency may receive a letter from the Winchester and Eastleigh NHS trust that states:
"Equipment will either be refurbished or new. Owing to budget control it is not possible to order all new equipment immediately … If you have not heard from us regarding provision of this equipment after four months please contact this office, when it may be possible to give the anticipated time before the items can be provided."
My constituents are confused. The reassurances that they hear from Ministers do not match what happens in their everyday lives.
The hon. Lady mentioned the resources that are available to the Hampshire ambulance service trust, and I want to focus on that for a moment. As she said, the trust receives resources from the three authorities for the area—the North and Mid Hampshire NHS health authority is the one for my constituency—which are resourced according to a formula. In my view, the formula is unfair. The NHS ambulance service in Hampshire is under pressure because the resources for the county as a whole are less than they should be. For every £100 of NHS resources allocated nationally, my constituents receive £80. We are deemed to be 20 per cent. healthier than the rest of the country. I do not believe that that is the case. Not all deprived people live in deprived areas. More than half of the most deprived individuals in the country live outside the most deprived 20 per cent. of wards. Any resource allocation to health authorities and ambulance services that targets only the most deprived wards will miss more than half of the most deprived people.
In April last year, the Minister set up a panel to scrutinise a document entitled "Meeting the Challenges", which was about funding for Hampshire health authorities. The panel was appointed to examine proposals aimed at achieving savings of £13 million in the health service in Hampshire. That panel said of the formula that funds the Hampshire ambulance service that
"The National Funding Formula for Health Authorities is at the heart of the problem. This is a challenge for central Government … North and Mid Hampshire Health Authority receives 80 per cent. of the national needs assessment. Panel members felt strongly that this was too low."
The next remark is especially interesting.
"We heard no evidence to support such a large reduction in the national needs "norm". What is more, we were told of both urban and rural 'pockets of deprivation' within the Authority, where an 80 per cent. allocation was arguably inadequate … This challenge lies at the door of Government but the authority should fight for it, too."
The formula is being looked at, but over a rather leisurely time scale and there is no prospect of imminent help for Hampshire, which needs a more equitable distribution of resources. That shortage of resources is

11WH
at the heart of some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Romsey. In a letter dated 20 July 2000, the chief ambulance officer wrote:
"Unfortunately, in common with many ambulance services across the country, we were unable to secure adequate additional funding to meet our identified needs."
That matter worries the Winchester and Central Hampshire community health council. General practitioners in my area have also raised the question of the ambulance service not arriving within the response time targets. There are possible plans to centralise paediatric intensive care at Southampton hospital. That may make good medical sense, but it will put a lot of pressure on the ambulance service to transfer those vulnerable babies. The CHC and the local MPs will keep an eye on that as it will mean an increased demand for the ambulance service and more funding will be needed if that is to be secured.
Mr. Hammond: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would want to note that the CHC will keep an eye on it for as long as it can, given that the Government are committed to abolishing it.
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend brings me back to our debates in the Committee stage of the Health and Social Care Bill. I hope that the House will soon have an opportunity to revisit that. I hope that the CHCs can continue to scrutinise the delivery of health care in Hampshire for some time to come.
When I visited the control and command centre at Winchester I learned that it was settling down but that it had had one or two teething problems, which may be behind some of the incidents that we have heard about today. It would be helpful if the Minister could give us a clear statement about where we are on reorganisation. It has been a diversion of management effort over the past few years to have the future of the ambulance trust put into question. There has been a lot of turbulence in Hampshire with the abolition of some trusts and mergers of others. I hope that the Minister will not go ahead unless she is convinced that this will directly alleviate some of the problems that have been mentioned this morning.
There is one issue on which the Minister may be able to shed some light. I understand that, in some parts of the country, the ambulances are no longer based at the ambulance stations but are sent to outposts in various parts of their area where it is felt that accidents are likely to happen. I can see that that would reduce the response time, but in my constituency ambulances are posted to a junction of the A303 and the A34. That may indeed be an accident site, but we have only two ambulances on duty and if one is permanently stationed at that junction it leaves the citizens of Andover rather exposed. Is there any Government guidance on how ambulances should be positioned?
I know that the Minister she will refer to the huge extra sum of money that she asserts has been made available to the health authority. When headline national increases of 8.5 per cent. Were announced last November, I wrote to my health authority to find out the reality. Unsurprisingly, its perception was not quite as rosy as that of the Minister. In his reply, the director of finance at the health authority said:
12WH
"Needless to say, these headline figures only give the tip of the iceberg."
He added that the general increase, estimated at 4.9 per cent., was intended to meet the pressures on pay, prices and the cost of implementing the National Institute for Clinical Excellence recommendations. Significant cost pressures will need to be addressed, including a 2 per cent. rise in pension costs, the costs of implementing changes to junior doctor hours and the underlying financial deficit of the local health economy.
Some of the increase is ring-fenced to meet targets set by Ministers. If the ring-fenced and other money is deducted, it will be impossible significantly to improve the service. The penultimate sentence of the director of finance's letter says:
"There are many significant calls on this funding, particularly locally where there is an underlying financial deficit. Careful planning, phasing and prioritisation will be needed to deliver affordable and modern health services for local people."
Against a background of some £30 million of savings, some of which will affect patient care, I asked whether, because more money was coming into the system, those savings could be abandoned. The response was that they could not because when plans for the savings were drafted it had been assumed that the extra money announced in November would be forthcoming. I quote the director of finance again:
"as the funding announced for next year is in line with the assumptions underpinning 'Meeting the Challenges', the proposals"—
the proposals to reduce services—
"remain valid."
Will the Minister make clear whether the reorganisation of the health service in Hampshire will lead to further turbulence? What progress is likely to be made on reviewing the funding formula, which lies at the heart of the issues raised in this morning's debate?
10.10 am
Mr. Peter Viggers: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in this important debate on the Hampshire ambulance service. I recall the days of the original arrangements for the service in my Gosport constituency. Two ambulances based at the Bury Cross depot were responsible for transporting patients to and from the local hospitals and for undertaking transfers for out-patients. It was a locally based service that was well received. I had few complaints and I would like to add my tribute to the ambulance workers who undertook those services then and now. No one enters the ambulance service without a sense of vocation, which I discovered whenever I talked to ambulance workers in my constituency or in Hampshire generally.
The old arrangements could not continue into our modern, high-tech age. The new arrangements described today are now organised at the command and control centre in Winchester. They are intended to be much more efficient, but worrying teething difficulties have occurred. I recall a constituent telling me that an ambulance was called for her husband who had suffered a heart attack. It came not from Gosport, but from Hayling island, some distance from the constituency. The ambulance was delayed and, because the driver did not know the route into Gosport, the patient's wife had

13WH
to talk him through it. The patient's daughter was sent out into the road with a torch to guide the ambulance in. Unfortunately, the patient died.
That is not the only case. The reorganisation and restructuring has meant that ambulances have had to come into my constituency from a considerable distance away and, because the drivers and crew do not know their way around the area, unacceptable delays have occurred. We must all hope and trust that the new system described by the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young)—the high-tech control and satellite navigation systems and the upgrading at Winchester—will produce a more efficient system in the longer term. I am grateful to the Hampshire ambulance service for providing one extra ambulance in the Gosport area to take account of the extra demand.
I shall not repeat points already well made by the hon. Lady and my right hon. Friend, but I want to raise two further issues based on my experience of dealing with the Hampshire ambulance service and local circumstances in my constituency.
The Government have been slow to keep the Hampshire ambulance service abreast of developments in merger discussions and changed funding systems. The Government were slow and unresponsive to local concerns. It took two years for the ambulance service to clarify the Government's thinking on the proposed merger and refunding. Members of Parliament should not have to intervene in such discussions. I pay tribute to the Minister; I raised an issue with her in the House after a Division, which her office followed through. I am grateful for that first-class response. However, there seems to have been fuzziness in the lines of communication between the Minister's Department and the Hampshire ambulance service, which I hope can be clarified.
My constituents would not forgive me if I did not make the point that the range of difficulties created in the Gosport peninsula and south Hampshire have been seriously worsened by the Government's announcement that they propose to close the Haslar hospital in Gosport. It was originally announced that the closure would not take place before 2002, but its accident and emergency unit has already closed. We have fought the closure with absolute determination; 22,000 people came on the march in January 1999, which is thought to be the largest march in protest against a hospital closure. Because of our fight, the closure will not take place before 2007, or even later. The private finance initiative bid for Queen Alexandra hospital, which would enable it to take on much of Haslar's work load, has again been delayed. We therefore feel confident that we are winning our campaign. The number of out patients who can be seen at Haslar hospital is to be increased from 55,000 to 60,000; Haslar also has an accident treatment centre. However, that does not diminish the fact that the closure of its accident and emergency unit has made life much more difficult for the ambulance service in the area. Ambulances now regularly have to mix with the tidal flow of traffic out of Gosport in the morning and back into the town in the evening. If the Government rethink their plans on Haslar—as they must—the pressure on the ambulance service will eventually
14WH
decrease, to enable it to provide a better service for the people of south Hampshire. We will continue the campaign on that issue.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Romsey for raising the debate and to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire for his informed contribution to the discussion. I add a plea that reorganisation and turbulence be diminished and that those responsible for the ambulance service in Hampshire be given the funding and the decision-making capacity that will enable them to continue to carry out their work.
10.18 am
Dr. Peter Brand: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on initiating the debate. We all expect the ambulance service to be in place; we value it when we need it, but forget about it for the rest of the time. That is a tremendous mistake. As a practising doctor who does the odd bit of emergency cover, I am always more relieved than even the patient to have the support of a professional ambulance crew. The service has developed its role over the past 20 or 30 years in an amazing way and has a fantastic standard of training. As has been highlighted in the debate, extra stress is being put on the professionalism of a group of people who want to deliver a good service—I do not know a single ambulance man or ambulance woman who is not dedicated to that task.
Some of the organisational problems suffered by Hampshire may affect the services on the Isle of Wight. Having made a more general point about the conditions under which we expect ambulance personnel to work, I would also argue that those personnel are undervalued. It is partly a matter of wages, but it is also a matter of working conditions.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) mentioned the strange practice of putting ambulance personnel on standby in car parks. I would like to know whether that has made a difference to response time and the survival rates of patients. It certainly makes an enormous difference to the way in which ambulance personnel are valued. Proposals to close the ambulance station in Ryde—the second largest town in my constituency—and to base the ambulance personnel in a car park somewhere on the downs cannot be right for the working conditions for those involved.
I would also urge the Government to reconsider the ambulance services' request for better and more appropriate protective clothing. Luckily, the risk of involvement in stabbing incidents is not high in Hampshire, but difficulties can arise where there is alcohol and disruption. If individual ambulance personnel would like the protection of lightweight, protective clothing, it should be made available. Financial considerations should not interfere with that.
Much was said about the loss of local knowledge among ambulance personnel. I would like to touch on that, because we have had experience of what happens when one tries to be efficient and amalgamate services to create a larger unit. We have seen it in the case of NHS Direct—it takes about 10 minutes to get through to the service, another 10 minutes to set out the story and then it often takes another 10 minutes to find the appropriate

15WH
person to deal with the patient's problem. Unfortunately, quite frequently the message that comes back from NHS Direct via the ambulance service to the doctor on call is incomplete. On two occasions, NHS Direct has not passed on to me telephone contact numbers for patients. It is essential to have a way of communicating with people. Such failures create duplication and delay.
In our region, we also have experienced the centralisation of the police control room at Netley. As far as the Isle of Wight is concerned, it has been a disaster. People are not sure whether they should be dialling 999 or getting in touch with the police control room. Those working in the police control room take an enormous amount of time to pick up the phone, and they often say, "This is not an emergency for us, ring your local police station tomorrow," not knowing that that local police station is not manned, and leaving people to deal with an answerphone. I would not want that sort of pattern to be repeated in the health service.
There is evidence that, when organisations get bigger, although that may result in efficient systems that can be tracked, people get lost in them. Before decisions are made on regional amalgamations, especially in respect of the ambulance personnel control room, I hope that the Minister will wait to see what the Audit Commission says about NHS Direct, to see whether that kind of regional structure is the most appropriate. She should also speak to those who are experiencing the effects of centralisation in the police control service.
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) raised two issues relating to organisational structure: whether ambulance services should be placed under the control and responsibility of the Home Office, and what the services' relationship with the fire brigade should be. The hon. Lady stressed that she was not advocating any particular course of action with respect to those issues. As official health spokesman for his party, can the hon. Gentleman tell us what his party's position is on those issues?
Dr. Brand: I am grateful for that question, because I believe that the ambulance service should be an integral part of the national health service. We also believe that the NHS should be an integral part of local democracy, as should the police and fire services. The ambulance service should work with local doctors who work out of hours and with local casualty departments, so that local flow patterns can be established.
The important point that the hon. Gentleman is making is that the emergency services must work together. I have been disappointed that successive Governments have tried to improve efficiency by making the control systems and units of the ambulance service, police and the fire brigade bigger, but retaining their isolation. That may produce a regional fire brigade, ambulance and police service, but we need an integrated emergency service, which could also include civil defence and out-of-hours social services provision. In that way, each locality could provide an appropriate response to an emergency. That would eradicate some of the problems that have been highlighted during the debate, such as that of people who inappropriately
16WH
contact the ambulance service. We cannot blame people for doing that if they do not know whom they should contact. NHS Direct should be able to cope with that problem, but, in my experience, it does not always get it right. I hope that it will do so in time.
It would be much better if local services were integrated. Hampshire is almost too big for that, but the health authority areas should be able to integrate some of their services. Some services would need to be town or city based, whereas others are obviously more rural. There are different response requirements in different places. Rural areas tend to be more self-sufficient. That does not mean that they should not receive a five-star service, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey said, but local general practitioners are often more responsive to out-of-hours work and there is more collaboration between the ambulance service, medical and even pharmaceutical services in rural areas.
This is a valuable debate, which is not only about Hampshire, but about how the Government see the interaction between the people who need the emergency services and those who provide them. I hope that they will not take the bean-counting route of "bigger is better" and look only to make efficiency savings in the cost of telephone operators, but that they will have regard to the quality of service that will result from the structures that they are considering.
I would be horrified if ambulance services on the Isle of Wight were forced to amalgamate with those in Hampshire because amalgamation of the police service has not been good for us. There is a risk that we will do just as badly from an amalgamation of the fire brigades, and I believe that amalgamation of the ambulance services would be a disaster.
10.28 am
Mr. Philip Hammond: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on securing the debate. Like accident and emergency services, ambulance services are a matter of great concern to all our constituents and strike at the heart of the population's confidence in the service provided by the national health service. We must keep our ambulance services under constant scrutiny. Indeed, a couple of months ago, the Minister replied to a debate that focused on ambulance services in London, but in which some wider issues were raised. Some of those issues have been raised again today, and I hope that the Minister has some more general comments to make when she winds up the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) would have liked to attend the debate but, unfortunately, he is detained by the Special Standing Committee that is considering the Adoption and Children Bill, so I am here instead. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) for their lucid and well-informed contributions to the debate.
My right hon. Friend focused on ambulance trusts and their funding, paying particular attention to the Hampshire ambulance trust, in the context of the other pressures on health authorities. We must always remember that the Government, who exhort and set targets, set them by the score. There are other pressures

17WH
on the limited purses that are the responsibility of the people who determine the funding of the ambulance trusts. Rightly or wrongly, the perception of my right hon. Friend's constituents, like that of my constituents in Surrey and those elsewhere in south-east England, is that funding formulas do not take into account the additional cost pressures on health providers in the relevant areas and that they underestimate the pockets of deprivation in areas that are relatively affluent overall.
I was grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising the issue of community health councils and their important role in scrutinising ambulance services' performance. The Government are committed to the abolition of community health councils—a decision that all the Opposition parties in this Parliament oppose and will continue to fight. The example of CHC involvement in monitoring ambulance services is interesting because it reveals a particular weakness in the Government's proposals to replace CHCs with patients forums.
Under the Government proposal, a patients forum will of course be associated with the Hampshire Ambulance Service NHS trust. However, ambulance trusts cover wide areas—a whole county in Hampshire's case, but even larger areas for some trusts. It is difficult to see how a countywide monitoring body, or one that is multi-countywide, will provide the focused scrutiny that CHCs have been able to give. That is another reason to add to the catalogue of reasons for the Government to reconsider their decision to abolish community health councils.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport for highlighting the difficulties of communication that seem to have occurred during the progress of talks about funding, and, in particular, the merger proposals affecting Hampshire ambulance service. The point is important and it goes to the heart of some of the questions about morale, recruitment and retention.
My hon. Friend also made an important point that I had not heard before, in drawing attention to the effect of the apparently inexorable process of consolidation of hospital services into ever-larger units. That process is driven not just by economics but by the royal colleges' concerns about patient safety and the need for minimum levels of throughput for procedures to maintain safe practices. Such consolidation will affect the need for ambulance services. It is obvious that, as hospital services are provided in ever-larger units and patients must travel increasing distances to use them, ambulance services will have to expand faster than the health service overall.
Dr. Brand: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the process will not have an even impact across the country? Some areas will be much more affected by that desirable way of providing services in certain fields of expertise. Some isolated rural and island areas will be very much disadvantaged.
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is obviously right to say that the phenomenon is not evenly distributed, but it is still important. It is perhaps related to another point, made by the hon. Member for Romsey. She asked whether ambulances are considered
18WH
primarily as a mode of transport to hospital, or as mobile treatment areas in which treatment is begun where the patient is picked up. That is part of the broader issue of how we create proper paramedic and ambulance services in a world where the distribution of hospitals and specialist care centres is different from that of 10 years ago.
Sandra Gidley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as part of the "re-look" at the ambulance services we should consider the fact that ambulances are far too often used as an up-market means of transporting an old lady from one hospital to another, when there is probably no need for a trained paramedic and a back-up person? Is there not a case for a total review of the services provided by the ambulance service to identify more clearly the calls that need to be responded to by paramedics? Should we not also consider increasing the transportation side of the ambulance service in another manner? At the moment, all these services tend to be put into one big pot.
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Lady is right. The services should not be treated as being in one big pot. To be fair, many ambulance services separated their patient transport services—and they are now covered by separate contracts. However, she raises an important point. I hope that the Minister will say more about it.
I am confused about whether ambulances should get patients to hospital as quickly as possible or begin treatment at the scene. I have seen data that send conflicting signals about which approach gives patients the best chance of survival and recovery. It would be interesting if the Minister could update us about current thinking, and tell us what the indicators are from the latest available data and how she therefore expects ambulance services to develop. I suspect that the consolidation of hospitals into ever-larger units—certainly for specialist treatment—will continue. That is key to establishing patient confidence in the service.
People are conscious of where their nearest hospital is. However, anyone who looks into how the system works will quickly become aware that a patient is not necessarily taken to the nearest hospital. To use a Hampshire example, a patient suffering a head injury following a motor accident in Winchester will not be taken to the hospital in Winchester; he will be taken past its door to the hospital in Southampton because that is where head injuries can more properly and appropriately be dealt with. The matter is more complex than locating the nearest hospital and thinking of ambulances as a means of getting from A to B. Perhaps we have to take one step backwards in order to take two forward in thinking about the future configuration of ambulance services.
The hon. Member for Romsey has highlighted specific factors and issues relating to Hampshire, but in the process has touched on broader issues that relate to a much wider area. One such matter is the rationalisation and regionalisation of services in the south-east and the debate about the merger and reorganisation plans for ambulance services in the region, particularly the possibility of merger between the Surrey and Hampshire ambulance services. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire asked the Minister about that. I, too, should be grateful if she would tell us the current state of play.

19WH
My perception, as a Surrey Member of Parliament, is that Surrey is different from Hampshire in that its northern and eastern fringes are of a much more urban character. Its problems are more akin to those of the London ambulance service than to those of a rural one. Having said that, there is a degree of co-operation between Surrey and Hampshire ambulance services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) was in the Chamber earlier in the debate. He is not essentially involved in the discussion over Hampshire ambulance services. In his constituency, the majority of ambulance cover is provided by Surrey ambulance services under arrangements between the relevant health authorities. My hon. Friend believes that the arrangement works well.
Reference was made to the introduction of new technology for the Hampshire ambulance service. New technology often leads to teething troubles, but it is necessary to provide a modern ambulance service. It was, however, rather late coming to Hampshire, largely as a result of underfunding. Over the past two years, the Hampshire service has received only inflation-based increases, but demand—measured by the number of calls on the service—has risen by 8 per cent.
The Government set targets for the delivery of ambulance services and some money is passported through directly for the modernisation of ambulance services. The majority of the funding, however, comes from health authorities that face other huge pressures on their budgets. The health authorities that fund Hampshire Ambulance provide between 90 and 95 per cent. of the resources necessary to deliver the service. It is incumbent on the Government, when presenting and reiterating target figures, to address that issue. It is no good constantly reasserting the targets when adequate funding to meet them is clearly unavailable under current mechanisms.
Below-target response times are a widespread problem, but our debate on the issue has been confused. I shall clarify my understanding of the position and the Minister can correct me if I am wrong. Under the patients charter, the target for April 2003 is that for category A, life-threatening calls, an ambulance must arrive at the scene within eight minutes in 90 per cent. of cases. That information is set out in a bulletin from a website, which has just been printed out for me during our debate. That is my understanding of the Government's ultimate target. I assume that 75 per cent. Is an interim target for April 2001.
The most recent published figures demonstrate that by April 2000, all ambulance trusts bar one—Staffordshire—failed to meet the 75 per cent. target. Another year has passed and the figures will not be published until June, but I hope that the Minister can provide some information about the percentage of ambulance trusts currently meeting the 75 per cent. eight-minute target.
I am not optimistic. The direction of travel has been backwards, not forwards. As I said, only Staffordshire had met the target by April 2000, and even that was a static performance in relation to the previous year. Several others in the list—Sussex, Dorset, Two Shires,
20WH
Kent, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Isle of Wight, Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire, Hereford and Worcestershire and West Country ambulance services—actually went backwards. Hampshire went from a 52.8 per cent. response performance in 1998–99 to 44.5 per cent. in 1999–2000. The Minister told us today that, by March 2001, it had fallen further to 43.62 per cent. To what does the Minister attribute that dismal decline in ambulance service performance? Why has her Government allowed the service to deteriorate to that level when, for example, in the last year of the previous Government, Hampshire ambulance service was achieving a 53.2 per cent. eight-minute response? Given the figures, will the Minister revise the targets for 2003 downwards to reflect reality or will she, as the Government have done with their other targets in the NHS plan, simply ignore what is happening in the real world and continue to spin the target figures, as though they were an achievable reality?
As the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the former Secretary of State for Health, said, the Government
"raised people's expectations sky high and have not delivered."
They are playing a dangerous game with public confidence in the NHS and the ambulance service in particular. The Government should look long and hard at performance, take proper advice on the realistic targets that can be met by 2003 and ensure that the figures being circulated in the public domain reflect them rather than some unachievable aspiration.
10.46 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on securing the debate. I note that she has visited the ambulances, as have many other hon. Members present. I sometimes wonder whether ambulances are the most visited part of the national health service. That is a tribute to them. We all engage in their services considerably. I am aware of the hon. Lady's interest in the NHS ambulance service and this is a timely debate on ambulances, not just in Hampshire, but across the country.
Hampshire Ambulance Service NHS trust provides services for the residents of three health authorities that cover the Hampshire area: North and Mid Hampshire, Southampton and South West Hampshire, and the Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire. The trust covers an area of some 1,400 square miles and provides emergency and non-emergency services for around 1.5 million people. In addition to the urban and congested areas of Portsmouth and Southampton, it has some rural and sparsely populated areas including the New Forest. The trust has nearly 500 staff, 68 emergency ambulances and eight fast-response vehicles, and last year it handled around 86,000 emergency calls.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) will join me in taking the opportunity to thank all the staff of the Hampshire ambulance services for the tremendous work that they do, day in, day out. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) was right to say that because of their reliability, we tend to be grateful on the days that we need them but there is a danger that we may forget their daily work. I want to reassure ambulance services

21WH
everywhere that they are not forgotten. I hope that the extra investment and the development work in their role and function over the last few years will reassure ambulance services everywhere that, although formerly they could justifiably have been described as the forgotten service, that is not the case now. They play a vital role as part of the NHS family.
I was grateful that other hon. Members reiterated that, while it is an emergency service, the ambulance service is seen as an integral part of the NHS family and should remain so. The value of the work of Hampshire ambulance service is abundantly clear from the way that it has provided medical care in times of need such as the recent major chemical fire in Portsmouth. The Government have given a high priority to improving emergency response times to those patients who are severely ill or injured. Anyone reading the national service framework for coronary heart disease or the NHS plan will see just how much emphasis has been placed on the need for improved response time standards.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge highlighted the function of ambulances. The question whether a patient should be just transported or receive immediate care varies, depending on the circumstances. We must get away from seeing the ambulance service as people carriers. They are highly trained paramedics who can fulfil important functions.
Mr. Hammond: I am not trying to make a political point, but I have seen data that have thrown into question the hypothesis that treating trauma patients at the scene and thus delaying their admission to hospital improves the outcomes for those patients. Does the Minister acknowledge that that is a genuine issue of concern, which should be investigated?
Ms Stuart: I certainly do, and I recently had discussions with trauma surgeons about the best way forward. However, for patients with cardiac arrest, there is no doubt that the quicker a paramedic arrives at the scene, the better. Even more to the point, we are investing heavily to provide defibrillators in public places—some 700, at a cost of £2 million—because the help that they provide does not require the presence of a paramedic.
I should like to resolve some of the confusion about the challenging national targets that we have set. Our expectation is that all ambulance services should respond to life-threatening emergency calls, which are generally known as category A calls, within eight minutes 75 per cent. of the time, irrespective of location. That target should be reached, whether the call is in the centre of London or in the most rural area. We must find ways to achieve it. I do not accept the argument that we cannot because there is a big difference between rural and urban areas. The solutions for meeting our expectations will be different in different areas.
Sandra Gidley: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Stuart: If I might make a little progress, many of the questions will be answered.
I would like to see the website that says that the Government have set a target of 90 per cent. by 2003. I am not aware of such a target. Officially, we have said
22WH
that we want every service to reach the 75 per cent. target first, and then we will move on from there. That is important.
We want to ensure that ambulance services everywhere get to more patients in time to make a difference. That is not about creating league tables but about saving more lives. Clinical evidence shows that faster resuscitation, quicker heart shocks using a defibrillator, and the earlier delivery of clot-busting thrombolytic drugs can all make an important contribution to the effort to reach the demanding targets that we have set for saving more lives.
Since 1997, ambulance services have improved their response times by using a range of measures, including more staff and vehicles, faster activation, better matching of resources to demand, dynamic as opposed to station-based cover, effective relief levels and rotas, and flexible 999 responses. I emphasise the issue of where ambulances should be located. The ultimate aim is to get effective help to immediately life-threatening category A calls within eight minutes.
Developing new ways of fighting the war against heart attacks is very important, especially in the more rural areas where ambulance responses tend to take longer. First responder and community volunteer responder schemes buy time during the vital first minutes and until a fully equipped and crewed emergency ambulance arrives. In some areas, first responders work with the fire service. That is right and proper; the aim is to get people there quickly.
Across the country, NHS ambulance trusts answer and respond to more calls year on year. In the past five years alone, emergency 999 calls have risen by nearly 1 million—an increase of 30 per cent.—and the number of patient journeys has also increased.
Dr. Brand: I am fascinated by the Minister's comment that it is policy to allow the other emergency services to provide a service. I am totally in favour of that. However, will she speak to her colleagues in the Home Office who base fire brigade funding entirely on callouts to fires and do not consider any accident or emergency service that they might be providing?
Ms Stuart: We have discussions with our colleagues about those areas where the services work together, but it is not always funding alone that is the problem. Other concerns are whether people are trained and how they co-operate. I must put the record straight in relation to the hon. Gentleman's point about NHS Direct. His perception is that it takes 10 minutes to answer the call, 10 minutes to tell the story and 10 minutes to give the answers. He might have picked up on one incident where that happened, but the figures do not bear him out. The statistics show that NHS Direct in Hampshire answered 64 per cent. of calls within 15 seconds; it took 16,000 calls in March. There will be further improvements.
On Hampshire ambulance services, the national increase in demand has been reflected in Hampshire—
Mr. Hammond: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Stuart: I should like to make progress, because a number of questions have been asked.
Mr. Hammond: They have not been answered.
Ms Stuart: May I have the chance to answer them?
Against the backdrop of increased call levels, ambulance service response times have improved significantly since we came to power. A year ago, only one ambulance trust—Staffordshire—was meeting the required target, but it is expected that most services, including Hampshire, will be achieving it by the autumn. By March 2001, 14 services had reached the target.
Mr. Hammond: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Stuart: Very briefly, and probably for the last time.
Mr. Hammond: I am very grateful. The Minister asserts that response times have improved since the Government came to power. Can she explain, then, why the percentage of eight-minute responses in Hampshire in 1997–98 was 51.8 per cent., falling to 44.5 per cent. in 1999–2000? Those are Department of Health figures.
Ms Stuart: Overall and in whole areas, performances have improved. As I said, a year ago only Staffordshire was meeting the 75 per cent. target; now, 14 of the 32 services are meeting it. I expect at least 29, including Hampshire, to have reached the target by the autumn. I know that progress in Hampshire has been slower than anticipated. That is simply not good enough. Hampshire ambulance trust and the local health authorities know that, too.
What is being done to increase the speed of progress? At my request, the Department's winter and emergency services team recently visited the trust and examined its improvement plans to ensure that all obstacles to progress had been identified. The trust's plan includes recruiting and training 58 more front-line staff, adding 11 emergency vehicles, strengthening control and support functions and changing staff rosters.
Hon. Members have spoken this morning of the need for additional resources for ambulance services. We recognise that, and the Government are committed to delivering first-class public services in Hampshire and throughout England. Because we are managing the economy better, we can afford record investment in public services. In 2000–01, we invested an extra
24WH
£21 million in national health service ambulance services in England to help them to continue making progress by investing in extra vehicles and front-line staff. That funding has been made available on a recurrent basis and is being backed up with significant local investment. In Hampshire, that included £450,000 last year. A further £1.2 million is expected this financial year—an extra £1.7 million in total.
However, improving ambulance services is not just about more ambulances on the road; it is also about planning and partnership. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) made a point about where vehicles are located. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) referred to ambulances being told to wait in car parks, which are not proper conditions in which to work. In fact, we are talking about a sophisticated process of anticipating where accidents will happen Ambulances do not always return to the same base. In some areas, for example, they may share facilities with the fire services. In my area, ambulances make what they would call pit stops, for cups of tea and so on, at their stations. All the services are working together, and the best way of using vehicles in the most appropriate places is kept under review. That is the partnership to which I referred.
With Hampshire ambulance service, we have seen co-operation and collaboration on many initiatives that have benefited patients and helped the ambulance service. Further investment has been made. We have invested £3.5 million in modernising the accident and emergency department at Southampton general hospital.
The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) referred to Haslar hospital. The reconfiguration process has not always been entirely happy, but the current arrangements mean that the services at the accident treatment centre will be continued. There is no particular timetable for Haslar's closure; we have said that it will coincide with the opening of the new private finance initiative hospital in Cosham. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured that his constituents will continue to be served.
As for the review that many hon. Friends have mentioned, a formal period of statutory consultation will shortly commence. No decision has been taken; there is no fixed plan, as some hon. Members have suggested. We hope that implementation will be possible by 2002.
Our driving motivation is a better ambulance service, which serves the populations of all areas in the interests of patients, and responds to the changing needs of patients and to the reconfiguration of the NHS.

Digital Television
11 am
Dr. George Turner: I am delighted to introduce a debate on the future of digital television. Events are moving fast, in terms of both technology and commerce, and important concerns have been raised in the report of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, published last month, and the recent survey conducted by the Consumers Association. The latter has attracted much media attention because of the doubts that it raised about the practicability of the Government's timetable for the switch-off of the analogue signal. As the Minister knows, I have a strong constituency interest in the future of digital television because large numbers of my constituents in west Norfolk have long suffered from reception problems with analogue television. Regrettably, when the previous Government legislated for the introduction of digital television, they dismally failed to take account of the problems experienced by my constituents—and, as previous Adjournment debates have shown, those of hon. Members representing many parts of the country. Some 40 or 50 hon. Members have constituents with cause for complaint.
Since entering the House, I have been working to ensure that when the Government legislate—early in the next Parliament, I hope—my constituents' problems will be addressed. I shall briefly remind the House of the nature of those problems. The services of each regional television broadcaster are transmitted from specific locations, but in some areas the lie of the land and the physical characteristics of UHF electromagnetic waves prevent communities from receiving signals from transmitters assigned to their appropriate regional broadcaster; they may be able to receive only the signal from a transmitter targeted at a different region. Those viewers can watch only regional programming services intended for others. That is the nub of the problem. Many of my Norfolk constituents receive regional programmes that are in broad measure intended for Yorkshire and the north of England.
For many years, solutions using additional transmitters or relays have been considered, but constrained by the possible number of channels when using analogue broadcasting, which is greedy in its use of frequency space, and by the severe interference problems that arise when adjacent transmitters are not well separated in frequency. It is a particular problem in my part of the country because of the adjacency of European transmitters across the sea. That is why analogue broadcasting has genuine difficulty in providing more than four universal channels: not surprisingly, many of my constituents cannot properly receive Channel 5.
Many thousands of homes in west Norfolk are affected. The borough council estimated the figure to be as high as 20,000, which represents an audience of up to 51,000 in my constituency alone—and they want something to be done. As I hope hon. Members will understand, they want to watch their own regional television programmes. They are not alone in giving high priority to regional broadcasting. Surveys repeatedly show that 90 per cent. of the British public want regional news, which has more support than any
26WH
other kind of programme—30 per cent. more than for soap operas. The programmes that many viewers most want to watch are the very ones denied them—and my constituents in particular—by the anomaly in broadcasting.
Issues of community and regional identity are increasingly important, especially since the Government came to office. My constituents are served by health authorities, social services, education services, library services, police services and fire services, all of which are administered on a county basis within Norfolk. Through the establishment of regional development agencies, the Government have made it clear that local and regional identity is increasingly important. Ministers are encouraging communities to become involved in community safety and local transport strategies, and see a strong role for the community in developing policies on access to the countryside.
Mr. Simon Thomas: On the point of regional identities in England and national identities in Wales and Scotland, the National Assembly for Wales does all the work that the hon. Gentleman referred to on a regional and national dimension, and more. However, does he share my concern that 10 per cent. of analogue receivers in Wales do not get any Welsh signals, which means that 10 per cent. of the Welsh population do not know what the National Assembly is doing in their name?
Dr. Turner: I certainly sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, and I well understand why he is among those who have been pushing for a solution.
Let me return to the importance of regional identity. My comments illustrate a growing and serious democratic deficit—which the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) referred to nationally and I see regionally—if people cannot have access to news and information about their own communities via the most popular and effective medium, which is television. Like the majority of viewers throughout the country, my constituents want to know what is going on under their noses and in their communities. Access to television is much more important than might be suggested by its entertainment content. In today's society, access to information is central to quality of life; television is a key provider of that information and will become even more important in the digital era. Technical solutions to our problems exist in the digital era, but there must be the political will to ensure that they are exploited. That is why, on behalf of my constituents, I want to see continued scrutiny of the process of change.
As the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport acknowledged, the success of commercial pay television in the UK since launch has been striking. BSKYB has been so successful in converting analogue subscribers to digital that it expects to switch off its analogue signal later this year, when it will provide digital services to about 5.5 million homes, which is some 20 per cent. of households. ONdigital has built up a new subscriber base from scratch and recently announced that it has more than a million subscribers, which is also roughly the current level of uptake of digital cable television.
Given that fast uptake, one might ask what the problem is. Put simply, the problem is that not everyone will want, or be able to afford, pay television. The

27WH
Consumers Association survey found that 32 per cent. of people who do not have digital television say that they will never get it. Perhaps more importantly, almost half those surveyed said that they would only want to watch free-to-air channels after analogue switch-off. The latter figure is close to the estimate of 40 per cent. made by the British Radio and Electronic Equipment Manufacturers' Association. Even if we take the BREMA figures—the lower of the two—some 9 million homes will need access to either proper digital sets, which are normally referred to as integrated digital televisions, or appropriate converters by 2006–10 if the Government are to stick to their schedule for analogue turn-off. The scale of the problem is apparent. Some 4 or 5 million sets are sold annually, but only 90,000 were digital televisions last year, despite the fact that analogue televisions will become useless in a few years. Projections for this year say that only 180,000 digital television sets, which have a long and guaranteed lifetime, will be sold.
Mr. John Greenway: The hon. Gentleman is making important points. Does he agree that many advertisements for new televisions are grossly misleading in that they refer to digital television sets but are selling sets that are incapable of receiving a digital television service?
Dr. Turner: I accept that. The Government have started to address the problem of confusion in the marketplace, but need to do more.
With an uptake of 180,000 this year, the figures provide little support for the view that, without further intervention, total sales will be anywhere near 9 million by 2010, let alone 2006. Something must be done. The consumer has clearly found the marketplace unnecessarily confusing.
The chosen marketing tool for digital television has been the provision of free set-top boxes. The service provider suffers a significant initial loss, which it hopes to set off over time by income from subscriptions. That is why the providers are targeting better-off households. A side effect of this market-led process has been that many analogue sets, supported by a continued price differential, are still being sold without the consumer realising that they have a limited lifetime.
I am pleased to note the Government's prompt response to criticism of labelling and the introduction of kite marking so that potential purchasers of non-digital television sets are clearly warned about the potential limited life expectancy. I am also pleased to note that the Government are trialling free provision of digital access in a limited number of areas. I hope that the Minister will tell us more about that, particularly the period of the trials and when we are likely to hear the results.
I agree with ONdigital's proposal, which would require changes to European law to ensure that a date is set for the mandatory inclusion of digital receivers in new television sets. The resulting increase in the production of digital televisions would result in significant economies of scale and a marked reduction of the current high prices.
There is a clear role for the Government. They must ensure that all citizens, not just the wealthy, can share the potential benefits offered by digital television.
28WH
Disadvantaged groups must not be left behind and we must acknowledge that a significant minority will be unable to afford the premiums for pay TV. The Government's commitment to availability and affordability criteria and the conditions for analogue switch off must remain central to policy development.
I was pleased that the White Paper so clearly acknowledged the specific problems of my constituents. Along with others around the country, some are denied access to regional programming. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can report progress on the consultation process promised by the White Paper. She knows that I am keen to be involved in finding solutions and she is aware of my impatience to do so.
Last year, the Minister visited my constituency and she will recall her visit to Hunstanton and Heacham. On Saturday I was visiting homes close to the sensory garden that she visited on that occasion. She will understand the frustration of my constituent who complained that his family subscribed to ONdigital so that digital terrestrial broadcasts with many more channels were available, yet was still unable even by payment to watch local news and other regional programmes. The same is true for satellite television. We must press for early resolution of that problem.
The introduction of digital television is made immensely more complicated by the need to maintain analogue broadcasts with all the problems of interference that arise. Transmissions are limited by the availability of frequency and by power, which leads to the frustration of subscribers. I fear that the result of consultation on removing the anomalies in my locality will reveal a dependence on analogue turn-off. Only then will the digital era truly have arrived.
In light of the facts highlighted by the Consumers Association, the Government will have to do more than provide a legislative backdrop. It is in the national interest to exploit the opportunities of the digital revolution and a Government who acknowledge the need for encouragement of the entrepreneurial spirit of our nation must themselves be willing to encourage and adopt radical solutions to public interest problems.
The National Consumer Council has stressed the complexity of the marketplace for digital television. It argues for clear and accurate information about the differences between analogue and digital and the advantages and disadvantages of different platforms and packages. I strongly support its argument for a high profile, Government-led public information campaign on digital switchover. If people are to continue to buy analogue televisions with a limited lifetime, they must do so knowingly, not because the salesman found it the best sale to make. There is much evidence that digital is often equated with pay television and that is an unattractive proposition for many. The content and services offered by free-to-air public service broadcasters will be of critical importance in increasing digital take-up and making digital broadcasting popular with a wider section of the population.
We must ensure that there is a proper framework for the delivery of public service broadcasting. A large proportion of those who will, at best, be reluctant to transfer to digital television will be pensioners. I have 23,000 of them in my constituency and I am well aware of that fact. The Government should do more to

29WH
encourage and help them to benefit from the improved services of the digital era. I urge the Government to extend the free television licences available to those of 75 and over to households with elderly people of 65 and over. That extension could be a financial incentive making digital television affordable. It would also address the many anomalies in licence requirements for that age group.
I was disappointed that the Stewart commission failed dismally to resolve a situation where, depending on the nature of accommodation and with no regard to the ability to pay, some pensioners receive free television licences and others do not. I can assure the Minister that an extension of free television licensing would be immensely popular. In a brief period before the Budget I attracted 3,000 signatures to a petition calling for free television licences for people over 65.
Given that the nation stands to benefit financially from the analogue turn-off, further Government measures to encourage the take-up of digital television should at least be considered. Some in the industry believe that it might be appropriate to consider the use of a preferential rate of VAT. Even a limited period of reduction would help to kick start the volume of sales which will themselves reduce prices and address the issue of affordability that the Government have identified as central to the problem.
As I have explained, my constituents have a particular interest in seeing fast progress in the full introduction of digital television. The Minister has shown considerable sympathy for the problems of my constituents and has been generous with her time in discussing them with me. I hope that she can do more today and promise solutions and a timetable. I hope that she will confirm the Government's commitment to legislation, if necessary, to ensure a proper balance between commercial interests and public good in broadcasting. I hope too that she will acknowledge the need to take further action if we are to meet the Government's timetable for analogue turn-off. I strongly commend the help that I have suggested for the elderly to ensure that they too benefit from the early introduction of the digital era.
11.18 am
Mr. Simon Thomas: First, I thank the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) for initiating this useful debate which is certainly of great interest to many of my constituents and many people in Wales. Access to analogue signals in the past has been a problem in Wales in that up to 40 per cent. of the Welsh population receive signals from the regional stations in England rather than from those in Wales. As I said when the hon. Gentleman kindly allowed me to intervene, 10 per cent. of the Welsh population find it difficult to receive any Welsh signals. That means that they are deprived not only of Welsh language broadcasting, but of information relating to the growth of systems of government such as the National Assembly for Wales.
North-east Wales and the area that you represent, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is one of the areas that traditionally have difficulty in accessing the full range of services. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk was correct to say that digital television provides the opportunity to get rid of that discrimination and to give
30WH
people in all areas access to the full range of entertainment, information and other useful services that will come on stream.
Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: I endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments completely, but would he not also agree that in areas such as my constituency digital television will also enable those who are monoglot English to gain access for the first time to channels such as Channel 4? While he stresses the fact that it will give Welsh speakers access to Welsh language programmes, it will also mean that monoglot English will have access to their choice of channels.
Mr. Thomas: That is true for everyone in the United Kingdom. It is now possible to have access to Welsh-language television here in London, which I welcome, as no doubt the hon. Lady's constituents will welcome access to Channel 4 in Pembrokeshire. We are debating the effects of digital television, and one thing that will disappear in the near future is the idea of an entire community watching the same television programme at the same time. That will end, as television, radio and the internet all merge into digital information, which we will choose to use, download or watch in whichever way we see fit. The hon. Lady's constituents will make their choices, and my constituents will make theirs. However, I am concerned that we should protect Welsh language needs and I will address that shortly. Obviously, the world is dominated by English language broadcasting—if that is the right term for what happens on the web—particularly in digital transmission.
I want to concentrate my remarks on two aspects of the future of television digitalisation: diversity and access. We in Wales attach a particular emphasis and importance to what would pass for regional television in the remarks of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk. It is important to note that, in Wales, regional television is our national television. Our national broadcasting depends on the regional arms of either Carlton Communications through HTV or the BBC, or our one national station, which is S4C—Sianel Pedwar Cymru. However, S4C is also diversifying into digitalisation and taking up the opportunities that lie beyond the boundaries of Wales.
A difficulty that arises is the manner in which regional television sometimes plays out in national terms. I will give two examples. The first is, perhaps, a rather light-hearted one: Anne Robinson's recent comments about the Welsh were not well received in Wales. Many of us treated them with the respect that they deserved. Somebody who wants publicity so that she can enhance her manor house in Gloucestershire is welcome to any publicity she can get. However, people in Wales did not want to see a repeat of that programme. They would have preferred something that was a bit more positive about Wales, or a different "Room 101" programme, but that was not possible. The repeat programme was broadcast nationally throughout the UK. So, through regionalisation, we get a rather warped perception of our national concerns.
The second and more important example concerns news broadcasts in Wales. Although the moves by the BBC to integrate—I would say tag on—Welsh news into the main news are welcome, we must wait for 27 or 28 minutes before we get the news from Wales in the

31WH
broadcast at 9 o'clock in the evening. That might not seem so important, and it might be that news from elsewhere in the world, particularly from London, is more important. However, in the present foot and mouth outbreak, we are missing an opportunity to transmit a clear message about the situation in Wales with respect to tourism and access to the countryside. Such information is broadcast at the end of other stories that are not as pertinent to the Welsh situation. That skews perception and is one issue that we should examine as we move to digitalisation. We should change the arrangement so that we have a different feed in the Welsh context. As the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) said earlier, people would have more choice of news programmes under digitalisation.
Mr. Norman Baker: My constituents wait for 28 minutes to hear news about East Sussex, but then get traffic reports about Dorset on the local news
Mr. Thomas: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's constituents find that very useful. A similar situation exists in parts of Wales along the Severn estuary, where people get news about Bristol before they get news about Cardiff and Swansea.
I emphasise the importance of S4C in terms of diversity—not just for Wales but the UK. Valuable initiatives have been undertaken by the Minister's Department, with the cultural diversity network trying to demonstrate cultural diversity on all platforms of television. As I hope she already knows, S4C is the jewel in the crown of cultural diversity in the UK and Europe. It was difficult to establish S4C, but it has been an undoubted success. It has proved value for money and has shown how Welsh language broadcasting can compete with English language broadcasting; it is just as entertaining, informative and valuable to its own constituency.
Importantly, S4C has also fed a cultural revival in Wales. We have had the metamorphosis of Welsh language bands such as Catatonia and Ffa Coffi Bawb—which became Super Furry Animals—which have become international successes and a Welsh language film, "Hedd Wyn", being nominated for an Oscar. Such success could not have happened without S4C or while Welsh language programming was scattered over various channels. That concentration of resources has been of huge benefit in Wales. Bands such as Catatonia may be rock bands, but they have shown how Welsh language influences come over into English and influence Wales through that medium. We also have the opportunity to create an English language S4C, if that is the right term—a channel devoted to English speakers in Wales that views Wales and the world from their perspective. The BBC has taken up that challenge and is considering BBC2 Choice in Wales to fulfil that role. We need to consider how we can protect it.
Resources are a problem. S4C gets £48 million a year, which I am sure is generous, but Channel 4 gets £650 million a year. One of the problems for S4C is that it cannot buy programmes from sources other than the BBC, HTV and independent producers in Wales, although it makes an increasing number of back-to
32WH
back productions with Russia and other European countries. Many hon. Members will have seen over Easter the animated tales of biblical stories that S4C produced in association with other European countries. S4C is therefore an international player, but it cannot simply buy "Friends" or "Frasier" from American channels because they are not in Welsh. Dubbing programmes into Welsh was done to death when we tried to dub "Shane". That experiment has gone down in Welsh history and will never be tried again. Welsh language programming, and the diversity that exists, need to be protected, as I shall explain later.
On the important issue of access, mentioned by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk in opening the debate, the Government have made it clear that the switch from analogue to digital will not take place until around 95 per cent. of all subscribers or consumers have access to digital. That 95 per cent. should not be just a UK figure. There should be a way of disaggregating it down to Wales and Scotland and possibly also to regions of England. If anyone in west Wales—in Ceredigion, for example—wants to buy a mobile phone, he or she may go to a mobile phone service that covers 97 or 98 per cent. of the population. However, the 2 or 3 per cent. of Britain that is not covered comprises west Wales and the highlands and islands of Scotland. It will be difficult to justify a complete switchover to digital in Wales until we can show that the Government's 95 per cent. target is also being met in Wales and that we are not disenfranchising Wales and repeating the mistakes that we have made with analogue. However, the situation is encouraging in that take-up of digital in Wales is higher than in England. I have asked questions on the issue, but official figures are not available; my information is that take-up in Wales is somewhat higher than in England. I am not sure why that should be but it is welcome for the future.
Take-up is mainly of satellite. We have three main digital platforms: terrestrial, cable and satellite. However, most people in Wales cannot access either cable or terrestrial digital platforms. Terrestrial digital take-up in Wales is very poor, as is access to Channel 5, which the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk mentioned. Cable is available in Cardiff, its environs and some other parts of south Wales, but not in north Wales and certainly not in mid-Wales, which includes my constituency. We therefore need to consider how we can have access not only to digital as such, but to the full range of digital platforms, because there will be differences among what is offered by cable, satellite and terrestrial platforms
Dr. George Turner: Would the hon. Gentleman say that, for his constituents—and mine—free-to-air broadcasts, which can be received in any room in the house if they have a normal household aerial, are the most desirable platform?
Mr. Thomas: Indeed. That is the most desirable platform as it would not force people to pay for digital. It is vital that we support public service broadcasting. The Government need to recognise that digital is not yet available throughout Wales, and terrestrial digital access will not be at 95 per cent. when the switchover takes place. It is simply not good enough to say that people have access to satellite. Whichever way we

33WH
consider it, we are paying for satellite. The boxes may be free upfront, but the pressure to subscribe is enormous. As the hon. Gentleman said, that is the only way in which the companies can get their money back. Free-to-air terrestrial broadcasting is also the only way in which an English language channel for Wales will be created.
Let my conclude by explaining how we can achieve our objectives in Wales or at least try to protect access and diversity. We need to address questions, not difficulties, about diversity as we work though the rollout of digital broadcasting. The White Paper suggests that we have a new office of communications—an Ofcom. I suggest to the Minister that serious thought is given to the establishment of an Ofcom for Wales. The National Assembly for Wales has said that it would like to have a Wales office of Ofcom and that it would like to appoint the Wales member of Ofcom. However, questions of accountability are raised if one body appoints to another body, which is in turn answerable to another body. My preference and that of my party is to consider an office of communications for Wales that can integrate radio, television and the increasing amount of digital broadcasting that will take place and consider them from the Welsh perspective.
The experience of the BBC Wales governor, sterling though his work is as an individual, calls into question whether we could have in one person sufficient protection of Welsh interests. At the very minimum, we certainly need a Welsh consumer panel in Wales. It would not be acceptable to establish a consumer panel for the UK and simply have a Welsh office of it. We need a Wales consumer panel that is based completely in Wales and considers Welsh consumer needs. Welsh language broadcasting is a unique feature of Wales and needs to be embedded in the future.
We have seen the importance of communications in the cultural life of Wales and the need to protect them. The Welsh language would not be alive today if the Bible had not been translated into Welsh when it was the most important method of communication. That is why the Welsh language is alive, but the Cornish language is not. The most important method of communication was translated into Welsh at the right time, when literacy was growing and people could use it to maintain a sense of Welsh identity through the Welsh language.
That is no longer the case. Wales is not a monoglot Welsh-speaking country; we are a bilingual country. To maintain Welsh culture during globalisation, which involves the break-up of Welsh-speaking communities, people in Wales must have access to Welsh and English language programming that gives them experience, entertainment and information from their own communities. That is provided in the main, but with some difficulty on occasion. Government decisions on the future of digital television and particularly access to it will determine whether we can ensure that we have a thriving Welsh language and English-speaking communities in Wales in the future. I hope that the Minister will act accordingly.
1.34 am
Mrs. Linda Gilroy: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) on securing such an important and timely debate.
34WH
I should also declare an interest, which is not pecuniary, but a constituency interest. My constituency contains ONdigital's main customer service centre, which employs about 1,400 people. My hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) has an equally important ONdigital customer service centre in her constituency. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) and I were keen to have in our city a company that we believed would be at the cutting edge of 21st century communications, and we worked hard to encourage it to come to Plymouth when it was looking for a suitable base for its customer service centre.
Neither the company nor we have been disappointed, and ONdigital has found that Plymouth is a good place to do business. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows from several recent visits, it is a beautiful city with a pool of people who can make an excellent and talented work force and have skills that are adaptable to the high-class customer service that is expected of a company such as ONdigital. The company's expectations have been met, because that work force has been able to attract 1 million customers in two years, which the company set itself as a target, and has made an important contribution to the rollout of digital television services. The company is confident that it will attract 2 million customers within four years, which is its next target.
As constituency Members, we feel that ONdigital has brought something valuable to Plymouth. It is a key player in my constituency and in our city, and has helped us to achieve one of the biggest drops in unemployment in the country. I have visited ONdigital many times and, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, have found it to be a modern, enjoyable and interesting place to work; many constituents who work there confirm that. The general manager, Alan Lawson, not only provides leadership to the customer service base that ONdigital operates, but plays an active role in the call centre forum, which was set up to promote high standards in call centres in Plymouth and to identify common interests. Through that constituency interest, my interest in the future of digital services, including the television services that are the subject of today's debate, has developed.
Of course, the Government want to encourage all platforms, including satellite and cable, but, of the three, terrestrial will have the key role in winning the hearts and minds of those who are yet to commit themselves to digital television services. Those services must be available, affordable and attractive. Digital terrestrial will be the way in which most UK homes ultimately find both availability and affordability. Almost all homes—but not all, as we heard from the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas)—have an aerial through which the services can be delivered, whereas cable passes by about 50 per cent. of homes, and there are severe cost-effectiveness constraints on rolling out cable to as many homes as aerials can serve.
Availability and affordability are closely linked with the service provided through satellite. The hon. Gentleman referred to predominantly premium pay services that have a target income per consumer of £300 to £400 per annum to sustain the service. In constituencies such as mine, where I inherited from my Conservative predecessor the poorest ward in England, that is an insurmountable barrier for many people.

35WH
Some might say that if it is attractive, people will pay for it. However, we are sadly some years—perhaps even a couple of decades—away from people across the country having incomes that can sustain that level of payment for television packages.
There are two barriers to the attractiveness of digital television. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk has referred to the confusion about the benefits of digital television. There is also confusion about what equipment can receive digital signals. The question of whether the market is operating in a sufficiently robust and competitive way to allow it to deliver attractive programme packages at affordable prices is another issue. That, as hon. Members will know, is the subject of a Competition Commission inquiry. It is probably appropriate to mention that in passing today, but not to go into the issues that are being examined by the commission. However, those issues are very important to the future availability and—crucially—to the affordability of the pay TV sector.
If rumours in the press over the weekend, in The Sunday Times and in the Financial Times on Monday are correct, there could be an interesting development this week among some of the key players in television and digital services, which might have a significant impact on the market and its ability to operate in a competitive manner.
On customer confusion over equipment, a number of hon. Members have spoken about the difficulties of finding digital televisions. At Christmas—a popular time for buying televisions—if one went into an outlet of one of the major retailers, it was quite common to find 200 televisions on sale, of which only five were digital televisions truly capable of accepting digital signals.
Some hon. Members have campaigned on that issue. I am pleased to say that there is an early-day motion before Parliament congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce. Her Department, working with the digital video broadcasting consortium, has developed a logo that will be visible on the screen of all digital televisions as well as boxed digital televisions. Hopefully that will give an impetus to sales, helping to create the volume of sales required for cost savings to be made so that digital televisions can become more affordable.
Beyond resolving that particular source of confusion, there is a further need to raise awareness among the 70 per cent. of British adults who do not yet have digital television. They need to know that, in buying a DVB-labelled TV, they get free access to a wider range of channels, including BBC Choice, BBC Knowledge, BBC News 24 and ITV 2. According to the recent Consumers Association report, "Turn on, Tune in, Switched off", which has already been mentioned, only 29 per cent. of respondents to the survey conducted by the association knew that the five existing terrestrial channels would not cost extra after analogue switch-off, let alone that there are new free channels available on digital. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk said, digital television is wrongly associated with pay television, and if we are going to get sufficient numbers of people to switch over to digital initially, we must crack that myth.
36WH
The Consumers Association report identifies a range of challenges that need to be overcome. There is a great deal of confusion. The expense of digital television is a key barrier to take-up. That report identifies many, particularly among the young, those with children and those in lower social grades, who say that they do not need or would not the use extra channels. Just under half of people who have not thus far switched are aware that the Government plan to switch off the analogue signal in the next five to l0 years.
A lot more needs to be done. The challenges that have been identified require a concerted effort to raise awareness, to advocate the benefits of digital television and to bring about action. The DVB consortium was set up in 1993 and I am sure that it will play a role in that process. It is an industry-led consortium of more than 290 broadcasters, manufacturers, network operators, software developers and regulatory bodies that are committed to designing global standards for providing digital television and data services. I do not think that the consortium alone will be able to achieve the required level of awareness, advocacy and action. It played an important part, together with the Department of Trade and Industry, in launching the logo. That is effectively a kite mark, reassuring people that when they pay, at present prices, more than£1,000—sometimes as much as£2.000—on a television, it will at least do what they expect.
A bigger and wider job remains to be done, which calls for a digital services and communications champion. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government intend to institute something of that kind this year, because if we are to achieve analogue switch-off in the time scale that the Government hope for, we need someone to help to develop the appropriate awareness and see that digital services are advocated inside and outside Government. A clear, consistent message is needed to bring about not just action, but joined-up action, across the plethora of meetings and players involved, which include the Independent Television Commission, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for Culture. Media and Sport and the broadcasters. All have an interest in driving matters forward. Many meetings are being held and huge energy and commitment are being expended on the task. Nevertheless, the Government should soon appoint one person to focus that effort on bringing digital services in the required time to as many people as possible. I look forward to the Minister's observations on that question.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk on initiating this important debate, which has been a helpful opportunity to discuss the challenges ahead. My constituents have an important contribution to make. They and the House can count on my interest in and commitment to work on the policy and legislation that will help to develop digital provision.
11.48 pm
Mr. Norman Baker: I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) on initiating the debate. I agree with all his points, as well as those made subsequently. The technology is far reaching, but does not give rise to political differences. That probably makes it a bad story for the media.

37WH
Digital technology will make a big difference to our communities. I have identified three key differences: the freeing of spectrum to make space available for extra channels and services; the fact that digital signals are of better quality than the analogue signals that have been around since the 1930s; and the fact that digital signal uses spectrum more efficiently, which means that, at least in theory, it is possible to achieve a better and wider range of services and to deal with the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised about regional coverage.
I think that the hon. Gentleman receives Yorkshire television in Norfolk and I touched briefly on a similar problem in an intervention. Part of my constituency receives a signal from the Isle of Wight, which means that we receive lots of interesting local news about Hampshire and Dorset and not very much news about Sussex. That difficulty needs to be rectified. For many people, that is the great bonus of digital television.
Of course, there are not only problems relating to regionalisation. Channel 5 has already been referred to. My constituents and others who live along the south coast cannot receive Channel 5 because of conflicting signals from French television. We cannot even receive French television, but we can receive a series of wavy lines, which, I am told, are not as good as Channel 5 on a good day. I have received a few letters from constituents who want a 20 per cent. reduction in their licence fees on that basis. I have not put their point to the Minister or to the BBC, but I have told them that their plea is unlikely to be successful.
Like the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), other areas of my constituency, such as the village of Kingston, have difficulty receiving normal signals. We must use the digital revolution to improve regional coverage. The capacity exists, but it must be seen in conjunction with what has happened to regionalism generally. There are conflicting dot developments. There is a move towards regionalism in this country, which I welcome, with greater powers for the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament—and, in time, no doubt, for the English regions. That is underpinned by the trend in the European Union towards recognising regions. However, at the same time, regional identity is being eroded. The sort of houses that were distinctive in a certain area are being replaced by Barratt Homes, so that an estate in Ceredigion looks very much like an estate anywhere else, which is unfortunate. A shopping mall in Burnley is not only the same as one in Glasgow, but is probably the same as one in Ohio, with a traditional Tesco toytown clock, like the one in Lewes.
We need to protect and enhance our regional identities, and this technology gives us a way of doing that. However, it is important that technological developments should be mirrored by a political determination to ensure that regional television is protected and enhanced. We are moving towards one ITV, but ITV has been the traditional deliverer of regional services—more so than the BBC. If one lives in Tyne Tees, Yorkshire or the Meridian area, one tends to look to the ITV network more than to the BBC for local news, although that is not the case everywhere. It would be an irony if we did not use the regional capability of digital technology and were instead to retrench towards a national ITV. The Government must make it clear that ITV cannot be allowed to reduce its regional
38WH
coverage, because that is its main public service element, or its regional production facilities. We do not want everything to come from London.
I have mentioned the potential benefits, as well as some of the problems, of digital television. I understand that the Government are moving towards the introduction of digital neighbourhood schemes, whereby local neighbourhoods will receive digital television free of charge as a way of raising awareness and monitoring people's reactions to the technology. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that in her reply. However, if the Minister is looking for areas of the country to take part in that scheme, I offer her Lewes or any part of my constituency.
No one has mentioned digital radio in any detail, and it is important not to overlook it—[Interruption.] I apologise—the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) did mention it, but I want to develop the point. It is important for the Government to set targets for digital radio, as they have done for digital television, so that we know when digital radio will kick in. I accept that there may be a longer time frame, and that it might not be as easy. Nevertheless, those for whom radio is their preferred medium, as well as those who prefer to watch television, are entitled to attention. The cost of digital radios is rather high. That needs to be addressed, not simply by the market but, ideally, by Government action to stimulate that market.
Hon. Members have referred to the problem of labelling. I am pleased about the useful initiative that the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce has taken. One of the biggest inhibitors of digital take-up is the uncertainty that exists around the technology. If people could be confident that the digital set was the norm in the shops—so that they did not need worry about it, knowing that it would serve their needs in the years ahead and that it was ready for the technology—they would buy it and take more interest in the matter. If they have to fiddle around and work out what is what, then worry about where it works and what it does, what digital means and whether the sound quality or the signal is an issue, they will say "I cannot be bothered with this" and will wait until it has developed further.
The Government have a major role to play in getting things right. This change is more complicated than previous ones. People in the industry compare it to the change from 405 to 625, or that from black and white to colour, and say that consumers coped. It is not the same. The concepts were simple to master; this is complicated for those who are interested not in the theory, but in the end result. It is up to the Government to make it easy for them to get digital access and to be confident that what they are buying is what they want to buy.
The Government's targets for digital take-up are, by and large, right—99.4 per cent. of households being able to receive a digital signal, 95 per cent. of households signing up to digital television and digital television being affordable. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Ceredigion about the importance of a regional perspective. We have to ensure that those are the percentages in the area in which the consumer lives, rather than national figures that do not apply to him. There is a degree of unanimity across parties and in the country at large. That is healthy. Digital technology can undoubtedly bring many benefits to our communities. It is up to the Government to remove the obstacles that

39WH
have been identified by me and by other hon. Members in order to ensure that those benefits are freely available, and that their provision is supported.
11.57 am
Mrs. Jackie Lawrence:I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) on securing the debate. It is pleasant and unusual to have a debate in which everybody agrees on the objectives and wants to work towards achieving them as quickly as possible. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) mentioned, I also have a constituency interest in the issue. ONdigital, one of the terrestrial suppliers of digital television, is a major employer in my constituency, so it is important to Pembrokeshire. It represents a growing industry, which has provided 800 jobs in the last 18 months and is set to provide 1,100 by the middle of summer, bringing further benefits to my constituency, which has always had high unemployment.
I am a convert to digital television. Anyone who has watched both digital and analogue broadcasts will know that the difference in sound and picture quality is incredible. There is no comparison. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) mentioned choice, and that is another major benefit offered by digital television. A spin-off, of which the broadcasters are aware, is that as the choice increases the onus will be on them to provide ever better quality programmes, because, in the long-term, that will be the only way in which they can secure viewers who have that increased level of choice.
Another element, which I do not think has been mentioned today, is that digital television could contribute significantly to the Government meeting their commitment to get everyone in Britain on-line by 2005, giving people who are not familiar with PCs or other computers access through their television set. That would be very valuable. The main work provided by ONdigital in my constituency is customer service support for ONnet. That is a growing sector and an industry that I hope will be of increasing benefit to my constituents.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) spoke of uncertainty in the public mind. There is more than uncertainty; there is confusion. The problem is that most of the public do not understand the difference between analogue and digital. For example, they do not know that there are three ways in which they can receive digital television—via satellite, cable or terrestrial networks.
It is important to reaffirm the need to ensure that, as digital television signals come in, the current 70 per cent. rate of coverage will be increased dramatically so that everyone is covered, wherever they live. In Wales, we have our own specific problems. Unlike the rest of Wales, the terrain of my constituency is characterised by dips rather than hills. However, it is just as difficult to receive signals in coastal valleys as it is in hilly areas. It is a massive job to ensure that when digital television expands it covers all areas of the UK.
There is also a major problem with shared aerials, which I do not think has been mentioned this morning. In the UK, 6 million homes have shared aerials, and if
40WH
we want terrestrial digital television to expand, that is important, because many of those homes are owned by councils or housing associations. The Government have a major role to play in encouraging and supporting local authorities and housing associations in providing the facilities to enable those homes to receive digital television.
We must tackle public confusion on the matter. Many people transfer to digital because of an interest in sport. Consequently, digital television has the reputation of being a pay television service. People do not always understand that they can receive the service in a different way, without having to pay great sums of money.
There are three ways in which the Government can help, some of which have already been mentioned. First, there should be a Government-led, not an industry-led, information campaign. That is very important. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton touched on a Office of Fair Trading inquiry. The necessity for that inquiry is testament to the involvement of vested interests and to the fact that the drive to provide people with information about the benefits of digital television needs to be independent and Government-led.
Secondly, the Government should appoint a digital champion with responsibility for driving forward the take-up of digital television and ensuring that people are informed. Finally, considerable effort should be made to ensure that all televisions sold after 2004 contain a digital receiver. Presumably, that would be done through European legislation. Such a measure would go a long way to ending the confusion and protecting the consumer.
12.3 pm
Mr. John Greenway: I also congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) on securing this debate. During his time in the House he has frequently raised the problems of the regional dimension of television broadcasting and how it affects his constituents. I remind hon. Members of my long service as a consultant with ITV and prior to that with Yorkshire Television. I know only too well what a headache the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman was for Yorkshire Television. Digital television undoubtedly provides a great opportunity to correct the problems that this country's analogue signal arrangements have presented for many viewers.
The debate is timely, not just because of the news coverage about the potential restructuring of ONdigital—I was interested in what the hon. Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) and for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) said about the importance of ONdigital in their constituencies—but also because of the Select Committee report and the comments of the Consumers Association on digital uptake. The starting point for our consideration of this matter must be that it remains in Britain's grasp to become the first country to achieve an orderly roll-out of digital television. That was the previous Government's objective as well as being the present Government's and it largely drives the consensus that exists between the parties on many relevant issues.
As the hon. Members for Sutton and for Preseli Pembrokeshire have shown, there are huge benefits to be gained from technology manufacturing jobs, the

41WH
manufacturing of television and associated equipment, and the potential export markets. If we become the first country to do what is necessary, that opportunity will open up. None of us need doubt that the project is worth while.
Some worrying signals are being sent concerning key issues relating to take-up. For example, are there not signs that the number of subscription-based packages that consumers are prepared to purchase to gain access to sport and films has reached saturation point? Consumer behaviour in this respect is potentially a key barrier to the take-up of digital television. One wonders, too—this is partly behind the potential restructuring in ONdigital—how much longer those who provide digital television set-top boxes can continue to do so free. Those things are expensive.
Those considerations prompt thought about the resistance referred to in the Consumers Association report—particularly in the households of elderly people, but also among some young adults who watch less television these days—to converting to digital and paying more than the licence fee for television programmes. Such considerations are reasons for encouraging the free-to-air channel development that I know that the BBC and ITV have studied, and that other broadcasters are also preparing.
The Government have a leading role to play in raising awareness—something that many hon. Members have alluded to today—and selling the benefits of digital delivery in the long term. Picture and sound quality are not the only issues. I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) said about radio, but I do not have time to develop that topic now. However, the opportunity to establish a range of additional, free-to-air channels should also be stressed. It should not be necessary for everyone to sign up to a monthly contribution to which the family budget might not stretch in the long term.
I agree with the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire that internet services are also part of the issue. The hon. Member for Lewes argued that the conversion programme is not comparable to the change from black-and-white to colour or 405 to 625; gosh, we are all getting old. It was a long time ago, but it does not seem like it. It is important to make a greater effort to raise consumer awareness about the issues in question.
I want to concentrate my remarks on stressing the important role of Government in relation to the regulatory framework. We welcome what has been revealed about the target date for analogue switch off. I suspect that the date will be nearer to 2010 than 2006. We need to end the confusion about what a digital television set is. We believe that there is a large role for industry to play in that. Digital television should mean digital reception, not analogue reception.
The Broadcasting Act 1996 established a competitive environment. It was a deliberate intention on the part of Government to encourage competition in the development of different digital television systems. However, that development is now hampered by the regulatory framework. A new communications Bill has been delayed for too long and is now an urgent task for the new Parliament. Changes are also necessary in the rules relating to ownership, and the hon. Member for Lewes mentioned the possibility of a single ITV, which I believe will become a reality.
42WH
It is a matter of resources. We need competing infrastructures to drive down prices and increase innovation, as well as to pay for the major investment that will be needed to ensure digital take-up in every home in Britain. It will not be for the Government or the BBC to provide that. It must be provided by the industry, and the industry must be capable of organising itself in order to achieve that. It is equally important that the Government should recognise the important role of advertising and the need to support the advertising industry in its demands for continuing self-regulation against a tide of opinion in Europe in favour of a more regulatory framework. Without advertising revenue, no one will be able to provide the necessary investment, and advertising revenue will provide many more free-to-air channels.
On regulation, we also need neutral platform delivery and open access changes in the legislative framework. As I have often said—I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I repeat what I have said to her before—as a veteran of the Standing Committee that considered the Broadcasting Act 1990, that we missed a trick when we established the framework, which placed too much power in the hands of one super satellite broadcaster. That has caused difficulties in gaining access.
We need to end the confusion and the restrictions on what channels are available through different platforms. That is driven—understandably—by market share over platform delivery, but in the long run we must have a framework that allows viewers access to all the channels of their choice, regardless of origin. The new regulatory framework should strive for that. There are technical and logistical difficulties, in particular in geographical reach and equality of access, to which hon. Members have already referred, and the Government must continue to press for the digital signal to be strengthened.
I was heartened when the hon. Member for Sutton said—her remarks were echoed by the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire—that we must have a clearer view about how universal digital coverage will be delivered. I have already declared my interest in ITV, but hon. Members do not sufficiently appreciate that if we are to have universal digital delivery, a significant contribution will be made by terrestrial digital delivery. That will not be achieved by cable and satellite, or if it is, it will take an awfully long time.
Many of us represent rural constituencies and know that satellite dishes are banned in many parts of our constituencies, and not everyone wants a satellite dish on his or her house. I believe that the hon. Member for Sutton said that the television aerial on the roof provides all that is required. The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire mentioned shared aerials, and I agree entirely with what she said. If we want universal digital delivery and, eventually, the analogue switch-off that everyone is seeking to achieve, we must allow the terrestrial digital companies the opportunity to compete on fair and equal terms. I hope that I am not making too partisan a point when I say that the most pressing need is for the Government to address the issue of regulation. That, more than anything else, is what the Government can do to speed on the process. There must be an opportunity for real competition.

43WH
In the mobile telephone market, the competitive framework and the level playing field for all operators have driven down the cost and created universal access to such a point that the problem now seems to be that consumers wonder why, if they already have a mobile telephone, they need another one. In a sense that is now the situation with television. People need to be convinced that, although they already have five or six television sets, they need to change them all to digital. That is why the awareness programme is important. In the end, that will be achieved by a more competitive environment in the television industry. We are all in agreement and I think that we can pursue the matter on a cross-party basis once the election is out of the way and my hon. Friends and I are, I hope, sitting on the Government Benches. If we want analogue switch-off to be a reality and not merely an aspiration, we have to ensure that the industry can provide what this House desperately wants it to achieve.
12.16 pm
The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) both on securing this important debate and on the determination with which he has pursued the matter on behalf of his constituents. Having visited his constituency, I know how important it is there. I can well understand the concern of people who cannot receive their regional ITV service and I hope that we shall be able to do something about that. Let me remind the House of what we said in the communications White Paper where we specifically referred to the issue:
"The potential of digital broadcasting provides an opportunity to look again, in consultation with the industry, at how best to address these problems. We intend now to initiate discussions on this issue with relevant broadcasting companies. Should any viable solutions emerge, we will consult members of Parliament and local communities in the areas affected about whether changes to services to resolve the problem would have the backing of the local population."
Since we published that White Paper, some discussions have taken place. I shall touch on them later. As my hon. Friend said, technically solutions exist; it needs a political will to make them happen. I assure him that that political will is there. He made a number of suggestions to drive the take-up of digital. I assure him that we have taken them all on board and they will form part of our deliberations when we publish a draft Bill, which I hope will be in the summer. The response to the consultation process has been very valuable. We recognise how important the issue is. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) mentioned an opportunity that he thought had been missed in the 1990 legislation. It is a complicated area, and that is one reason why the Government intend to publish a draft Bill.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) raised a number of issues, which I shall try to address. I agree with him about S4C; it certainly is a jewel in the crown. He referred to a recent series of animated tales from around the world. I believe that they were broadcast in conjunction with Channel 4. I had the pleasure of helping to launch that initiative, and I remember saying at the time that it would not have
44WH
happened without public service broadcasting. I am very well aware of the contribution of S4C to diversity and access.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) mentioned the important contribution to her constituency by ONdigital, which employs around 1,400 people there. That is another example of the jobs that can be created by that means. The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) and the hon. Member for Ryedale emphasised an important point: there are no political differences. We must use this digital revolution. We are united about the need to drive its take-up because it will mean more choice, better quality and a more efficient use of the spectrum.
The hon. Member for Lewes mentioned in particular ITV and the move towards one ITV company and expressed the hope that that would not diminish regional coverage or regional programming which is perhaps even more important. I remind him that ITV was born in the regions. I am confident that that will not happen. I speak as the Member of Parliament for a north-west constituency and we in the north-west are proud of Granada. He also mentioned digital radio. That is much further down the road. I hope that as the price of digital radio comes down, more people will take it up. There were some reasonable ones on offer last Christmas. We are hopeful that the same will happen this Christmas and encourage more people to buy them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) also spoke about the contribution of ONdigital in her constituency. There are 800 jobs now, increasing to 1,100. She also mentioned the better quality programming that was available and the proliferation of channels. That is one good reason why public service broadcasting will be so important in this digital revolution. She also mentioned access to the internet, which I will touch on in a minute.
The hon. Member for Ryedale is much more knowledgeable about these issues than I am. He has a background in broadcasting. He emphasised the need to encourage free-to-air development and said that digital terrestrial would be the platform that would drive that. I could not agree with him more. I am grateful to him for his support on this. I can reassure him that the whole intention of the White Paper was to produce lighter regulation in order to ensure a dynamic market and protect services for the consumer. We understand the importance of that.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk was particularly concerned about those viewers in his constituency who cannot receive the appropriate regional service for their area. Although the priority in utilising limited spectrum is to ensure that as many viewers as possible can receive a service, the provision of correct regional services was also an important issue for the BBC and the Independent Television Commission in developing the present analogue transmitter network and we very much hope that the position can be improved with digital broadcasting. We recognise that there are problem areas where typically local news and features and other regional variations are not available to viewers, and we fully appreciate the frustration that that can cause. We hope that the development of digital television will offer some solutions.

45WH
In our White Paper, "A New Future for Communications", which we published last December, we emphasised our commitment to the provision of regional programming. We fully recognise the important part that regional programming plays in identifying and reflecting the concerns and interests of local communities and we also believe regional programming to be a vital element of public service broadcasting in the UK and that viewers should be able, wherever possible, to receive the regional programming intended for their community.
Digital technology has the potential to provide a fresh opportunity to consider how best to resolve the problem of regional anomalies. We hope that that can be achieved before the full switchover to digital broadcasting. We have already initiated some discussions within the broadcasting industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), who, sadly, is unable to be here today, has also been quite determined in his pursuit of that issue on behalf of his constituents.
Since the communications White Paper was published, ITV has announced that it has secured transponders on an Astra satellite that will provide enough capacity to enable it to provide 16 regional ITV services. I understand that a number of technical issues are still to be resolved and that ITV hopes to launch its services on satellite by the end of this year. Of course, we recognise that viewers who do not have digital satellite receivers may face additional costs, but it is an encouraging development and will be an important step towards increasing access to the correct regional services in problem areas.
We are also keen to find digital terrestrial solutions to regional anomalies. For example, it may be possible to take advantage of the fact that digital technology enables multiple broadcast services to be carried simultaneously on a single frequency channel. In theory, some digital transmitters might broadcast more than one regional service—one appropriate to the transmitter's location and an out-of-area service to resolve a regional anomaly. It is still not an easy technical option. In particular, it would require sufficient digital capacity to accommodate additional programme services on multiplexes that are already full. It remains one of the possibilities being explored.
Several hon. Members stressed the need to drive the take-up of digital. I assure them that the Government are similarly gripped by the need to do so. We are working with the broadcasting industry on a number of fronts to develop digital television in the UK. Work is under way to equalise coverage across all six digital terrestrial multiplexes, which aims to increase the core coverage to 73 per cent. of the UK population.
The Government are also working with the ITC, the BBC and the broadcasting industry on how to extend digital television services further to achieve the best possible coverage and reception. To that end, the Government recently wrote to digital broadcasters, seeking their commitment to plans to double the power of digital signals on eight key transmitters. The plans were developed by the ITC and will improve the signal quality, giving more homes access to terrestrial free-to-air and subscription services. That announcement will be widely welcomed by hon. Members who have spoken about the issue today.
46WH
On consumer issues, we are aware of viewers' concerns about switchover to digital television and we need to ensure that consumers are made fully aware of all aspects of digital television, especially to enable them to make informed decisions about purchasing equipment and services. We have been working closely with broadcasters, manufacturers, retailers and consumer groups to ensure that viewers receive accurate and sensible information and that misconceptions are corrected promptly. A set of clear and simple messages has been agreed, which can be used to promote and encourage take-up. Broadcasters have launched information leaflets on free-to-air digital television, which are available to consumers from electrical retail outlets and from broadcasters.
The problems of people who live in blocks of flats with a communal aerial have been mentioned. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I were aware of the problem some time ago. It is interesting to note that 20 per cent. of the population live in such housing. My officials are in discussions with the Local Government Association, the Housing Corporation, the National Housing Federation, the ITC and other Departments to ensure that landlords and tenants are informed about the options for receiving digital television. Local authorities have an important role to play. Some are more advanced in that respect than others. We continue to liaise with the Local Government Association to do whatever we can to drive that agenda forward.
The Government are particularly keen to ensure that consumers can shop for digital television sets with confidence and are not misled into buying sets with digital features such as digital sound, under the mistaken impression that they are actually getting a digital television. Following discussions with television manufacturers, retailers and broadcasters it was agreed to promote the DVB—digital video broadcasting—logo as a means of identifying televisions that can genuinely receive digital transmissions.
UK manufacturers and retailers are also working together to ensure that all new digital televisions carry the logo, and that sales staff are trained to understand and explain the advantages and differences of digital televisions over both analogue and so-called "digital ready" sets. The Government announced this initiative on 27 March. Since then, the DVB logo has been given wider promotion on the ITV network.
The Govt also recently announced plans for a programme providing a series of neighbourhoods located across the country with free conversion to digital television. Our aim is to help both Government and industry to understand better the practical and social issues that people face in deciding whether to switch from their existing analogue to digital television. We expect that the first digital neighbourhood will be identified in the next two months and actioned in the next six months. One important part is that people in the pilot areas will also be able to use their television set to access interactive internet services, including learning and shopping, and send and receive e-mail—
Mr. John Cummings (in the Chair): Order. We must move on to the next debate.

Electronics (Northern Ireland)
12.30 pm
Mr. William Ross: It is sad when Ministers are cut off in full flow, just when they are getting to the bits and pieces that some hon. Members find interesting, but perhaps the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting will complete her speech elsewhere, so that we can hear about the exact long-term effects of digital television.
Similar to digital broadcasting is the future of Northern Ireland's electronics manufacturing industry, and I am grateful for the opportunity to debate it, although somewhat surprised. I am sure that this debate has been allowed only because of the United Kingdom-wide implications of what is happening in the electronics industry in Northern Ireland and the unemployment issues associated with it in Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK and throughout the world.
The subject is of particular concern to my constituents because of the recent announcement of job losses at the AVX plant in Coleraine. Some 95 people were laid off a month ago, and it is feared that 150 more will lose their jobs in the near future—protective notices have been issued. As the Minister will know, the presence of AVX in Coleraine is vital for the town, because the firm employs around 1,300 people, many of whom are highly skilled and educated people. If AVX and other electronic manufacturing companies are to hold on to their most talented workers and attract other equally talented individuals, stability in the industry is essential. Unfortunately, that stability has been lacking recently.
The problems at AVX are far from unique in Northern Ireland. Earlier this month, Valence Technologies announced that it would be laying off 181 workers at its plant in Mallusk. Redundancies have been announced at Leaf Technologies in Newtownabbey, and it has emerged that 270 jobs are to go at the Nortel plant in Monkstown. Additionally, Nortel announced a total of 20,000 job losses at its plants across the world. That unfortunate statistic demonstrates the crux of the problem—the volatility of the global market in electronic components. Some hon. Members who can remember the 1960s will recall Northern Ireland putting many of its eggs in the basket of man-made fibres. They were all quickly broken, and we do not want the same situation to arise.
When one hears of job losses on that scale in other industries, one might be forgiven for concluding that the industry in question is in terminal decline, but that is not the case in the electronics manufacturing industry. We are living in the electronic age and demand for products made by companies such as AVX—miniature electronic components for mobile phones and computers, for example—is still high throughout the world. Despite that, the industry is going through a difficult period. As I said, the market is volatile, and that has been demonstrated most graphically recently by the continuing fall in stocks in global technology and telecommunications. So, what can be done to introduce a measure of greater stability for the work force, product lines and sales of such companies?
Since devolution was restored to Northern Ireland, we have been fortunate to have Sir Reg Empey as Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. That role
48WH
fits his talents especially well, and he has been the deserving recipient of quite a lot of praise from all quarters for his efforts on behalf of every shade of opinion in the Province.
As soon as I was informed of the first tranche of job losses at AVX, I contacted Sir Reg to discuss the problems at the plant, and we have kept in close contact since then. However, as the difficulties are far from unique to the Province, I thought that it would also be useful to seek the views of a Northern Ireland Office Minister, who could outline thoughts about the problems of the electronics industry from a Government perspective.
AVX has been in Coleraine for quite a long time. Its ownership has changed more than once, but the management is excellent and comprises high-quality people, who are working hard with trade union representatives to explore every available option to reduce costs and safeguard jobs. The honest and open nature of those discussions is to be commended and can only help to maintain the unity of purpose between management and workers at the plant. In the longer term, management and workers at AVX should be confident of an upturn in the company's fortunes.
As I said, the industry is volatile: there have been considerable increases in employment followed by quick drops, which is what concerns workers more than anything. However, AVX is well known for its commitment to new products and it has a portfolio of high-calibre customers throughout the world. With a well-focused marketing campaign, the firm will, in time, be able to combat the difficulties in the global market and resume its growth with corresponding and, I hope, long-term employment prospects for even more people in the Coleraine area.
To speed that process, Government assistance is required. The Northern Ireland Executive will play their part, and Sir Reg Empey is already doing what he can, but what on earth are the Government doing? Although these matters are devolved, the Government cannot escape some measure of responsibility throughout the United Kingdom.
As the Minister well knows, there is a large number of electronics manufacturing plants in Great Britain, and I am sure that the Government are as concerned as I am about the state of the global market and the on-going consequences of that. The number of redundancies announced in recent months in the electronics industry in Northern Ireland totals about 1,000, and I am told that that would be the equivalent of 30,000 lay-offs in the electronics industry in Great Britain. That statistic puts the impact of the problem in the Province into perspective. Many jobs are involved in the electronics industry, which is a growth industry. It has expanded extremely rapidly during recent years, and I believe that it will go on expanding, but we do not like to see downturns.
The latest especially vivid demonstration of the poor state of the global market came on Friday, when Ericsson, the Swedish-based telecommunications company, announced that 12,000 staff would be made redundant. That brings the total number of job losses in the global telecommunications industry in the past 10 weeks to more than 100,000—an astonishing and horrifying number. Mr. Kurt Hellstrom, Ericsson's chief executive, said on Friday that we were witnessing

49WH
"the fastest dive in the industry that we have ever seen."
The number of redundancies certainly confirms that.
The global downturn seems to have come about because of a number of factors. There is a fear of recession in the United States of America, and it is sometimes perception rather than the actuality that matters. That fear has, in turn, adversely affected markets in Asia and, with that, orders for companies such as AVX, because all purchasers of the relevant materials are looking some months ahead. As we all know, however, they sometimes get things wrong rather than right.
The events at Ericsson have demonstrated the particular problem with the mobile phone market. The explosion in sales of mobile phones seems to be over, at least for the moment, and the recent announcement by the largest UK network providers that the cost of calls is going up underlines the fact. We are all aware of concerns about the colossal amounts paid by such companies for licences to provide third generation services, when no one is sure whether there will be sufficient demand for them. It is the third generation of mobile telecommunications that would have provided the market for the electronic components that were mentioned.
The global computer market is also in a particularly difficult state with sales of personal computers also on a slide. Such developments have a huge impact on the fortunes of companies such as AVX. However, my experience of PCs is that as soon as one is bought and taken out of the box, it becomes obsolete and one has to start thinking about buying the next one, so the slide is unlikely to continue for long. The pressures to buy a new computer system will continue and the sector will soon experience an upturn.
During recent weeks, I have been in contact with several people at AVX—mainly people working on the shop floor, whose opinions I wanted to ascertain. As can readily be imagined, morale is low at the moment. I encountered one young man who recently got engaged. He had obtained his degree in England and returned home to Coleraine to work at AVX. He thought that he had a long-term job, but sadly soon found himself in a position where he had to return to Great Britain to find a decent job to provide a living for his fiancée, himself and, hopefully, his children in the not too distant future.
Such an eventuality is a great loss to Coleraine and to Northern Ireland as a whole because we want to keep highly skilled graduates in the Province. Education is important for people to gain the technological skills that they need at their fingertips. Northern Ireland's manufacturing industry and the long-term prospects of the Province depend on it. It is a shame when people such as this young man—there are many more like him—leave their local areas in Northern Ireland.
The brain drain from the Province to more distant parts has thankfully been stemmed in recent years and I hope that that will continue as manufacturing industry develops and more young people stay at home and find employment in industries with good prospects of expansion. Sadly, the uncertainty over long-term job prospects—at AVX, for example—will do little to help the problem or to encourage people to establish roots in their home territories and stay there.
50WH
At the weekend, I was quoted in the local media as saying that AVX is the jewel in Coleraine's crown. That was underlined recently when the company was presented with the Queen's award for enterprise for its success in international trade. It is a successful company with many highly skilled workers. I want to see its success continue and I hope that the Government will play their part in helping AVX to maintain its remarkable achievements in the future. For that to happen, the work force must be able to look ahead with anticipation rather than dread. I therefore hope that the Minister will today have something positive to say to me and to the workers and people of Northern Ireland.
12.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): I congratulate the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) on his good fortune in securing a debate on this important subject. I share his surprise that the debate was allowed, but it is important to have the opportunity to debate the UK-wide economy, even though there are important regional differences that are rightly reflected through the workings of devolution.
It is also important to place on record the healthy performance of the Northern Ireland economy in recent years. I am not saying that there are not still problems—I will address those in a moment—but all the key indicators point to a healthy economy, consistently outperforming other regions of the United Kingdom and competing successfully with other European countries. Northern Ireland has enjoyed a good rate of economic growth during the past 10 years and, with an unemployment figure of 5.9 per cent., compares favourably with other parts of the European Union. The high unemployment of the years of the troubles is thankfully now receding, although it is apparent, as the hon. Gentleman made clear in his speech, that there are still problems that must be overcome.
Northern Ireland has benefited during the past few years and particularly during the life of this Parliament, and that is well illustrated by the confidence that has been shown by companies that are investing in Northern Ireland. More than £2 billion in investment was announced or promised by companies in Northern Ireland between 1996–97 and 1999–2000, of which some £500 million was inward investment. The hon. Gentleman raised the problems of AVX in his constituency. That example shows that the economy in Northern Ireland is not immune from outside events, although in macro-economic terms there is a good story to tell. Electronics and technology companies in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, have been affected by the worldwide slowdown in the economy, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Foot and mouth disease and BSE have affected Northern Ireland's agriculture, tourism and related industries. Dealing with those difficult problems is now primarily a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly and I am confident that Northern Ireland Ministers will continue to build up the strong and competitive economy that exists in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman asked what the Government are willing to do to help the Executive and Ministers in their efforts on that front. We have been, and will continue to

51WH
be, helpful in several areas, mainly to do with the general manner in which the macro-economy is managed. For example, it is important that the success that Northern Ireland and other parts of the UK have enjoyed is allowed to continue. That means building a strong and competitive economy to enable companies in the UK to compete around the world and, of course, with other European countries. A key to that is low interest rates and inflation. The Government and the Chancellor have been successful in that area, particularly in terms of controlling inflation, and it is our intention to continue to do that.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has been present throughout the debate. He is the First Minister, and I believe that he will accept entirely that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Minister of State and I are willing, available and more than happy to help Ministers in the devolved Administration. We remain willing to raise specific issues on behalf of the Executive within Whitehall.
I regret that I cannot respond directly to the hon. Gentleman's specific points on the electronic manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland, as responsibility for economic matters in Northern Ireland now rests in the very capable hands of the Northern Ireland Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Sir Reg Empey. The matters raised by the hon. Gentleman are therefore no longer a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
We are, of course, happy to work alongside Sir Reg Empey and other Ministers to address the points raised during today's debate. It is appropriate that when we pass on the points that have been made today to Sir Reg, we also pass on the House's good wishes for his continued success in building up Northern Ireland's economy. Such a relationship already exists between hon. Members present here today and that work is continuing. Although it is a devolved issue, the key principle is that we are willing to be as helpful and accommodating as possible with Ministers in the devolved Administration.
12.51 pm
Sitting suspended.

Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham
1 pm
Mr. Steve McCabe: I begin by acknowledging that there is a problem and a need to make a decision about the future of transplant facilities in this country. There has been a reduction in the number of transplants, largely because fewer organs are available as medical advances and road safety measures reduce the number of early deaths, something for which we should all be grateful. The Royal College of Surgeons was right to draw attention to the number of doctors who should be employed in transplant units, their work load, and the need to ensure that their skills are used on a regular basis.
The present size of units is based on historical accident, and to a large extent on the contract culture that was a dominant feature of the previous Government's approach to the NHS. In the early 1990s, the Department of Health recognised that there was a problem and envisaged evening out the size of units over time. Sadly, it never introduced mechanisms for achieving that, hence the situation in which we find ourselves today.
I regret to say that there is a strong feeling in Birmingham and the west midlands that the current National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group's proposals, which pose such a threat to Birmingham, represent smash and grab opportunism by the established players in London and the south-east. As I have said, I recognise that the number of available organs is an issue. The Government recognise that even if their 10 per cent. target to increase donors is achieved, it will result in only about 30 additional transplants nationally per year.
There can be little argument that there is a need to examine where transplant resources are located and how they are used. We need to do everything in our power to increase the potential for organ donation and I welcome the Government's moves in that direction. We also need to ensure that any review treats different parts of the country equally, and takes account of issues such as geography, existing health factors per region and access to treatment. I do not accept that a fair review can simply focus on the traditional claims of established units in London and the south-east.
Birmingham has a strong demographic and institutional argument for retaining its transplant facilities. Our centre is sited in one of the largest conurbations in the United Kingdom. We already have an institution with excellent organ transplant infrastructure. The unit recently completed its 250th heart transplant and its 2,000th liver transplant. The unit has surgeons such as Robert Bonser, Tim Graham, Ian Wilson and Bruce Keogh, and cardiologists such as Sarah Thorne. We have first-rate people of whom we can be really proud. There is so much to be optimistic about in terms of the NHS in Birmingham.
Mr. Richard Burden: Looking to the future for Birmingham, a new hospital has been announced, which will be a great addition. On a shorter time scale, there will be a new cardiac unit, which also promises to be a great addition to the Queen

53WH
Elizabeth-Selly Oak complex. The opening of that unit is a further reason for keeping the transplant facilities in Birmingham.
Mr. McCabe: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We have an excellent new cancer unit and several leading cancer experts. As he says, a new, 33-bed cardiac surgery critical care unit will open, on schedule, in about eight weeks, which I understand will be the largest in Europe. The university hospital trust also received strong encouragement to establish what is only the second adult congenital heart disease programme in the country. Adult survivors of congenital heart disease are, as I am sure you are aware, Mr. Cummings, extremely likely to require transplants later in life, yet, astonishingly, after encouragement was given for the setting up of the programme, the NSCAG proposals would mean, if not the removal of the surgical arm, at least amputation of all but a stump. They would severely reduce a key area of potential treatment.
Birmingham, with all that it has to offer, is considered the right environment to host a centre for defence medicine for the men and women of our armed services. It may be the right place to treat them, but it will not be the place to go if one needs a heart or lung transplant.
Mr. Paul Keetch: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining the debate. He mentioned heart and lung transplants and he will know that the excellent centre in Birmingham covers not only the metropolitan west midlands but the rural parts of my constituency, and extends into Wales. It is a very large area. My constituent, Keri Davies, who is 47 years old, has been waiting three years for a heart and lung transplant. The additional stress of thinking that the unit might be closed has worsened his condition. Indeed, he was taken to hospital in Hereford last night. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must respond urgently and that as soon as possible they should decide to keep Birmingham going?
Mr. McCabe: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's comments and I see real urgency in the situation.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently gave the go-ahead for the building of Birmingham's first new hospital since 1938, for which we are all extremely grateful, but if NSCAG gets its way we shall be building a brand new hospital denuded of a key treatment facility. That will mean that patients from the midlands, Wales and the surrounding area, such as the constituent of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) who require transplant surgery, will have to travel weekly to Harefield or Papworth, two of the least accessible hospitals in the country. In some cases, the travelling time will be so long that it will deny people the chance of a transplant even if a suitable organ becomes available.
One of the strangest things about the NSCAG proposals is that not only do considerations of geography, access and travel appear to have been ignored in their preparation, but most other aspects of transplant activity also seem to have been discounted. Those include assessment, donor ret retrieval and early and late follow-up activities. In fact, the proposals appear to show bias in favour of the status quo and they are heavily weighted in favour of stand-alone units rather than units that are part of a multidisciplinary service.
54WH
That seems to be rather at odds with all recent advice, and contrary to the philosophy that we are encouraging elsewhere in the health service.
I do not know whether the Minister can help, but I find it difficult to explain to my constituents that the review has been fair and serious when those involved seem to have ignored any significant reappraisal of donor zones. If, for example, we were to increase Birmingham's area of activity to incorporate the east midlands, the Cardiff-Newport area of south Wales, Bristol and Oxford, we could change the donor catchment area and preserve the Birmingham unit. I am not trying to pit one unit against another. A proposal like this would result in a reduction in Papworth's influence in the east midlands, but that could easily be compensated for by a similar boundary review in the south.
As I said earlier, I agree that the Royal College of Surgeons was right to draw attention to the number of surgeons needed for each unit and the volume of work for each unit, but is it seriously being suggested that the only way to address such issues is to close down a highly successful solid organ transplant unit, which serves 6 million to 7 million people? Has no one ever heard of tele-medicine or video conferencing? Is it impossible for highly trained surgeons, whose skills we want to protect, develop and enhance, to travel occasionally to another hospital to perform or assist in a transplant operation? After all, the NSCAG proposals envisage sick people travelling hundreds of miles every week to obtain essential treatment. Would not such an approach be more in keeping with the spirit of partnership and co-operation—rather than competition—that we want to encourage in the health service?
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing a debate on this important issue. My point relates to his argument about organ donation zones. The reduction in the number of transplant centres, which would effectively do away with a transplant centre for a population of 6 million to 7 million, can be compared to leaving Denmark without a heart transplant centre. Is it not also inextricably linked with the number of intensive care beds, because keeping organs ready for transplant becomes much more complicated as the number of transplant centres is reduced? That is an important consideration.
Mr. McCabe: I emphasise the point that has been made about the catchment areas for donor harvesting, which was borne out by the report of the Royal College of Surgeons. It is also important to acknowledge that the work load of a cardiothoracic surgeon is only a fraction of his or her total operative commitment—they do plenty of other work. None the less, it is a key sub-specialty, and a decision to rob Birmingham of such facilities will mean that we will lose highly qualified staff and have trouble attracting others. It will also have an unwelcome impact on the successful collaboration between the hospital and the nearby medical school.
The directors of the transplant programmes at Birmingham, Manchester and Sheffield are all on public record as stating that, if given the go-ahead, the proposals will lead to deteriorating rather than improved patient access, particularly for the patients of the mid-north, midlands, south Wales and the south-west.

55WH
There is a solution, which many more people than the 15 members of NSCAG are now proposing, and that is to agree to five units and adjust the catchment or harvest donor areas so that there is more equal distribution. That was originally envisaged as long ago as 1992, and it is perhaps regrettable that the then Government did not act when the problem was identified. That solution would also allow all the retained units to achieve the optimum annual number of transplants—about 50. It would also address problems relating to travelling, retain a wide spread of surgical skill across the country, and show those of us who do not live in London or the south-east that the people who manage and advise on the health service take our needs into account, as well as the views of the old-boy network, with its contempt for those of us who live north of Watford.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to raise this matter on behalf of the people of Birmingham and my Birmingham and west midlands parliamentary colleagues. I ask the Minister to try to ensure that the full extent of the Birmingham situation is understood when the matter is finally decided on, and that the arguments in favour of five centres are seriously considered before a decision is taken. I also ask her to support the request made by Birmingham Members to meet with the Secretary of State so that we can put our case directly to him.
1.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) on securing the debate. As I am sure that he is aware, this is the third debate in this place on the future of the national cardiothoracic transplant service. We have already had debates on the centres in Sheffield and Manchester. My hon. Friend is right to point to the strengths of the case for his own area. We have had representations from Yorkshire and Manchester Members, in particular from those in whose constituencies the services are situated. We have also received extensive representations concerning the Birmingham centre from Birmingham Members, including those in the Chamber this afternoon—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), and my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden).
The debate concerns the future of organ transplants at the Queen Elizabeth hospital, and it is worth reminding hon. Members that the hospital provides three important organ transplant services. My hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green was right to refer to the renowned liver transplant unit, which, on 7 July in Birmingham, will celebrate its 2,000th liver transplant. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate Professor Paul McMaster and his team on an outstanding achievement that we all applaud. We all wish the liver transplant team well for what should be a wonderful day. The Queen Elizabeth hospital also has an important renal transplant unit, which we hope to see expanding as a result of the overall reorganisation of the organ transplant services.
56WH
My hon. Friend made it clear that the debate is about the cardiothoracic transplant service. It is also worth making it clear that the debate concerns cardiothoracic transplants rather than the wider issues around cardiac care. The cardiac unit at the Queen Elizabeth hospital already has a distinguished record of research into heart failure and is recognised for its work in aortic aneurysm surgery. A new £13 million expansion of the cardiac unit at the hospital is due to open in a matter of weeks. That will enable the unit to perform an additional 450 cardiac operations, which will help it to meet the priority targets set out in the national service framework for coronary heart disease. The cardiac unit will build on its many strengths and continue to be at the forefront of developments in the treatment of cardiac disease. There will be further opportunities to develop and expand cardiac services when the recently announced £291 million replacement for the Queen Elizabeth hospital is built in a few years' time.
My hon. Friend concentrated on the issues relating to the future of cardiothoracic transplants. That is a very specific area about which there has been considerable debate and discussion, over a long period. That discussion stems from a problem with organ donation by younger people. As I have made clear in previous debates, the Government have restated their commitment to do everything possible to maximise organ and tissue donation and to maintain the very high standards of our organ transplant services. The Secretary of State spelt out that commitment at an organ and tissue donation summit on 27 February, at which he announced an NHS action plan intended to double the number of people on the organ donor register by no later than 2010, and to double the number of kidney transplants by 2005.
We must also recognise that there is a longer-term underlying problem of organ donation which we must address. Improvements in road safety and prevention of strokes in younger people are important health gains and are to be welcomed. For example, between 1990 and 1999, deaths from road accidents in people aged 16 to 59, which is the usual age for heart and lung donation, fell by almost 40 per cent. That is clearly good news, but it has an impact on organ donation. In the past five years, organ donors under 60 have fallen by 15 per cent. That fall could have been greater were it not for the dedication of staff in intensive care units and the efforts of intensive care specialists, transplant co-ordinators and transplant teams in identifying and using available donors.
Mr. Keetch: I appreciate that the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), cannot create organs for transplant out of nowhere, but are the Government giving any consideration to adopting the French system, whereby people must opt out of organ donation and there is a presumption of donation if one is tragically killed? Surely that would alleviate the problem overnight.
Yvette Cooper: The Government have considered a wide range of possibilities to increase organ donation, including at the recent summit to which I referred earlier. I am informed by my hon. Friend the Under-

57WH
Secretary that there have been some problems with the French model. I am not aware of the details, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on that matter.
The fall in younger organ donors has meant a year-on-year reduction in the number of cardiothoracic transplants. Cardiothoracic transplantation has been designated as a national service since 1986. By 1991, there were seven adult centres in England, and the intention was to ensure that each centre performed at least 50 transplants a year. That followed a major expansion of the service in the late 1980s, which was built on the belief that the number of organs would continue to increase. Four new adult cardiothoracic transplant centres were designated at that time.
The Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham is one of those centres. Last year, it performed 21 of the 290 heart, heart and lung and lung transplants performed in the seven English adult cardiothoracic transplant centres. One of the other new centres was St. George's hospital in London, which carried out 10 transplants before its programme was suspended following a run of poor results. The St. George's programme is the subject of an investigation by the Commission for Health Improvement. The other two new centres are the Wythenshawe hospital in Manchester and the Northern General hospital in Sheffield. The three original centres were Papworth hospital in Cambridge, the Freeman hospital in Newcastle and Harefield hospital in Middlesex. Those three hospitals already perform more than 50 transplants a year. The work to increase organ donation could lead to an additional 30 transplants a year, but even with that increase, there is little prospect that all seven adult centres could ever reach the original target of 50 transplants each a year.
When considering how to modernise transplant services, we accepted the recommendation of the Royal College of Surgeons on minimum staffing levels for transplant units. That is an extremely important factor. Because so much organ transplantation takes place at night or over the weekend, the Royal College of Surgeons recommended that surgeons should not be on call out of normal working hours more often than one day in four. That requires a minimum team of five surgeons. At the time of the report, only two of the seven centres had at least five transplant surgeons. If those surgeons are not able to perform enough transplants each year, it will be more difficult for them to maintain the necessary skills. If the current situation continues, there is a risk that members of transplant teams will begin to lose their skills and standards will fall. For the sake of current and future patients, we must ensure that each transplant team is well staffed, has access to all the support it needs and performs enough operations to maintain a high level of skill in all the members of the team. Patients who undergo such complex treatment as a heart transplant need to be reassured that their surgeons have the up-to-date skills and experience to treat them effectively. I should make it clear to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) that this is a debate about skills and staffing—that is why the reforms have been proposed—not a debate about intensive care.
Mrs. Spelman: However, the availability of intensive care beds is absolutely critical to any transplant
58WH
programme. It is one of the major reasons why there is concern about ability to reach transplant targets, particularly in relation to renal transplant.
Yvette Cooper: The hon. Lady is right to say that intensive care provision is critical in order to maintain, if not increase, the numbers of donors. That is one of the reasons why we have increased the provision of intensive care. However, that does not affect decisions about the services, the appropriate configuration of services based on skills and staffing recommendations, and the need to maintain the appropriate level of skills among all those who are carrying out such complex operations.
The NSCAG is responsible for advising on which services should be provided nationally. The group has considered the impact of those factors and last year recommended that the national cardiothoracic transplant should be delivered in future from only four centres in England, which would allow each unit the optimum infrastructure to support a programme of about 50 heart transplants. Each surgeon would then be able to perform, on average, 10 heart transplants a year. That size of programme would maintain the skills of the whole multidisciplinary team and ensure that organ retrieval teams were available to retrieve and use all suitable organs. The NSCAG also recommended that, to minimise disruption to existing services, the two units that already have sufficient surgical staff—Papworth hospital in Cambridge and the Freeman hospital in Newcastle—should remain designated, that the transplant services based in London should be consolidated into a single centre and, finally, that a fourth national centre should be created by merging the three smaller transplant programmes provided by the Birmingham, Manchester and Sheffield centres. Those recommendations are fully supported by many organisations, including the Royal College of Surgeons, the cardiothoracic transplant advisory group of UK Transplant, and Dr Roger Boyle, the director for heart services.
On the basis of the evidence that we have been given, the Government have agreed that the principles are right and that this reconfiguration of the service is necessary if we are to maintain the high quality of one of the best cardiothoracic transplant services in the world.
The decision still has to be made about the site of the fourth national centre, and we recognise the need to make it as early as possible to remove uncertainty. However, it is also critical that we take the right decision, which means ensuring that it is made on the best available evidence. We have asked for a detailed study of the three sites to assess the impact of a large team on the capacity of centres, to look at the potential capacity, and to assess other factors, such as access to patients, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green mentioned as being so important. We are waiting for the final assessment to be submitted and we shall issue a document setting out proposals to inform the public and to seek comments. I assure my hon. Friends and other hon. Members that there will be opportunities for them to make further, more detailed representations when those proposals are put forward. During that process, we shall aim to keep the disruption of patients and transplant teams to the minimum. Patients on the waiting list will, wherever possible, be treated by the

59WH
team that they know. We shall support patients as much as possible through any transitions that need to take place.
It is a difficult decision. My hon. Friend asked if I would pass on requests for a meeting with the Secretary of State. I shall certainly do that and get back to him.
Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend respond to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) that the Government look at the possibility of retaining five centres, given the fact that the Government are intending or attempting to increase the numbers of heart transplants in the future?
Yvette Cooper: The assessment that has been made already has been done on the best available evidence. It has also taken account of the potential and our determination to expand the number of organ transplants. The recommendation was made to us, and we have accepted its principles. My hon. Friend and other Birmingham Members will have the opportunity to make further representations when the detailed proposals are drawn up, and I hope that, once the decisions are made and we are able to proceed, as much as possible will be done by all the trusts and centres involved to minimise any difficulties that may arise.
Mr. John Cummings (in the Chair): Order. I regret that we must move on.

Oxted and Limpsfield War Memorial Hospital
1.30 pm
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I listened with interest to the previous debate about the problems of the health service in Birmingham. I have secured a debate on an issue that affects far fewer people, but is none the less creating acute anxiety in my constituency. I am grateful for the opportunity to return to the subject of Oxted and Limpsfield War Memorial hospital, which was last debated in the House on 1 July 1998, although I very much regret the need to raise the matter again.
The Minister will no doubt have read her brief on the issue, and will be aware of the hospital's history. She will be aware that it was the last war memorial hospital built in England, and that it was established by means of public subscription. The plaque at the entrance to the hospital was inscribed:
"This hospital commemorates the men and women of Oxted and Limpsfield who in the Great War 1914–1918 gave faithful service to God, King and Country. To the living, our thanks, to the Dead our unceasing remembrance."
Those are emotive words, which are not to be lightly dismissed. Of equal importance are the service that has been offered to generations of local people, who benefited from the presence of the hospital in their community, and the wonderful work of its staff since 1937.
When I last called a debate in Parliament on the future of Oxted hospital, in July 1998, the position was bleak. Despite the Government's welcome promise to devote resources to the provision of high-quality local community hospitals, Oxted hospital was known to be in a state of physical disrepair. It had been the victim of dither and delay over the implementation of a redevelopment scheme, which had been announced by the then Minister of State, who is now the Secretary of State, in September 1997. I dealt then with the events leading up to this unsatisfactory state of affairs. My purpose today is to address what has happened since, and to provide the Minister with an opportunity to answer questions about what will happen next.
If the situation was bleak three years ago, it is now grim. This is a story of broken deadlines, broken promises and broken hopes. Let me remind the Under-Secretary of what the then Minister of State said on 1 July 1998. He said:
"When I made my decision to approve the proposals by East Surrey health authority for the re-provision of Oxted hospital, I did so on two firm conditions, and I expect those conditions to be fulfilled in full. The first was that a viable private sector nursing home partner could be found; the second that adequate provision should be made at East Surrey hospital in Redhill to absorb the likely number of elderly patients being admitted there from the Oxted area."—[Official Report, 1 July 1998; Vol. 315, c. 334.]
The deadline for meeting those conditions, originally December 1997, was later extended to May 1998. It is now three years since that deadline expired, and I would be grateful if the Minister would state today whether there is any deadline in place at all, and, if so, whether it will mean any more than previous deadlines set on the matter by this Government.

61WH
On 10 September 1999, the Minister wrote to me, saying:
"Our clear view is that it is now a matter for the local NHS to implement the agreed plan."
However, it has failed to do so and, despite her attempt to shrug the matter off, it has again become something to which Ministers must give their full attention. What can she say about the present state of negotiations with a private sector nursing home partner? In her letter to me of 27 March this year, she said:
"I am advised that officials at the South East Regional Office of the NHS Executive are working closely with the Trust to ensure that the full business case for the new development should be received by June. It is anticipated that building work on the new site would hopefully start before the end of this year."
Is the Minister still confident that a business case will be put in place by June? When does she think that the trust will be in a position to sign a contract with a nursing home partner? Will the Under-Secretary confirm that she remains hopeful that the building work on the new hospital will start this year? Will she give a categoric assurance that the Government remain committed to a replacement hospital in Oxted? That question must be asked because, as the Under-Secretary will know, the worst fears of many were confirmed on 6 February when the chief executive of the Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS trust suddenly announced that the hospital was to close without consultation. The reasons given were dilapidation and the safety of staff and patients. It was known eight years ago that the buildings were in poor repair. For eight years, local people have worried that, without major refurbishment or redevelopment, they would be left with nothing. I have to tell the Minister that the nothing option is not remotely acceptable to my constituents, who look to the Government to fulfil the promises that have been made.
Matters have not been helped by the management or financial position of the NHS trust itself. In 1998, the Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS trust was labouring under a deficit of some £4 million. Three years and three chief executives later, the deficit has grown to nearer £10 million. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm the current figure in her concluding remarks.
Without doubt, the appalling finances of the trust have been made worse by the extraordinary decision, announced a few weeks ago, to suspend the proposed merger of health services provided at Crawley and Redhill. It is difficult not to regard that decision, which is contrary to clinical advice and financial common sense, as anything other than a political scam. I will not go into that today, but I mention it because it places a further unexpected burden on an NHS trust that is already saddled with mounting debts, unacceptable waiting times and obligations that it is struggling to meet.
If the trust did itself no favours by announcing the closure in the absence of any positive news about the hospital's future, it compounded its reputation for poor judgment by attempting, against advice, to hold a public meeting to discuss its decision in the hospital building. Nothing could better illustrate how the trust so completely underestimated the passions that the plight
62WH
of our local hospital have aroused. I leave the description of the meeting to Mr. Mike Moss, editor of The Voice, the journal of the Tandridge Voluntary Service Council. He wrote:
"The meeting was held in one of the wards, which, as anyone who knows the hospital could have predicted, was totally unsuitable, being small with glass half walls part way down the ward which effectively acted as baffles to prevent speech being heard. As well as these shortcomings, a microphone system was unavailable. The Chairman attempted to open the meeting but was howled down by those who couldn't hear what she was saying and by others who wished to make their own points.
From that moment on, the 'meeting' degenerated into what could be termed farce if the subject had not been so important. Chaos, disarray, turmoil, confusion—anything short of an actual riot—are just some of the words I use to describe the scene."
It is no wonder that people in East Surrey are, by now, deeply sceptical about the competence of the local NHS management. They are also doubtful about their real motives. The fear in Oxted, especially now that the community hospital has closed, is that the trust, the area health authority, the regional health executive and the Government will take the opportunity to sell the land on which the hospital stands and plough the proceeds into funding the deficit at Redhill. Local concerns on that point are neatly summed up in a letter from my constituent, Mr. I. S. Andrews, who says:
"My very strong personal feeling is that the NHS Trust has been determined to close the hospital come what may having made very little maintenance expenditure over the years. The view taken by many at the aborted meeting was that funds arising from the sale would be used to reduce the indebtedness of the Trust."
I am looking for a categoric assurance from the Minister today that, under no circumstances, will that be allowed to happen. I hope that the Minister will understand the importance of this assurance to my constituents. There have been too many disappointments and too many deadlines missed. Oxted needs a replacement hospital, and the Minister's answer will be studied with great care by thousands of people who feel that their security and quality of life is at risk. Having presided over the closure of the hospital, the Government have a clear duty to ensure that the promises made by the Secretary of State are fulfilled.
In my debate in July 1998 the present Secretary of State said:
"I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured by the fact that the implementation plan that is now in place will result in new in-patient, out-patient and therapy facilities, as well as a minor injuries service, being available in Oxted by the summer of 2001."
The summer of 2001 is almost upon us and all we have to show for it is a closed and boarded up hospital. The right hon. Gentleman went on:
"The time scale and detail of the re-provision depend crucially…on the planning decisions taken by Tandridge district council. The local authority will no doubt be mindful of the need for a rapid decision to allay the concerns of local people about the future of health services in the town."—[Official Report, 1 July 1998; Vol. 315, c. 336.]
That last sentence seems like an attempt to shift the burden of responsibility on to Tandridge district council, but before the council can determine a planning application, it must receive it. Tandridge councillors have waited and waited to be given an opportunity to determine a planning application for a new hospital facility in Oxted, but none has been forthcoming. The leader of Tandridge district council, Councillor Gordon

63WH
Keymer, recently again made it clear that he and his administration will do everything possible to expedite any reasonable proposal from the trust, but no planning application has been submitted. Not Tandridge council but the trust is responsible for the delay, and that is the Government's responsibility.
Since our previous debate there has been a further development: the complaint to the ombudsman on behalf of the Save Oxted Hospital action group, headed by Mr. Josh Cosnett, about possible maladministration by the Secretary of State as a result of his decision to order the closure of the hospital for redevelopment. I do not wish to prejudge the outcome of the ombudsman's inquiry, but it is worth placing on record my regret that the result, which was due to be published no later than January 2001, has still not appeared. I hope that the Minister will assure me that that delay has nothing to do with her Department. I am sure that she will make it clear that her Department has co-operated fully, providing timely, accurate and detailed responses where requested, although that has, sadly, not always been the case in correspondence, either with myself or my constituents on that issue.
It is most unwelcome that the decision to close the hospital was taken prior to the outcome of the ombudsman's report. One of the issues raised by the Save Oxted Hospital action group could usefully benefit from an answer from the Minister today. It is suggested that, as a private hospital, Oxted and Limpsfield War Memorial hospital was not subject to the National Health Service Act 1946. It is further stated that, under the terms of its 1939 constitution, the hospital board was required to vote on any change of ownership but that no such vote ever took place. Can the Minister give an assurance today that the NHS has not just closed a hospital to which it had no legal title? It is obviously vital that the issue is cleared up before any further action.
It is no exaggeration to say that, although it had long been feared, the sudden closure of Oxted and Limpsfield War Memorial hospital came as a terrible shock to the whole community. Today it stands empty and boarded up: a tragic emblem of broken promises and a symbol of the failure of the Government's health policies in east Surrey. The Minister has been good enough to reply to written questions on the subject of security but I hope that she will take the opportunity, first, to state that responsibility for the physical security of the building rests with the NHS alone and, secondly, to detail the specific measures that are being taken to protect it from vandalism.
The significance of the hospital's closure and the importance attached to the future provision of replacement facilities in Oxted were evidenced by the huge attendance at a meeting held at Oxted county school on 10 March this year. More than 800 people came to what was probably the largest public gathering ever held in the town. I have already raised many of the questions that were left unanswered at that meeting, but two more remain. Immediately prior to its closure, Oxted and Limpsfield War Memorial hospital held 17 patients. Even if the redevelopment plans go ahead, under the plans there is provision for only 10 NHS beds
64WH
in Oxted. Can that be sufficient? I have asked that question before and have yet to receive a satisfactory reply.
My final question comes from one of the numerous letters that I have received on the subject. My constituent, Mrs. Joyce Spurr, wrote:
"So what next? We were left in doubt as to whether the Trust really does have a nursing home partner at the moment. If they haven't, where does that leave their current plans?"
If the plans fall through, what will the Government do to meet their promise to provide a first-class modern health facility in Oxted?
I conclude by paying tribute to the staff of the hospital, who earned the respect and admiration of the whole community as they continued cheerfully to perform their tasks over a long period of uncertainty and in a building that was gradually falling apart through neglect. I also want to mention the constructive and helpful attitude of the outstanding local general practitioners. They have played a positive role throughout the sorry saga and, despite much provocation, have proved to be a valuable source of informed and level-headed information. I also commend the role played by the respected local community health council, which itself faces an uncertain future under Government plans. Finally, I hope that the Minister will join me in praising the local community of Oxted, which has demonstrated just how much it cares about its hospital. That community now looks for answers and, above all, action from the Minister and the Secretary of State.
1.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) on securing this afternoon's debate on Oxted and Limpsfield War Memorial hospital. He has raised the topic with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and me in correspondence and parliamentary questions during the past few months. He also referred to an Adjournment debate from three years ago. I do not think that anything that I say today will come as a big surprise.
Of course, I acknowledge the strong local feeling about the future of Oxted community hospital and recognise the frustration caused by the time that the development of the new facility has taken. The people of Oxted were promised a new health facility by summer 2001, but it has not materialised. I share the disappointment of the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that progress has not been made as swiftly as anticipated. However, I assure hon. Members that Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS trust and East Surrey health authority, supported by the south-east regional office of the NHS executive, are committed to providing new facilities and fully implementing the re-provision of services in their area. The hon. Gentleman asked me for what he called a categoric assurance and I will give him that today—there is no question of any manoeuvring to stop that happening. Unfortunate circumstances have combined to delay progress, but we are fully committed to going ahead.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS trust deficits. If my figures are in any way inaccurate, I will get back to him, but, as I

65WH
have them, the deficits were£5 million for 1999–2000 and £4.4 million for 2001. That deficit must be managed, but meeting it by raising money from land sales is in no way part of the plan. The plan is to provide the services at Oxted and Limpsfield War Memorial hospital.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I am grateful for that reassurance. Will the Minister be courageous enough today to offer a new deadline for the completion of the provision?
Ms Stuart: I hope that, as I continue, the hon. Gentleman will understand why making such an offer would be a brave decision, as civil servants would describe it, and why it might not be possible to be so precise.
The hon. Gentleman will also note that the Government have set a challenging agenda for the NHS, one which will turn the NHS of old into a truly modern service. The NHS plan, which was published in July last year, set out the most fundamental and far-reaching programme of reform in its history. That 10-year plan aims to improve every aspect of the NHS—a reliable service that provides effective health care services and has patients' interests at its heart.
For the current financial year 2001–02, East Surrey health authority received nearly £290 million, which represents a 50 per cent. cash increase on the allocation of three years ago. The Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS trust has also benefited from specific capital investments—£200,000 to modernise the accident and emergency department, which was completed in March 2001, £700,000 to provide a major extension to the day surgery unit, and £150,000 to re-provide the child development centre. It is not that we do not believe in community hospitals. The Government are committed to making appropriate and effective use of such hospitals. We recognise the strength of feeling that people have for their local community hospitals and the value of those hospitals as part of the community that they serve.
The NHS plan announced that£900 million would be made available annually by 2003–04 for new intermediate care and related services to promote independence and improve quality of care for older people, of which around £255 million is to be earmarked specifically for NHS investment in intermediate care. We also pledged that, by 2004, there would be 5,000 extra intermediate care beds. Some of those will undoubtedly be in community hospitals, some in existing facilities and some in new developments.
I remind the House of the context for the changes in health services at the Oxted and Limpsfield community hospital. The re-provision of services at that hospital was consulted on, as the hon. Gentleman already knows, by East Surrey health authority during March 1997. The main drivers for that change were that the buildings were in a poor state of repair and suffering from subsidence. It was more cost effective and more appropriate for modern health care to look at building alternative facilities in Oxted rather than to attempt to upgrade the building.
66WH
The hon. Gentleman also referred to some of the issues raised in relation to the ownership of the hospital. The advice that the Department of Health received from the legal advisers was that Oxted hospital was transferred under the National Health Service Act 1946 and section 6(1) of that Act provides that voluntary hospitals shall be transferred to, and vested in, Ministers on the appointed day—the day the Act came into force in 1948. The interests in the property, where held by a governing body or by trustees, would pass to the Ministers free of any trusts. Furthermore, the re-provision of an in-patient facility as an out-patient facility is within the Secretary of State's functions and in keeping with the objects for which the property was used immediately before 1948. We are acting on the best legal advice, although I will not go into the finer points. The models of health care were changing and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that, as part of the original consultation, the number of beds was increased in the final plan from six to 10.
The proposed plans for Oxted reflected advice on safe medical practice and the changing nature of health care. They ensure that appropriate services, such as out-patients, therapies and nursing home beds, remain locally based and that more acute in-patient services shift to acute hospitals. The outcome of the consultation resulted in a decision to provide a new hospital to be built on land next to the existing hospital site. That will provide the same range of out-patient, diagnostic and therapy services as is currently available, but with the advantage of purpose-built modern accommodation. Furthermore, 10 in-patient beds are to be purchased from a private nursing home provider in the local community.
For a number of reasons, between 1997 and late 1998, the progress with developing a new scheme was relatively slow, as a number of local issues had to be debated and resolved before detailed work could begin. Those included the need to agree land development issues with the local council as well as agreeing the most appropriate option to deliver the preferred health care facilities. At the time of the last Adjournment debate, the anticipated time scale for completion of the project was July 2001. Although there had been some progress towards that target, a number of factors have meant that the project has suffered further delays.
An outline business case was approved at the end of 1999, a preferred bidder has been selected and negotiations have been under way with that private sector provider for some time. Notwithstanding the ombudsman's investigation, which I shall address in a moment, the trust is seeking to ensure that its proposed new build scheme represents best value for money to the NHS, and thereby the taxpayer.
As the hon. Gentleman stated, the trust recently had to close Oxted community hospital. That was partly due to the recent severe and prolonged rainfall. The fabric of the old hospital building has suffered a sudden and marked deterioration to such an extent that a safe environment for staff and patients could no longer be ensured. Representatives from the south-east regional office of the NHS executive visited the hospital on 6 February 2001 to ascertain the state of the building. Reports were received that examined in detail the building conditions, the impact on health and safety and

67WH
other important issues such as infection control. An independent health and safety report commissioned by the trust alone concluded:
"If the hospital remains open in its current condition, it will constitute an immediate and continually rising risk to staff, visitors and patients' health, safety and welfare."
It is fair to say that the building was not in the best condition before the recent spell of had weather, but the trust would strongly disagree with any suggestion that it was due to negligence on its part. In cases where the provision of a new health care facility has already been agreed, a balance will inevitably have to be struck between committing resources to the further upkeep of the old building and funding the provision of health care services.
I am aware that, at a public meeting chaired by the hon. Gentleman, the trust declared its intention to close the hospital, and restated the commitment of both the health authority and the trust to deliver new health care facilities as soon as possible. Following closure, the trust and the health authority were able to take immediate steps to ensure that local health services were sustained. The majority of in-patients at the time of closure were either discharged or relocated to social services long-term care, a neighbouring community hospital or to the local acute hospital.
Out-patient services were relocated to spare capacity within the Oxted GP surgery and I am advised that it is working well. Any patients subsequently requiring care are referred to a local nursing home, the neighbouring community hospital or, if they require closer supervision, East Surrey hospital.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the ombudsman, who is investigating a complaint against the south-east regional office. It relates to the administration of the consultation process about the re-provision of services at Oxted hospital back in 1997. The complaint was formally notified to the then Permanent Secretary on 12 June 2000, and the inquiry has subsequently been in progress. I am advised that the NHS executive has complied fully with all the ombudsman's requests for information and will continue to co-operate fully.
The ombudsman has yet to report his findings. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, because of the substance of this complaint, the trust will have to await the outcome of the investigation before proceeding with the permanent closure of the hospital and the provision of new facilities. It is inappropriate for me to comment further, pending the outcome of the investigation.
68WH
There is, of course, a need to respect the memory and history of the old War Memorial hospital and I would not wish to diminish its importance. The artefacts of memorabilia have already been secured from the closed buildings and safely removed to the care of local GPs. The trust will continue to work with GPs and the local community to establish the best way to make this memorabilia safe in the long term and to ensure that it is accessible to local residents.
The hon. Gentleman also inquired about the physical security of the building. Following consultation with the local police and crime prevention officer, I can assure him that measures to ensure the external and internal security of the building have been taken. I understand that a representative of the trust will be meeting the crime prevention officer tomorrow at the old hospital to confirm that the measures taken are satisfactory. In addition, rubble will be installed in the driveway on Thursday to prevent vehicles being taken on to the site, which has also been insured against fire risks.
I recognise that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents are frustrated by the length of time that it is taking to develop a new facility. He will not be surprised to hear that I share some of that frustration, but I should like to reassure him and his constituents that that all parties are working together to ensure that the new health care facilities are provided as swiftly as possible. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate, however, that no contractual arrangements can be entered into or commitments given to a private sector provider until the outcome of the investigation by the ombudsman is known.
In the meantime, we are ensuring that the necessary frameworks are in place to allow us to make progress, once the investigation is over, as quickly as possible. I have instructed the regional office to monitor the position closely and to report developments regularly. Once the ombudsman has reported, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss subsequent steps with the hon. Gentleman. When the decision has been taken, it is crucial to move forward as quickly as possible. I hope that we can bring this unhappy tale to a conclusion that will, although late in the day, both allow new hospital provision and retain the memory of the War Memorial hospital. In the end, we want to serve the hon. Gentleman's constituents and all patients as best we can, and that is a shared objective.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Female Prisoners (Shackling)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on shackling female prisoners. [155153]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have written to the hon. Member.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the secretary of State for the Home Department how many visits abroad were made by him and his Ministers on departmental business in the(a) three years ending 30 April 1997 and (b) 12 months ending 30 April 1997. [157617]

  Mr. Straw
  Departmental records contain the following information:

  (a) between 1 May 1994 and 30 April 1997 Home Office Ministers made 66 overseas visits on departmental business, 44 of which were within the European Union.

  (b) between 1 May 1996 and 30 April 1997 Home Office Ministers made 23 overseas visits on departmental business, 13 of which were within the European Union.

  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which citizens advice bureaux have been invited to join one of the National Asylum Support Service's regional stakeholder groups; and on which dates the invitations were sent to the bureaux concerned. [157974]

  Mrs. Roche
  Regional Consortia, grant funded by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS), have been established to help deliver support at the local level. It is part of their remit to have strategies and procedures in place to co-ordinate services at both regional and local levels. They manage regional stakeholder groups and accordingly are responsible for membership. The groups should include the full spectrum of organisations and agencies involved and may include the Citizens Advice Bureau.

  Family Visit Appeals
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the net income from fees for family visit appeals has been since 2 October 2000; and what proportion of this net income relates to appeals which are currently outstanding. [157973]

  Mrs. Roche
  We calculate that the net income from fees for family visitor appeals in the period 2 October to 11 April 2001 is about £60,000. Of this, 40 per cent. relates to appeals which are currently outstanding and which may result in further refunds.

  Fee Fraud Letters
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many advanced fee fraud letters he estimates have come to the UK from(a) overseas and (b) Nigeria in each of the last five years; and what powers he has, in the case of operations known to the police, to intercept such letters before they reach their intended recipients. [158356]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: Figures for the number of advance fee fraud letters which arrive in the United Kingdom are not held centrally.

  Under section 5 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the Secretary of State may authorise the interception of postal items where this is necessary in the interests of national security; for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime; or of safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.

  Bajram Zeqiri
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) of 16 March 2001,Official Report, column 768W, if the Government intend to petition the House of Lords for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's judgment in the case of Bajram Zeqiri. [158744]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government's petition for permission to appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Bajram Zeqiri was lodged with the House of Lords on 12 April 2001.

  Police Operations (Cleveland)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of Cleveland on the amount of time he has spent on(a) Operation Lancet, (b) Operation Dallas and (c) Operation Eagle since May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [158131]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: No, it would not be appropriate to do so.

  Lord Birt
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reports Lord Birt has submitted to him in his capacity as an adviser on crime; and if he will make a statement. [158236]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) on 27 March 2001,Official Report, column 594W.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in producing draft regulations to ensure that registered political parties, elected representatives and candidates receive copies of updates of the electoral register. [158794]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have decided to bring forward self-contained regulations for this purpose and a draft was laid yesterday.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Biffa Waste Disposal Site
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the use of the Biffa waste disposal site in Abbey Village, Chorley for animals slaughtered under the welfare slaughter scheme.[157194]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency has identified licensed landfill sites which are suitable for the disposal of carcases from the Livestock Welfare Disposal Scheme. I understand that uninfected sheep and pig carcases from the scheme are being disposed of at this site under a contract agreed between the site operators and the Intervention Board Executive Agency.

  Rail Projects
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which rail projects listed in the Strategic Rail Authority's plans have a start date; and if he will make a statement. [157195]

  Mr. Hill
  The Strategic Rail Authority's Strategic Agenda identified a range of potential investment projects for the development of the rail network. The stage of development of these projects varies depending on their origins; but some are already under way. The authority is reviewing the future rail investment programme and expects to provide more information in its strategic plan about costs and timings of projects to be taken forward. The strategic plan is expected to be published in the autumn.

  Rural Coach Travel
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the role of coach operators in meeting transport needs in rural areas. [157196]

  Mr. Meacher
  We fully appreciate that coach operators have a significant role to play in helping to meet the transport needs of those living in or wishing to visit rural areas.

  Kyoto Protocol
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the need for further discussions on the Kyoto protocol following President Bush's decision to withdraw from it. [157197]

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with his US counterparts regarding the Kyoto protocol. [157198]

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on discussions between his Department and the US Administration concerning the Kyoto climate change agreement. [157205]

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the future of the Kyoto protocol. [157215]
  196W
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's policies for future climate change negotiations. [157216]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Kyoto protocol is an important step in setting the framework for dealing with climate change. We will continue to work for an agreement at the next round of talks in July which will enable us and others to ratify Kyoto, with the aim of bringing it into force by 2002. We are also keen to continue a constructive dialogue with the US as it is important that they remain engaged in global efforts to tackle climate change.

  Mobile Telephone Masts
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to implement the recommendations of the Stewart report on mobile phone masts. [157200]

  Mr. Raynsford
  On 16 March 2001 I announced a series of important changes to the planning system on the siting of mobile phone masts that significantly strengthen public consultation requirements.

  Rail Procurement
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will discuss rail procurement with Railtrack. [157201]

  Mr. Hill
  The spending plans set out in our 10-year plan, together with the post-Hatfield re-railing programme, should mean that there is no shortage of demand for rail. Procurement decisions are commercial matters for Railtrack.

  Private Landlords
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce licences for private landlords. [157202]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  We set out in the Housing Green Paper, "Quality and choice: a decent home for all", a proposal to introduce licensing of the whole private rented sector in limited areas of low demand for housing in England. Following a positive response, we intend to consult further later this year.

  Park and Ride Schemes
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the locating of park and ride schemes on green belt sites; and if he will make a statement. [157203]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Revised policy in respect of proposals to locate park and ride schemes on green belt sites is set out at paragraph 62 and at Annexe E to Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: "Transport", which was issued on 27 March. It provides that, in some circumstances, park and ride schemes may be permissible in the green belt where assessment shows such locations to be the most sustainable of the available options. A draft of PPG13 was issued for consultation in October 1999 and the majority of respondents commenting on the proposed changes were supportive.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Environment Agency's priorities for the disposal of foot and mouth infected carcases. [157204]

  Mr. Meacher
  It is essential that appropriate use is made of all the available options to dispose of the substantial number of carcases from the current epidemic. The priority in each case is to prevent the spread of the disease and to minimise the risk to public health and the environment. In broad terms, the preferred hierarchy of disposal options is rendering for all carcases; incineration in authorised facilities for all carcases; disposal in licensed landfill sites for sheep, pigs and, with the agreement of the licence holder, cattle born after 1 August 1996; burning for all carcases; and burial of sheep, pigs and cattle born after 1 August 1996.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what account he took of the need to minimise the possibility of spreading foot and mouth disease in deciding to authorise two sites in West Sussex for disposal of animals culled as part of the exercise to control that disease. [158342]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: The Environment Agency has identified a number of licensed landfill sites which are suitable for the disposal of animal carcases. The carcases consigned to these sites are those which MAFF authorise for disposal under Article 5(2) of the Animal By-Products Order 1999. The objective of the authorities responsible for the disposal arrangements is to ensure that carcases are transported for disposal (a) within infected areas or (b) within non-infected areas—but not from one area to another unless necessitated by factors such as the location of abattoirs or landfills.

  I understand that landfill sites at Small Dole and Warnham in West Sussex have been identified by the Environment Agency as suitable for carcases disposal but, in the event of their being used, only carcases from the local area will be consigned to them. Any such disposal of carcases will be carried out on the basis of a Best Practice Document (the Protocol) agreed between the Environment Agency, MAFF and the Environmental Services Association (ESA). A copy has been placed in the Library and is available on the Agency's website: http:// www.environment-agency.gov.uk/envinfo/fmd/protocol.pdf.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the owners of holiday units available to rent will be eligible for rate relief under the Government's measures to help businesses affected by foot and mouth disease. [158265]

  Mr. Meacher
  Owners of any business paying rates, including holiday units available to rent, are able to apply for hardship rate relief. A hardship rate relief scheme, where local authorities are able to grant discretionary rate relief of up to 100 per cent. to any business suffering hardship, can be made available by any authority. However, as a consequence of the current foot and mouth disease outbreak, we have now extended the central Government contribution to the cost of the relief from 75 per cent. to 95 per cent. in cases where the business is located in one of the 151 eligible rural districts and has a198W
  rateable value of £12,000 or less. This higher rate of support is available initially for three months to 30 June 2001.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to visit Montgomeryshire to discuss the effects of the foot and mouth outbreak with local business people. [158682]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have no plans to visit Montgomeryshire. The National Assembly and the Wales Office are represented on the Rural Taskforce and the National Assembly is leading on monitoring the impact of foot and mouth disease and action to alleviate it in Wales.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how much trade has been lost, in total, by individuals and organisations as a result of foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement; [158680]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the amount of financial support that would be required to prevent the closure of 5 per cent. of businesses which have been affected by the foot and mouth outbreak; and if he will make a statement. [158681]

  Mr. Meacher
  It is clear that the crisis has adversely affected many organisations and individuals and we have already announced a number of measures to alleviate their difficulties. We do not at present have comprehensive information about the scale and scope of the impact on individuals and organisations, the losses they have sustained and the number of businesses which may have to close directly as a result of foot and mouth disease, although we have been actively seeking it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has, however, estimated that the cost to English tourism is currently around £140 million per week.

  We are collecting further data and will continue to monitor the situation closely.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultations he has had with Mid-Wales farmers and businesses regarding the degree of compensation required to support the region without business closures during the foot and mouth outbreak; and if he will make a statement. [158685]

  Mr. Meacher
  The National Assembly for Wales is leading on monitoring the impact of foot and mouth disease and action to alleviate it in Wales. Farmers and businesses in Wales also benefit from UK-wide initiatives such as measures allowing the deferment of tax and National Insurance contributions and the extension to the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme. In addition the National Assembly and the Wales Office are represented on the Rural Taskforce.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with insurance companies to ensure fast payment of claims arising as a direct result of the foot and mouth outbreak; and if he will make a statement. [158724]

  Mr. Meacher
  I plan to meet representatives of the insurance industry to discuss the impact of the foot and mouth outbreak as soon as possible.
  199W
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he has taken to provide information on a daily basis to individuals and firms who are not farmers but whose livelihoods are directly affected by the foot and mouth infection; and if he will make a statement. [158683]

  Mr. Meacher
  Information is being provided daily through Government websites such as the National Co-ordination Centre website at www.co-ordination.uk together with those at my Department, the Countryside Agency, DCMS, MAFF, DfEE and DSS.

  In addition information for small firms is available through the Small Business Service (SBS) and the network of Business Links, and a rural helpline—0845 600 9006—is operational. The Government have issued a number of newspaper advertisements and radio fillers and has leafleted Post Offices, tourist offices and many major visitor attractions.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to promote the reopening of wildlife parks which have been closed as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak. [158229]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have taken every opportunity to make clear that the countryside is open for business. A list of those zoos and wildlife parks that are open to the public has been posted on the DETR website, which is updated weekly. The address is www.wildlifecountryside.detr.gov.uk/ruraltf/zoos/index.htm. MAFF have provided advice to zoos on the precautions to be taken to reduce the risk of susceptible animals catching the disease, details of which can be found at www.maff.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/fmd/animals.htm. Members of the public can also contact a telephone hotline (08456 071071) to discover what attractions are open or visit the open Britain website (www.openbritain.gov.uk). Finally, an extra £6 million has been made available to promote tourist attractions, which will include zoos and wildlife parks.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if wildlife parks are eligible to claim for the foot and mouth preliminary financial compensation package, as announced by the Minister for the Environment on 20 March 2001,Official Report, columns 191–210. [158230]

  Mr. Meacher
  Wildlife parks, like other businesses affected by foot and mouth disease, may apply for assistance under the measures to help rural businesses that I announced on 20 March and subsequently, and for the extended Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme announced on 6 April, where they meet the qualifying criteria.

  Land Drainage
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what changes in planning guidance and planning law he is planning with regard to land drainage; and if he will make a statement. [157206]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government have recently consulted on a revised draft of the new Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 25 "Development and flood risk" and intend to issue the PPG in May.
  200W
  This PPG advises on the planning consideration of all aspects of land drainage and flood defence. It complements the flood defence policies of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food.

  Affordable Housing (South-east)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to increase the supply of affordable housing in the south-east.[157207]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have made available additional public investment and fiscal instruments to help increase the provision of affordable housing. In particular, we have almost doubled funding to the Housing Corporation through its approved development programme and have set up the Starter Homes Initiative. Furthermore, Regional Planning Guidance for the south-east (RPG9) sets out ways in which local authorities can identify and respond to local housing need.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the future arrangements for air traffic control. [157208]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  As announced on 27 March 2001, the Government have selected the Airline Group as their strategic partner in the public-private partnership for National Air Traffic Services. Subject to certain conditions, including clearance under the European Commission Merger Regulation, our aim is for the Airline Group to take operational control of NATS on 1 June.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the total value of the capital projects which have been funded by private finance arrangements since May 1997. [157210]

  Ms Armstrong
  My Department has signed or provided financial support to private finance contracts with a capital value of £1,045 million since May 1997. In addition DETR has allocated PFI credits with a value of £1,112 million to 56 local authority PFI projects in this period.

  Road Crashes
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the estimated cost is to public funds of a road crash involving(a) a fatality, (b) serious injury and (c) slight injury. [157211]

  Mr. Hill
  The values attributed in 1999 to the avoidance of road accidents are(a) fatal £1,089,130, (b) serious £146,890, and (c) slight £14,540. These amounts are the values to be used in cost benefit analysis. They take account of medical costs, lost production, human costs based on willingness to pay for reduction of risk, the costs of police and courts, insurance administration, and property damage. Included in these values are the sums of £5,970, £10,380, and £890 for fatal, serious and slight accidents respectively, for the cost to public funds for hospital and ambulance costs and the

  201W
  costs of police and courts. The lost production element includes social security costs but these are not separately estimated. Further information is available in Highways Economic Note No. 1 "1999 Valuation of the Benefits of Prevention of Road Accidents and Casualties" a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment has been made of the benefits of increasing the number of council tax band rates.[157212]

  Ms Armstrong
  We believe that the council tax is working well as a local tax. In our Green Paper on modernising local government finance, which we published in September 2000, we explained that the banding system makes tax bills predictable and stable. A number of respondents to the Green Paper proposed that additional council tax bands should be created. We are considering what they had to say in the context of preparing a White Paper on local government finance, which we intend to publish later this year.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the change in band D council tax in the last year. [157218]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The average increase in band D council tax in England between 2000–01 and 2001–02 was 6.4 per cent.

  Runcorn-Widnes Bridge
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the resources allocated in 2001–02 for the maintenance of the Runcorn-Widnes bridge. [157213]

  Mr. Hill
  I announced in November 2000 that as part of the local transport plan allocation for Halton borough council for 2001–02, £1 million is being made available towards maintenance of the Runcorn-Widnes bridge. Further funding will be provided during the period of the local transport plan to meet in full the maintenance scheme for this bridge.

  Housing (Southwark)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money was requested by the London borough of Southwark for housing capital works in the year 2001–02; and how much has been allocated. [157214]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The London borough of Southwark has been allocated £52,920,634 for housing in 2001–02 under the Housing Investment Programme and the Major Repairs Allowance. It is for the local authority to decide how this funding is prioritised. A further £1,225,554 housing capital funding has been allocated under SRB, through Peckham Partnership.

  Railway Maintenance
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will 202W
  make a statement on the line refurbishment works being undertaken by Railtrack and the Strategic Rail Authority. [157217]

  Mr. Hill
  Railtrack has nearly completed its programme of replacement of rail and points in line with its national recovery plan. The company is separately taking forward a series of enhancement projects to increase the capacity of the network, including the west coast route modernisation. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 2 April that future major enhancement projects would be taken forward through public-private partnerships involving the Strategic Rail Authority and third parties.

  Regeneration (Falmouth and Camborne)
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the regeneration projects funded by his Department in the Falmouth and Camborne constituency. [157219]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department is contributing funds to a wide range of projects in the Falmouth and Camborne constituency. Camborne, Pool and Redruth is the South West Regional Development Agency's first priority area for regeneration in Cornwall. Current RDA commitments in the constituency total nearly £18 million of investment, including in a new Tolvadden Energy Park, in transformation of derelict buildings at West End Stores and Alma Place in Redruth into social housing and a new Cornish Studies Centre, and in the Falmouth Maritime project. My Department has awarded a total of £7.8 million in Single Regeneration Budget funding in Rounds 4 to 6 to schemes in west Cornwall that include the Falmouth and Camborne constituency. In October 2000, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced that Kerrier District is one of four areas in the south-west that will benefit from the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund to help improve housing, raise school standards, reduce crime and improve health in our most deprived communities.

  Standard Spending Assessment
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans to review the local government standard spending assessment formula. [157209]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We received over 16,000 responses to last September's Green Paper on modernising local government finance. A White Paper setting out our decisions on the future of the revenue grant distribution system will be published later this year.

  Road Traffic
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what changes there have been to the volume of road traffic in England since May 1997. [158471]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: The annual percentage changes to the volume of road traffic in England since 1997 are shown in the table.
  203W

  Road traffic in England

  Year

  Percentage change

  1998

  1.7

  1999

  1.3

  South West Development Agency
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the grant given by the South West Development Agency to Business Links to combat the effects of foot and mouth disease in the region is for(a) grants and (b) loans to businesses; and what the deadline for its distribution is. [158588]

  Mr. Meacher
  The £3.5 million package of support announced by the South West Development Agency on 9 April included assistance for Business Links organisations to provide enhanced advice and guidance to businesses. Other RDAs have taken similar measures. To supplement these I announced on 11 April a further £15 million funding package for RDAs to expand existing programmes so as to provide additional short term practical help to business in the worst affected areas and in particular Devon, Cumbria and parts of the north-east and Welsh borders. This additional aid will be split between the RDAs for these areas with the south-west and north-west RDAs each receiving £5 million and the North East and West Midlands RDAs each receiving £2.5 million. This support can be used to provide a wide range of direct and indirect assistance, including grants to help sustain business by supporting marketing, reskilling and other activities, promotional campaigns, and regeneration projects.

  Rent Tribunals
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to increase opportunities for a wider range of people to sit on rent tribunals. [158731]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  All appointments to rent tribunals are now made following advertising and open competition. Advertisements encourage women and members of ethnic minorities to consider applying for appointment. Since the last general election, we have appointed 52 lay members to sit on rent tribunals in England, 10 of these are from ethnic minorities.

  Driving Licences (Asylum Seekers)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he(a) has had and (b) is planning with refugee organisations and others about acceptable evidence of identity for asylum seekers applying for a driving licence. [158462]

  Mr. Hill
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) has been in correspondence with the Commission for Racial Equality and the Refugee Council regarding applications for photocard driving licences from asylum seekers. DVLA will shortly write again to these organisations to explain revised arrangements for those 204W
  asylum seekers who cannot produce a passport, birth certificate or Home Office documentation to support their application for a photocard driving licence.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what evidence of identity is acceptable for asylum seekers applying for a driving licence. [158461]

  Mr. Hill
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) will accept a passport, birth certificate or Home Office issued travel document or naturalisation papers in support of an application for a photocard driving licence. If none of these documents is available, DVLA will consider whatever alternative evidence of identity an individual can submit.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many appeals were made to the Planning Inspectorate against local authority planning decisions in each of the last five years; and how many were successful. [158458]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The provision of information on planning appeals is the responsibility of the Planning Inspectorate. I have asked the Inspectorate's Chief Executive, Mr. Chris Shepley, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Chris Shepley to Mr. Denis Murphy, dated 23 April 2001:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about planning appeals made and decided in each of the past five years.
  The table below gives the number of appeals made in each year from 1996/97 and, of those decided, the number allowed.

  Number of appeals

  Year

  Made

  Decided

  Number allowed

  Percentage allowed

  1996–97

  13,742

  12,026

  4,211

  35

  1997–98

  14,163

  13,075

  4,690

  36

  1998–99

  14,380

  12,976

  4,563

  35

  1999–2000

  14,285

  12,506

  4,508

  36

  2000–01

  15,333

  12,912

  4,487

  35

  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of planning appeals decided(a) by hearings, (b) by inquiries and (c) by written representations have been determined within (i) 22, (ii) 26 and (iii) 30 weeks for each year since 1996–97 in (A) England and Wales and (B) the Yorkshire and Humber Government Office region. [158275]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The provision of information on planning appeals is the responsibility of the Planning Inspectorate. I have asked the Inspectorate's Chief Executive, Mr. Chris Shepley, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Chris Shepley to Mr. Jon Trickett, dated 23 April 2001:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about the handling times of planning appeals decided since 1996–97.
  The percentage of planning appeals decided within the times you specified are enclosed.
  205W

  Years

  Decided within 22 weeks

  Decided within 26 weeks

  Decided within 30 weeks

  Percentage of planning appeals in England, decided within given times:

  1996–97

  Written

  65.48

  82.30

  90.55

  Hearings

  4.16

  6.14

  10.96

  Inquiries

  10.16

  13.60

  16.35

  1997–98

  Written

  82.02

  90.80

  94.11

  Hearings

  12.39

  18.89

  27.52

  Inquiries

  12.34

  19.31

  28.00

  1998–99

  Written

  93.89

  96.55

  97.78

  Hearings

  59.69

  77.27

  86.01

  Inquiries

  26.67

  39.89

  52.28

  1999–2000

  Written

  94.79

  96.90

  97.88

  Hearings

  82.70

  91.98

  94.73

  Inquiries

  39.34

  59.48

  74.47

  2000–01

  Written

  96.94

  98.45

  99.05

  Hearings

  86.96

  94.05

  96.34

  Inquiries

  39.25

  62.87

  77.32

  Percentage of planning appeals in Wales, decided within given times:

  1996–97

  Written

  93.87

  96.57

  97.31

  Hearings

  60.92

  70.11

  87.36

  Inquiries

  14.52

  33.87

  51.61

  1997–98

  Written

  93.00

  96.84

  99.10

  Hearings

  73.15

  87.96

  95.37

  Inquiries

  32.26

  45.16

  70.97

  1998–99

  Written

  93.07

  96.43

  98.95

  Hearings

  71.65

  86.61

  93.70

  Inquiries

  8.55

  42.11

  66.67

  1999–2000

  Written

  96.16

  97.99

  98.65

  Hearings

  86.96

  94.78

  95.65

  Inquiries

  21.40

  46.00

  73.81

  2000–01

  Written

  98.42

  99.32

  99.55

  Hearings

  80.32

  88.52

  94.26

  Inquiries

  6.52

  21.74

  63.04

  Percentage of planning appeals in the Yorkshire and Humberside Government Office region, decided within given times:

  1996–97

  Written

  67.69

  82.96

  90.52

  Hearings

  3.32

  4.32

  6.98

  Inquiries

  6.58

  8.55

  13.16

  1997–98

  Written

  80.67

  89.93

  93.79

  Hearings

  8.86

  14.18

  24.30

  Inquiries

  7.78

  16.77

  26.35

  1998–99

  Written

  94.19

  96.47

  97.72

  Hearings

  57.78

  76.00

  87.11

  Inquiries

  26.55

  40.11

  48.02

  206W

  Years

  Decided within 22 weeks

  Decided within 26 weeks

  Decided within 30 weeks

  1999–2000

  Written

  95.41

  95.52

  97.88

  Hearings

  81.74

  97.11

  97.88

  Inquiries

  42.07

  58.54

  74.39

  2000–01

  Written

  97.18

  98.56

  99.14

  Hearings

  89.37

  95.91

  97.55

  Inquiries

  47.66

  73.44

  83.59

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reports he has received about the impact on safety of the grades of steel used in railway tracks since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [158248]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: This is an operational matter for Railtrack. I understand from Railtrack that the choice of the grade of steel to be used in railway tracks has not changed for many years and certainly not since 1997.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to require commercial property owners to improve the energy efficiency of their buildings. [157107]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Achieving greater energy efficiency in commercial buildings was the subject of an Adjournment debate on 24 January. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment represented the Government on that day. My right hon. Friend will be writing shortly to my hon. Friend to follow up the debate and to set out his plans in this respect. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Container Ports
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about anticipated increases in container port capacity in Harwich, Felixstowe and on the Shell Haven site in Essex. [157108]

  Mr. Hill
  The three cases, and any others, are or are likely to be subject to formal public inquiries before they are decided by the Secretary of State. On the general question of container port capacity, I refer to my answer to the hon. Member on 13 February 2001,Official Report, column 141.

  Half-fare Scheme
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when men aged over 60 years will be able to benefit from the national half-fare scheme. [157199]

  Mr. Hill
  As soon as we are able to amend the relevant legislation, which currently links entitlement to travel concessions to the state pension age.

  Bus Lanes
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to allow licensed minicabs to use bus lanes. [158748]

  Mr. Hill
  It is for the relevant highway authority, usually the local authority, to decide what classes of vehicles, if any, other than buses should be allowed to use bus lanes.

  My Department provides guidance for local authorities on bus priority measures in Local Transport Note 1–97 "Keeping Buses Moving". The use of bus lanes by licensed minicabs is not recommended. When a wide range of vehicles are allowed access, enforcement can be more difficult and the benefits to buses reduced. In particular, where licensed minicabs do not have obvious features to identify them as minicabs, it is difficult to distinguish them from private cars and this can encourage more widespread violation as other cars follow them into a bus lane.

  Local highway authorities would need to consider these issues, in liaison with the police, in deciding whether to allow licensed minicabs to use a particular bus lane.

  London Underground
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he intends Transport for London to assume full responsibility for London Underground before 7 June. [157182]

  Mr. Hill
  It is the Government's intention to transfer London Underground to the control of Transport for London once the framework is in place to deliver the massive long-term investment that the Underground requires. Our view is that the best way to do this is through the PPP. London Underground is making every effort to conclude the PPP as speedily as possible, consistent with the paramount requirement to maintain and improve safety and deliver best value, but it will be some months before contracts can be signed.

  Environmental Health Inspectors
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many full-time equivalent staff have been employed as environmental health inspectors in British(a) airports and (b) ports in each of the last 10 years. [157032]

  Ms Stuart
  I have been asked to reply.

  Responsibility for employing environmental health officers at airports and ports rests with the local authorities which have responsibilities for the ports' health work. The number of enforcement officers is determined by the local authorities. The numbers of such officers are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Electricity Demand
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assumptions have been used for growth in electricity demand in table 1 on page 53 of Climate Change, The UK Programme. [157606]
  208W
  Mr. Hain
  I have been asked to reply.

  The energy projections which underlie the UK's Climate Change Programme were published as Energy Paper 68 in November 2000. Energy Paper 68 presents baseline energy demand projections. These do not take account of measures set out in the Climate Change Programme.

  The growth in electricity demand between 2000 and 2010 is projected to be around 1 per cent. per annum, before taking account of measures in the Climate Change Programme. Further details are given in chapter 5 of Energy Paper 68. Energy Paper 68 is available in the Library of the House.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Basic State Pension
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost to the Treasury of uprating the basic state pension by(a) £5 per week for a single pensioner and (b) £8 per week for a pensioner couple. [158765]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 30 January 2001,Official Report, columns 138–39W.

  Council Tax
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the percentage was of average income paid in Council Tax by Londoners(a) in 1996 and (b) on the latest date for which figures are available. [157894]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: The information that is available is as follows:

  Average net Council Tax bill as a percentage of average gross household income

  London (per cent.)

  1996–97

  1.9

  1999–2000

  2.0

  Notes

  1. The source of the data in the table is the Family Resources Survey (Great Britain). The latest year for which data are available is 1999–2000.

  2. For the purposes of this analysis, Council Tax is taken to be net of Council Tax discount and any deductions to the bill resulting from the receipt of Council Tax Benefit.

  3. Those households who do not pay Council Tax (such as students) have not been included in this analysis.

  4. The estimates are based on sample counts, which have been adjusted for non-response using grossing factors that control for region, Council Tax band, tenure and a number of demographic variables. Estimates are subject to sampling error and to variability in non-response.

  5. Estimates of the size of small changes between one year and another, as shown in the table, may be particularly vulnerable to estimating error.

  6. All percentages have been rounded to the nearest 0.1 per cent.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the contractors for each London borough who are responsible for the administration of
  209W
  Housing Benefit; how many complaints have been received in the past year about each contractor; and what inspections he has authorised. [158653]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: The administration of Housing Benefit is the responsibility of local authorities, regardless of whether or not it is contracted out.

  From May, we will be collecting information on local authorities who contract out Housing Benefit work.

  The following table represents, to the best of our current knowledge, the London boroughs that currently contract out this work and the contractors (two are in-house). The table also shows the number of written complaints we have received about the contracting-out of the administration of Housing Benefit in these boroughs, but not all specifically mention the contractor.

  London borough

  Contractor

  Number of complaints

  Bexley

  Capita

  0

  Brent

  EDS

  0

  Bromley

  Capita

  0

  Croydon

  CSL

  0

  Ealing

  Vertex Datasciences Ltd.

  0

  Hounslow

  ITNet

  0

  Islington

  ITNet

  2

  Lambeth

  Capita

  3

  Lewisham

  In-house

  0

  Newham

  CSL

  0

  Southwark

  CSL

  1

  Tower Hamlets

  In-house

  0

  Waltham Forest

  ICL

  1

  Westminster

  Capita

  4

  We also received two complaints relating to the administration of Housing Benefit in Hackney by ITNet (the contract was terminated on 31 March 2001).

  All of the boroughs in the table except Bexley and Hounslow have been inspected by the Benefits Fraud Inspectorate (BFI). These inspections were undertaken as part of a programme of inspections in England, Scotland and Wales which included local authorities which have contracted-out the administration of Housing Benefit and those which have not.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans his Department has to introduce a more rigorous assessment procedure on the part of the Child Support Agency. [158125]

  Angela Eagle
  Our reforms of the child support system will make both assessment and collection procedures more clearly focused on the needs of children and their parents—and on ensuring that maintenance due becomes maintenance paid. We intend to introduce the reformed scheme for new cases by April 2002, with existing cases transferring once the new system is shown to be working well.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a copy of his Department's research on businesses' understanding of stakeholder pensions which he referred to on BBC Radio on 6 April. [158686]

  Mr. Darling
  The 2000 Survey of Employers' Pension Provision commissioned by the Department will be completed and published later this year. However, initial findings into employer awareness of stakeholder pensions show that 90 per cent. of firms with more than 12 employees were aware of stakeholder pensions, 60 per cent. of firms with between five and 12 employees were aware, as were more than 50 per cent. of firms with fewer than five employees.

  Pension Credit Consultation
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the results of the pension credit consultation will be placed in the Library. [158691]

  Mr. Rooker
  We will be announcing our response to the pension credit consultation in due course.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of newly eligible men who made a successful claim for the 2000–01 Winter Fuel Payment by 30 March. [157055]

  Mr. Rooker
  The administration of benefits is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Alexis Cleveland. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 23 April 2001:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will estimate the number of newly eligible men who made a successful claim for the 2001–01 winter fuel payment by 30th March.
  Current records show that we have received over 1 million claims in respect of winter 2000 from men of which around 12,000 were unsuccessful, in the first instance. If a customer feels that the decision on their claim is incorrect they can ask for it to be looked at again. We do not hold statistics on successful claims following such reconsiderations.
  Information regarding claims received between 8 March and 30 March is not currently available in the format required.
  I hope this is helpful.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Business Questions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to her oral answer of 5 April 2001,Official Report, column 502, what the source was of the information pertaining to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning); and if she will make a statement. [158344]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Information was provided by the Labour party.

PRIME MINISTER

  Appointments (Age Limits)
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister what age limit is placed on appointments to public bodies in his Department; if this limit is mentioned in advertisements for such posts; and what the basis for this limit is. [158115]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to then answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office on Monday 23 April,Official Report, columns 120–21W.

  Government IT
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will make an announcement about the continuing implementation of the recommendations contained within the "Successful IT: Modernising Government in Action", report. [158890]

  The Prime Minister
  I have decided that ministerial and official responsibility for continuing the implementation of these recommendations will move to HM Treasury and the Office of Government Commerce. This will provide greater synergy with the work that OGC already does with Departments on IT-enabled projects.

  It should be clear that both ministerial and official responsibility for the performance of individual projects remains with each Department.

  Lord Birt
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Prime Minister how many reports Lord Birt has submitted to him in his capacity as an adviser on crime; and if he will make a statement. [158280]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by the Home Secretary to the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) on 27 March 2001,Official Report, column 594W.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions, and on what dates, he has met Lord Birt in his capacity as an adviser on crime; and if he will make a statement about the contribution of Lord Birt to Government policy on crime. [158240]

  The Prime Minister
  As part of his work, Lord Birt has met Ministers and officials from relevant Departments, including myself. As with previous Administrations it is not my practice to provide precise details of all such meetings.

HEALTH

  Childminders
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many childminders were registered with English local authorities in each year since 1995. [157282]

  Ms Hodge
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information about registered childminders is shown in the table. Over the same time period the number of registered day nurseries has increased from 4,800 to
  212W
  7,100, the number of registered holiday schemes from 2,900 to 9,300 and the number of registered out of school clubs from 1,300 to 3,700.

  Number1 of registered childminders for children under eight: 1995–2000

  Number of registered childminders2

  March 1995

  96,000

  March 1996

  101,300

  March 1997

  97,100

  March 1998

  93,300

  March 1999

  80,000

  March 2000

  74,800

  1These figures have been rounded to the nearest 100.

  2Excluding childminders provided by the local authority.

  The responsibility for day care provision transferred from the Department of Health to the Department for Education and Employment in March 1998.

  Specified Risk Material
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further action he plans to take to ensure that specified risk material does not enter the domestic food chain from abroad. [155834]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 27 March 2001]: Under European Union single market rules only meat which has been produced in accordance with relevant EU meat hygiene and BSE protection rules may be marketed for human consumption within the EU. These rules include European Commission Decision 2000/418/EC, which requires the removal of specified risk material (SRM) from cattle and sheep carcases at the slaughterhouse. Single market rules do not permit border controls at points of entry in respect of meat imported from other EU member states, although random checks at points of destination are permissible. The importation of fresh meat containing SRM into the United Kingdom from third countries is prohibited by virtue of the SRM Order 1997. Meat imported directly into the UK from a third country is subject to official checks at the border inspection post to ensure that it complies with all relevant EU and national public and animal health requirements.

  In the UK such checks have shown that the vast majority of consignments of meat imported from other EU member states have complied with the relevant EU rules. A small number of consignments, however, have been found to contain carcases with small pieces of SRM still attached. The majority of these consignments (12 out of 14) were destroyed with the remaining two returned to the export approved plat in January 2001.

  As a result of these findings, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) has, in each case, taken up the matter vigorously with the national Government of the exporting country concerned and with the EC. The FSA has also put in place risk-based enhanced checks on meat imported from other EU member states. The Meat Hygiene Service, and its equivalent in Northern Ireland, has been instructed to check all consignments of imported carcase beef originating from those slaughterhouses which have previously exported carcases with SRM still attached. Since half of the findings of SRM have involved meat imported from Germany, the FSA has instructed that every consignment of carcase beef imported from

  213W
  Germany arriving at a licensed meat plant in the UK must be checked by the relevant authority for the presence of SRM. Local authorities throughout the UK have been advised to make extra checks at meat plants under their supervision known to receive imports of carcase beef, and to check every consignment of carcase beef imported from Germany for the presence of SRM.

  In addition, because of the disruption of British meat supplies arising from the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, enforcement authorities have been instructed by the FSA to step up levels of inspection of all types of imported meat, on a risk assessment basis, in order to ensure that all relevant public health requirements are met.

  The enhanced checks on meat imported from other EU member states, and the enhanced level of inspection of all imported meat, will be maintained for as long as the FSA considers such measures to be justified. The FSA will continue to monitor the situation.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will extend exemption from prescription charges to patients who have had an organ transplantation and require lifelong medication. [158069]

  Ms Stuart
  People including those recovering from organ transplants are entitled to free prescriptions if they are aged under 16, or under 19 and in full-time education, or are aged 60 or over, or they (or their partner) are receiving Income Support, income based Jobseeker's Allowance or full tax credit (with net income up to £11,543). They may also claim help under the National Health Service low income scheme. We have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to provide free prescription charges for people on Incapacity Benefit. [158234]

  Ms Stuart
  No. Incapacity Benefit is not income related and it would not, therefore, be appropriate to extend automatic exemption from prescription charges to recipients of this benefit.

  Orphan Medicinal Products
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the definition is of orphan medicinal products referred to in Chapter 20 of the statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products for 2001. [158355]
  214W
  Ms Stuart
  An orphan medicinal product is one used to treat a rare disease. A rare disease is defined by the Regulation (EC No. 141–2000) as one affecting not more than five people per 10,000 in the European Community.

  Nicotine Replacement Therapies
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has collated on the effectiveness of the investment of smoking cessation services set up following the White Paper, "Smoking Kills". [158353]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on 5 April 2001, Official Report, column 267W.

  Nicotine replacement therapy, as announced on 14 March, is now available on National Health Service prescription from 17 April in England. This fulfils our commitment made in the NHS Plan last year.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public funding has been allocated for(a) nicotine replacement therapies and (b) bupropian (Zyban), for (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02. [158343]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on 26 March 2001, Official Report, column 452W.

  Honey
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list cases of honey sold in the United Kingdom found to contain GM pollen. [158503]

  Ms Stuart
  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that it is not aware of any cases of honey containing genetically modified (GM) pollen on sale in the United Kingdom. Research commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has shown that GM pollen, if present, would represent no more than 0.00000000003g to 0.000000005g in a 500g jar of honey.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish guidance on the public health aspects of disposal of carcases of animals slaughtered as a result of the foot and mouth disease epidemic. [158892]

  Mr. Milburn
  I have today published guidance on measures to minimise the risk to public health from the slaughter and disposal of animals. The guidance will be issued to Regional and Health Authority Directors of Public Health, along with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and military personnel responsible for implementing the policy on slaughter and disposal.

  Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  School Achievement Awards
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools were misinformed by his Department about school achievement awards in England(a) in total and (b) in each local education authority. [157309]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]: The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answers of 20 March 2001,Official Report, column 160–64W, on school achievement awards, which of the schools have since been found not to have been entitled to awards and which schools have been added to the list; and if he will make a statement. [157098]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) on 30 March 2001, Official Report, column 842W. The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of appointees to(a) each Learning and Skills Council and (b) Learning and Skills Councils in total have declared political activity for (i) the Labour party, (ii) the Conservative party, (iii) the Liberal Democrats and (iv) other parties. [157508]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: Appointments to the LSC and its local arms have been made through fair and open competition, in accordance with guidance issued by the Office of the Commissioner

  English region/local LSC area

  Labour

  Conservative

  Liberal Democrat

  Others

  North East

  County Durham

  1 (7%)

  —

  —

  1 (7%)

  Northumberland

  1 (9%)

  —

  —

  —

  Tees Valley

  4 (33%)

  1 (8%)

  —

  —

  Tyne and Wear

  3 (21%)

  —

  —

  —

  East Midlands

  Derbyshire

  6 (46%)

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  2 (17%)

  1 (8%)

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire and Rutland

  1 (7%)

  —

  1 (7%)

  1 (7%)

  Northamptonshire

  2 (15%)

  1 (8%)

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  2 (17%)

  —

  —

  —

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  South Yorkshire

  4 (31%)

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  —

  2 (15%)

  —

  —

  Humberside

  2 (14%)

  —

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire

  3 (25%)

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  Birmingham and Solihull

  4 (31%)

  —

  —

  —

  The Black Country

  2 (15%)

  —

  —

  —

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  3 (25%)

  —

  —

  —

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  2(18%)

  —

  —

  —

  Shropshire

  2(17%)

  —

  1(8%)

  1(8%)

  Staffordshire

  4(27%)

  —

  —

  —

  216W
  for Public Appointments (OCPA). We have sought to attract applications from individuals with a wide range of appropriate experience, regardless of any political affiliation they may have.

  We wrote to all English MPs last year, asking them to encourage suitable candidates to apply. The great majority of applicants for LSC membership and of those appointed as members declared that they were not politically active within the last five years.

  Of the 16 members appointed to the national Learning and Skills Council, five (31 per cent.) declared political activity with the Labour party. There were no declarations in respect of other parties.

  141 of the 641 people who have been appointed and remain as members of the local Learning and Skills Councils declared political activity. These figures exclude Executive Directors of local Learning and Skills Councils as they were not required to declare political activity when applying for these posts. A breakdown by political party is set out in the table:

  Appointed

  Percentage of politically active members

  Conservative

  21

  14.9

  Labour

  107

  75.9

  Liberal Democrat

  10

  7.1

  Other

  3

  2.1

  Total

  141

  100

  As a percentage success rate, based on the number of applications by party, this breaks down as: 24 per cent. for Labour; 21 per cent. for the Conservatives; 13 per cent. for the Liberal-Democrats; and 12 per cent. for other parties.

  The table shows the percentage of appointees to each of the 47 local LSCs who have declared political activity, by party:

  217W

  English region/local LSC area

  Labour

  Conservative

  Liberal Democrat

  Others

  North West

  Cheshire/Warrington

  2(13%)

  —

  1(7%)

  —

  Cumbria

  2(13%)

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  4(27%)

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  5(33%)

  —

  —

  —>

  Greater Merseyside

  4(27%)

  —

  1(7%)

  —

  South West

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  —

  1(7%)

  —

  Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole

  —

  —

  2(14%)

  —

  Gloucestershire

  1(8%)

  —

  —

  —

  Somerset

  1(7%)

  1(7%)

  1(7%)

  —

  Wiltshire and Swindon

  1(8%)

  2(15%)

  1(8%)

  —

  The West of England

  2(14%)

  —

  —

  —

  East of England

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  2(13%)

  1(7%)

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  2(13%)

  —

  1(7%)

  —

  Essex

  3(21%)

  2(14%)

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  1(7%)

  1(7%)

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  2(14%)

  1(7%)

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  4(29%)

  1(7%)

  —

  —

  South East

  Berkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and IOW

  1(7%)

  —

  —

  —

  Kent and Medway

  2(13%)

  3(20%)

  —

  —

  Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire and Bucks

  2(13%)

  —

  —

  —

  Surrey

  1(7%)

  1(7%)

  —

  —

  Sussex

  2(13%)

  —

  —

  —

  London

  London Central

  4(31%)

  2(15%)

  —

  —

  London East

  4(26%)

  —

  —

  —

  London North

  2(14%)

  —

  —

  —

  London South

  2(18%)

  1(9%)

  —

  —

  London West

  3(21%)

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  107

  21

  10

  3

  (75.9%)

  (14.9%)

  (7.1%)

  (2.1%)

  Education Maintenance Allowance (Camden)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the Education Maintenance Allowance scheme in the London borough of Camden; and how many students have taken up the allowance since its introduction. [158019]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: I am pleased to say that the progress of the Education Maintenance Allowance scheme in the London borough of Camden is good with 367 students receiving the allowance. Applications are still being received and these are processed within 48 hours. Over £162,000 has been paid to students this year. This includes end of term attendance bonuses of £7,750.

  Departmental Policies (Cannock Chase)
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Cannock Chase constituency, the effects on Cannock Chase of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [158068]
  218W
  Mr. Wills
  Details of the effects of a range of the Department's policies on the Cannock Chase constituency and Staffordshire local education authority have been placed in the Library.

  Students (Funding)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much funding is available to help full-time students who are in financial difficulties(a) this year and (b) in each of the last five years. [157823]

  Mr. Wicks
  The total amount available through higher education Access and Hardship Funds to help students in financial difficulty in 2000–01 is £87 million, almost four times the amount available in 1997–98. Both full and part-time students are eligible to apply for help, and the total includes £13 million for the fee waiver scheme introduced in 1998 specifically for part-time students on benefit or low incomes. Additionally, since 1998 full-time students have been able to apply for a discretionary Hardship Loan of up to £500 each year.

  The Government have made available a range of further education learner support funds for students facing

  219W
  financial difficulties in further education. Discretionary funding has been massively increased to support the most disadvantaged students. In addition, we are piloting Education Maintenance Allowances (EMAs) in 56 local education authority areas to provide weekly support to further education students assessed on the basis of parental income.

  Table 1 shows the amounts available through the higher education Access and Hardship Funds since the 1995–96 academic year. The Funds were doubled in 1998–99 when part-time students became eligible to apply for help. The funding provided to meet fee waivers for part-time students since 1998–99 is separately identified.

  Table 2 shows the increase in discretionary funding available to disadvantaged students in further education over the same period.

  Table 3 shows the levels of funding made available up to 31 March 2001 for Education Maintenance Allowances. These figures relate to financial years since September 1999, when the pilots began.

  Table 1

  £ million

  Academic year

  Access and Hardship Fund

  Fee waivers for part-time students

  1995–96

  22

  —

  1996–97

  22

  —

  1997–98

  22

  —

  1998–99

  46

  2

  1999–2000

  75

  12

  2000–01

  87

  13

  Table 2

  £ million

  Academic year

  Discretionary funding

  1995–96

  6

  1996–97

  6

  1997–98

  6

  1998–99

  13

  1999–2000

  53

  2000–01

  101

  Table 3

  £million

  Financial year

  Education maintenance allowances

  1999–2000

  11

  2000–01

  81

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he has taken to inform parents of the availability of nursery vouchers; how they may be applied for; and if he will make a statement. [158465]

  Ms Hodge
  holding answer 23 April 2001]: Nursery education vouchers were replaced in 1997 by a system of payments to nursery education providers. This system emphasises co-operation, rather than competition, between providers and is a more effective way of ensuring parents have access to the nursery education they want for their children.

  All four-year-olds have had access to a free nursery education place since September 1998. From September 2004, all three-year-olds will be entitled to a free nursery education place. Total spending on nursery education will double from £1 billion in 1996–97 to £2 billion by 2003–04. It is intended to fund 200,000 more free places for three and four-year-olds in 2001–02 than in 1997–98.

  To help parents choose suitable nursery education, they can obtain information about the early education and childcare provision in their area by contacting their local Childcare Information Service. There is also the ChildcareLink national freephone information line (0800 096 0296) and a website www.childcarelink.gov.uk from which parents can obtain details of provision in England and Scotland. We are also working with several major retailers and other organisations to enable parents to access this information in public places.

  Pre-school Groups
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pre-school groups there were in(a) West Sussex and (b) the Chichester parliamentary constituency in 1997; and how many there are at present. [158594]

  Ms Hodge
  Data on pre-school groups are not available at constituency level. In March 1997 there were 353 registered pre-school groups in the West Sussex area and in March 2000 then were 309. In the light of changing patterns of demand, many pre-school groups are diversifying and expanding their provision into daycare and nursery education

  Over the same time period the number of registered day nurseries has increased from 79 to 90, the number of registered holiday schemes from 66 to 213 and the number of registered out of school clubs from 31 to 66. Free nursery education places for three and four-year-olds have increased from 8,245 in 1997 to 9,501 in 2001.

  £300 million is being made available nationally between April 2001 and March 2004 for the creation of new Neighbourhood Nursery centres in disadvantaged areas and many pre-schools may want to take advantage of this. We are making £986 million available over the years 2001–02 to 2003–04 for the provision of free nursery education places for three-year-olds, and other early years initiatives. Playgroups, along with other early education providers will benefit from this expansion. In addition, £6 million in capital between 2002–04 and

  221W
  £4 million in revenue this year is also being made available specifically to help playgroups and maintained schools expand into childcare.

  We have also made available a total of £1.75 million in the three-year period 1998–2000 for special grants to voluntary pre-schools and playgroups facing short-term financial difficulties, to give them breathing space to consider their longer term plans. To date over 2,000 pre-schools and playgroups have received grants.

  Bonded Labour
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the Government's planned approach to the United Nations International Labour Organisation meeting on bonded labour in June. [158284]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government fully support the ILO's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up. We actively encourage member states to fulfil their obligations and work towards ratifying and implementing the provisions of the Conventions covered by the Declaration which include the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour, including bonded labour, the subject of the June Conference discussion.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the Government will support the setting up of the monitoring unit for bonded labour under the International Labour Organisation Technical Co-operation Unit. [158119]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government fully support the follow-up process to the International Labour Organisation (ILO)'s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. We actively encourage member states to fulfil their obligations and work towards ratifying and implementing the provisions of the Conventions covered by the Declaration including those on forced and bonded labour.

  Appointments (Age Limits)
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what age limit is placed on appointments to public bodies in his Department; if this limit is mentioned in advertisements for such posts; and what the basis for this limit is. [158111]

  Mr. Wills
  There is no such limit placed on appointments to public bodies in this Department.

  Full-time Education (Wiltshire)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the percentage of 16-year-olds in full-time education was in Wiltshire in 1999. [157789]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: At the heart of our drive to improve participation and attainment is the new Connexions Service which is being phased in from this month. The service will provide information, advice, support and access to personal development opportunities for all 13 to 19-year-olds, whatever their needs and circumstances, to keep them learning. Latest figures show that the numbers of 16 to
  222W
  18-year-olds not in education, employment or training in England fell by 28,000 from 185,000 in 1998 to 157,000 in 1999.

  Participation rates by LEA for 16 and 17-year-olds are published in Statistical Bulletin 11/00: Participation in education and training by young people aged 16 and 17 in each local area and region, England, 1994–95 to 1998–99.

  The percentage of 16-year-olds in full-time education in Wiltshire local education authority was 73 per cent. in 1998–99, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Further Education (Burnley)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children have gone on to(a) higher education and (b) further education since leaving secondary school in Burnley in the latest year for which figures are available. [158398]

  Mr. Wicks
  At the heart of our drive to improve participation and attainment is the new Connexions Service which is being phased in from this month. The service will provide information, advice, support and access to personal development opportunities for all 13 to 19-year-olds, whatever their needs and circumstances, to keep them learning. Latest figures show that the numbers of 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training in England fell by 28,000 from 185,000 in 1998 to 157,000 in 1999.

  Data on the percentage of students continuing in post-compulsory education at age 16 are not calculated for areas smaller than LEAs. Participation rates by LEA for 16 and 17-year-olds are published in Statistical Bulletin 11/00: Participation in education and training by young people aged 16 and 17 in each local area and region, England, 1994–95 to 1998–99.

  The percentage of 16-year-olds in further education for Lancashire LEA, which includes the constituency of Burnley, was 76 per cent. in 1998–99, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Figures for the number of school leavers from Burnley who go on to higher education are not available centrally.

  Education Investment
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average total education investment per state school pupil was in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001; and what he estimates it will be in (i) 2002 and (ii) 2003. [158124]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Financial year

  Per pupil funding in cash terms

  Per pupil funding in real terms

  Year on year increase

  1999–20001

  2,860

  2,860

  —

  2000–012

  3,110

  3,050

  190

  2001–023

  3,390

  3,250

  200

  2002–033

  3,610

  3,380

  130

  1Actual

  2Provisional

  3Planned

WALES

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will present figures for the gross domestic product per head at basic prices in Wales in(a) 1999 and (b) 2000 on the same basis as that used in table 5.29 of the 2000 edition of "Social Trends". [155457]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The figures in table 5.29 of the 2000 edition of Social Trends are at factor cost. More recent figures are calculated at basic prices and reflect changes in the European System of Accounts used in calculating gross domestic product. Figures for 1989 up to 1999 at basic prices were published on 27 February 2001 in the Office for National Statistics news release "Regional gross domestic product" and are available in the March 2001 edition of "Economic Trends", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Figures for the year 2000 will be published on the same basis during the Spring.

  Single Rail Franchise
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions regarding the commencement date for the single rail franchise for Wales; and if he will make a statement. [158095]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with my Cabinet colleagues about a range of issues affecting Wales.

  On 15 February, the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) announced that Arriva plc in conjunction with Connex Transport UK Limited, FirstGroup plc, National Express Group plc, and Serco Rail had been shortlisted to compete for the Wales and Borders franchise. It will be for the SRA to determine a commencement date for the franchise.

  Waste Recycling (Wales)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much of Wales' waste has been recycled for each of the last five years. [156349]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Figures for Wales alone are available only in respect of municipal waste. These are as follows:

  1996/97–4 per cent.

  1997/98–4 per cent.

  1998/99–5 per cent.

  Information on recycling since 1 July 1999 is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Ynys Môn constituency, the effects on Ynys Môn of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997; [154962]
  224W
  (2) if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Caernarfon constituency, the effects on Caernarfon of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997; [154964]

  (3) if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Meirionnydd Nant Conwy constituency, the effects on Meirionnydd Nant Conwy of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154965]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  As these questions were originally addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, my response concentrates on the effects of my Department's policies and actions on health services prior to 1 July 1999, when responsibility for their provision transferred to the National Assembly for Wales.

  Because of the way in which health services are organised, it is not practicable to provide information which is specific to individual constituencies. The timing of financial and statistical exercises also means that some of the figures quoted relate to periods ending shortly before or shortly after 30 June 1999.

  In October 1997, an additional £2.2 million was made available to North Wales health authority, over and above its financial allocation for the year, to provide enhanced patient care. The authority's basic allocation for 1998–99, at £381.3 million, represented a year-on-year cash increase of £13.6 million. This was further enhanced by £4.1 million in April 1998 to address waiting list issues, and £2.6 million in November for dealing with winter pressures.

  Between annual counts taken in September 1997 and September 1999, the number of directly employed NHS nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff in the area of the North Wales health authority increased by 267.4 in full-time equivalent terms. Over the same period, medical and dental staff increased by 29.8.

  Health services in these constituencies will also have benefited from a range of important all-Wales policy initiatives which were developed between May 1997 and June 1999. These include:
  Delivering Care-Meeting Need—a comprehensive package of measures for primary and community health care (1997);
  Putting Patients First—which promoted a series of reforms for the NHS in Wales, such as the abolition of the internal market and GP fundholding, and the introduction of new structures such as Local Health Groups and Health Improvement Programmes (1998);
  Better Health, Better Wales—a strategy for improving public health (1998);
  Quality Care and Clinical Excellence—a programme for clinical effectiveness (1998);
  Reconfiguration of NHS Trusts—a programme of mergers which reduced the total number of NHS Trusts from 29 to 16 (1999).

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Ceredigion constituency, the effects on Ceredigion of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154963]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  As this question was originally addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, my response concentrates on the effects of my
  225W
  Department's policies and actions on health services prior to 1 July 1999, when responsibility for their provision transferred to the National Assembly for Wales.

  Because of the way in which health services are organised, it is not practicable to provide information which is specific to an individual constituency. The timing of financial and statistical exercises also means that some of the figures quoted relate to periods ending shortly before or shortly after 30 June 1999.

  In October 1997, an additional £1.8 million was made available to Dyfed Powys health authority, over and above its financial allocation for the year, to provide enhanced patient care. The authority's basic allocation for 1998–99, at £283.4 million, represented a year-on-year cash increase of £9.6 million. This was further enhanced by £3.0 million in April 1998 to address waiting list issues, and £1.9 million in November for dealing with winter pressures.

  Between annual counts taken in September 1997 and September 1999, the number of directly employed NHS nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff in the area of the Dyfed Powys health authority increased by 20.9 in full-time equivalent terms. Over the same period, medical and dental staff increased by 28.3.

  Health services in Ceredigion will also have benefited from a range of important all-Wales policy initiatives which were developed between May 1997 and June 1999. These included:
  Delivering Care—Meeting Need—a comprehensive package of measures for primary and community health care (1997);
  Putting Patients First—which promoted a series of reforms for the NHS in Wales, such as the abolition of the internal market and GP fundholding, and the introduction of new structures such as local health groups and health improvement programmes (1998);
  Better Health, Better Wales—a strategy for improving public health (1998);
  Quality Care and Clinical Excellence—a programme for clinical effectiveness (1998);
  Reconfiguration of NHS Trusts—a programme of mergers which reduced the total number of NHS Trusts from 29 to 16 (1999).

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Cosmetics (Animal Testing)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Government support a ban on the sale of cosmetics tested on animals. [158496]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: The Government are seriously committed to ensuring the protection of animal welfare and to improving animal welfare standards. Currently the UK has a voluntary ban on animal testing for cosmetic products. The proposed 7th Amendment to the Cosmetics Directive introduces a mandatory testing ban on cosmetic products and their ingredients throughout the European Union. If adopted, it will help advance the protection of animal welfare in every member state of the European Union.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many widows are awaiting their claims to be resolved for their late husbands' mining compensation scheme for(a) Barnsley and (b) Doncaster. [158195]
  226W
  Mr. Hain
  To date, in the Barnsley area, as defined by the postcodes S70, S72 and S73, there are 644 claims associated with miners' widows. A bereavement award is made in cases where the death certificate cites one of the following eight qualifying descriptors: emphysema; chronic obstructive airways disease; chronic obstructive lung disease; chronic airways disease; chronic airflow limitation; chronic airflow obstruction; chronic bronchitis; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. These qualifying conditions were agreed between the Department and the solicitors representing the claimants. In Barnsley, 188 widows have received bereavement awards, totalling £1.6 million.

  In the Doncaster areas, as defined by the postcodes DN1, DN3–5 and DN9, there have been 269 claims in relation to miners' widows. Of these 184 have received bereavement awards totalling £1.5 million.

  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the medical assessment rate per month is for claims that are waiting to be completed for the miners' compensation scheme for(a) Barnsley and (b) Doncaster. [158194]

  Mr. Hain
  Claimants are usually invited to attend an appointment to undergo the Medical Assessment Procedure, MAP, at a centre within a 25-mile radius of their residence. In the Barnsley area, as defined by the postcodes S70, S72, S73 and S75, there is a test centre serving residents and the surrounding 25-mile region. Claimants residing in Doncaster are served by centres in Huddersfield, Leeds, Mexborough, Pontefract and Sheffield. Each centre, when fully resourced with a respiratory specialist, lung function technician and administration staff, is capable of carrying out a minimum of 20 appointments per week, 40 in the case of Barnsley. The table shows the number of MAPs undertaken and appointments booked to date at each centre:

  Test centre

  MAPs undertaken

  Appointments booked

  Barnsley

  523

  163

  Leeds

  284

  3

  Huddersfield

  37

  6

  Mexborough

  408

  181

  Sheffield

  443

  115

  Pontefract

  586

  214

  The number of MAPs undertaken per week depends largely on the availability of respiratory specialists. Over the next three months, two new respiratory specialists working a minimum of 10 sessions per week each are scheduled to start work in Yorkshire and north-east England. Three more specialists working between six and 10 sessions per week each are also scheduled to start over this period.

  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much compensation has been paid to miners, ex-miners and miners' families in respect of chronic bronchitis and emphysema in the Wansbeck constituency. [158460]

  Mr. Hain
  To date, IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, have registered 2,315 claimants in the Wansbeck constituency, as defined by the postcodes NE22 and
  227W
  NE61–64. There have been 524 individual payments, including interims and full and final settlements, totalling £2.1 million.

  Offshore Windfarms
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of United Kingdom electricity generation is expected to be represented by the offshore windfarm sites announced on 6 April. [158135]

  Mr. Hain
  Depending on the proportion which go ahead and their capacity, these initial projects might contribute around 1 per cent. of UK electricity generation by 2010.

  Trading Standards (Test Purchases)
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with other Government departments on the use of children of compulsory school age in undertaking test purchasing on behalf of local authority trading standards departments during school hours; and if he will make a statement. [158494]

  Dr. Howells
  I have had no discussions with other Government Departments on this matter. However, as Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs I have always made it clear that the primary responsibility for avoiding illegal sales to children rests with retailers. They need to be aware of their legal obligations, and can help themselves to stay within the law by displaying notices detailing age restrictions; by asking a person's age if they have even the slightest doubt; and by being more ready to insist on seeing some form of proof of age.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government are taking to reduce the contribution of nuclear power to generating electricity as a proportion of the United Kingdom's energy supply. [158655]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: The Government have no plans to reduce the contribution of nuclear power to the nation's electricity supply needs. Generators can continue to operate nuclear plant as long as it remains safe and economical to do so.

  MOX Fuel
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the notifications he has received from BNFL of contracts secured for the importation of irradiated MOX fuel for each of the last 10 years, in each case indicating(a) the originating company and country and (b) the quantity of material. [158412]

  Mr. Hain
  BNFL provides information to DTI, as its shareholder, about the company's commercial activities, including new contracts.

  Since 1990, BNFL has concluded reprocessing contracts with customers in Europe which include provision for a proportion of the fuel to be reprocessed to be MOX. The details and quantities of individual contracts are commercial matters for BNFL and its customers.
  228W
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the applications he has received from BNFL in each of the last 10 years for the reprocessing of irradiated MOX fuel, in each case indicating(a) the originating company and country and (b) the quantity of material and the decision he has made on the application. [158413]

  Mr. Hain
  My Department has received no such applications. BNFL will need to satisfy the relevant regulators before reprocessing irradiated MOX.

TREASURY

  Minimum Wage (Witney)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) employees and (b) women in Witney have had their pay increased as a result of the minimum wage. [158123]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Shaun Woodward, dated 24 April 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of employees and women in Witney who have had their pay increased as a result of the national minimum wage (NMW) (158123)
  The Office for National Statistics has published estimates of the number of jobs paid at less than NMW rates for 1998, 1999, and 2000. These include estimates for the UK broken down by gender. These estimates are based on an improved methodology using data from the New Earnings Survey (NES) and Labour Force Survey (LFS). This methodology provides the best estimates for the number of jobs in the UK paid below low hourly rate thresholds and was developed to overcome the deficiencies inherent in using the NES and LFS separately for measuring low pay.
  Estimates for the United Kingdom and Government Office Regions are posted on the National Statistics website at: www.statistics.gov.uk/rsbase/themes/labour_market/nmw_lowpay_tables.asp
  Estimates for Parliamentary Constituencies of numbers of jobs paid below NMW rates are not available on the basis of the methodology applied for producing the national and regional level figures.

  Agricultural Suicides
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many suicides there have been of individuals identified with the agricultural industry in each month since January 2000; and if he will make a statement. [158719]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Lembit Öpik, dated 24 April 2001:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of suicides of those identified with the agriculture industry in each month since January 2000 (158719).
  The figures requested are not yet available. Two sets of annual mortality data are routinely released each year. Figures for deaths registered during 2000 are due to be published in May 2001. Figures for deaths which occurred during 2000 are due to be published in October 2001. For some deaths, including suicides, where the death

  229W
  has been referred to the coroner, there is a delay between the occurrence of the death and the subsequent registration. As a result of this delay, figures based on registration data do not provide an accurate indication of the number of suicides which occur each month.

  Church Repairs (VAT)
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of churches which will benefit from the reduced rate of VAT on church repairs; and if he will make a statement. [158764]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are introducing a new grant scheme for listed buildings used as places of worship.

  Accurate information on numbers of potential beneficiaries is not available.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the calculations on which the Government's claim that around 1 million children may have been lifted out of poverty since 1997 is based. [158694]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 14 March 2001,Official Report, column 609W, and to the answer given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 19 May 2000, Official Report, column 296W

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 10 April 2001,Official Report, column 526W, on Working Families Tax Credit, if he will waive the requirement that reviews are six months apart for those affected by foot and mouth disease. [158575]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) is designed to provide medium to longer-term support for working families. Awards are based on the family's normal weekly income and last for 26 weeks. These basic rules keep the system simple and provide families with the security of a guaranteed and regular source of income for a substantial period. They are the basis of the current system, which provides much valued support to 1.17 million working families.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many registered environmental bodies(a) have and (b) have not made landfill tax grants in respect of the conservation of buildings, including places of worship. [R] [158408]

  Mr. Timms
  The regulator of the Landfill Tax Environmental Bodies Credit Scheme, ENTRUST, records details reported by the enrolled environmental bodies (EBs) of the expenditure against the various objects of the scheme. Object E covers restoring and repairing buildings which are for religious worship, or of architectural or historical interest. 270 EBs have reported spending contributions on object E projects and 2,164 EBs have not.

  Village Halls (Climate Change Levy)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the application of(a) VAT and (b) the climate change levy on activities in village halls. [158464]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: The activities of a village hall are generally business and are subject to the normal VAT rules. Climate change levy is not charged on the domestic use of energy or non-business use by charities.

DEFENCE

  Pay and Personnel Agency
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Pay and Personnel Agency for 2001–02. [158795]

  Dr. Moonie
  The chief executive of the Pay and Personnel Agency (PPA) is responsible for providing pay and personnel information services for the Ministry of Defence as defined in the agency framework document. During 2001–02 the PPA will be set the following challenging key performance targets.

  1. To make 100 per cent. of all payments to staff by the due date (excluding late payments caused by invalid claims or late notification outside the control of the Agency).

  2. To keep error rates within the following limits:
  six per 1,000 payments of industrial and non-industrial pay
  15 per 1,000 awards for pensions
  five per 1,000 payments of expenses.

  3. By 31 March 2002 to have set up a Customer Service Centre covering 70 per cent. of PPA business operations.

  4. By 31 March 2002 to have provided direct access for customers through their communication channel of choice.

  5. By 31 March 2002 to have provided customers with electronic input for the eight most often used forms.

  6. To answer 95 per cent. of written complaints within 20 working days of receipt.

  7. To constrain expenditure on the business tasks of the Agency within the funding for those tasks agreed between DUS(CM) and PPA in their Service Level Agreement.

  8. To gain approval for a costed customer service improvement programme which delivers better value for the MOD.

  Defence Estate
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress his Department has made towards meetings its targets for the disposal of surplus property from the Defence Estate. [158796]

  Dr. Moonie
  In the financial year 2000–01 the Ministry of Defence achieved receipts amounting to £209 million from the disposal of surplus land. Although less than the record £287 million achieved in 1999–2000, this is a significant contribution to the achievement of the target set in the Strategic Defence Review of property disposals amounting to £700 million by 2002, and to the wider target set in Spending Review 2000 of disposals of over £600 million of assets by March 2004.

  Joint Strike Fighters
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will enumerate the items on which the £600 million to be expended on UK specific requirements for the Joint Strike Fighter are to be spent. [157734]

  Mr. Hoon
  The items on which the £600 million is to be spent are: procurement of weapons and their supply to the US Engineering and Manufacturing Development Prime Contractor for test purposes in support of design activities for the integration of the UK weapons currently identified as initial fit requirements; ensuring JSF is fully operable in the UK and NATO Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence environments; compliance with UK aircraft and weapons safety, environmental and acceptance processes, and integration design activities and supply of weapons for test purposes for post-initial fit UK weapons.

  Warships
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which major mechanical faults have been reported on Royal Navy warships in each of the past three years; and which Royal Navy vessels have been involved in(a) collisions with other vessels and (b) groundings in each of the past three years. [157743]

  Mr. Spellar
  Details of those defects relating specifically to major mechanical faults in each of the past three years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Royal Navy vessels involved in collisions with other vessels, and those vessels involved in groundings, in each of the past three years are shown in the table. There were no reported groundings during 1999.

  Collisions

  Groundings

  2000

  HMS Guernsy

  HMS Raider

  HMS Grimsby

  HMS Sandown

  RFA Fort Victoria/RFA Sir Bedivere

  HMS Grafton

  LCVP (HMS Ocean)

  HMS Triumph

  HMS Manchester

  HMS Victorious

  HMS Puncher

  1999

  HMS Endurance

  HMS Chidingford/HMS Nottingham

  HMS Ranger

  HMS Cardiff

  HMS Bristol

  HMS Pembroke

  HMS Tracker

  HMS Shetland

  232W

  Collisions

  Groundings

  1998

  HMS Manchester

  RFA Black Rover

  HMS Cornwall

  RFA Sir Galahad

  HMS Exploit

  Missile Defence Systems
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence further to his answer of 3 April 2001,Official Report, columns 110–11W, on missile defence systems, if he will publish a report on the progress of the Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme. [158075]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) on 6 April 2001,Official Report, column 293W.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence further to his answer of 3 April 2001,Official Report, column 111W, on national missile defence, for what reason it is premature to decide to acquire a ballistic missile defence for UK territory or forces deployed overseas. [158076]

  Mr. Hoon
  Our current judgment that it would be premature to decide on acquiring a ballistic missile defence capability for either UK territory or forces deployed overseas is based on our assessment of the threat, the rapidity with which relevant defensive technologies are changing, and the need to evaluate further the potential role of missile defences as one element of a broad-ranging defence response to missile proliferation.

  Type 45 Destroyer
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the Type 45 destroyers will be provided with(a) Phalanx and (b) another close-in range defensive capability; and if he will make a statement; [157731]

  (2) what lessons he has drawn for the capability and assessment of the Royal Navy's Type 45 destroyers from the USS Winston Churchill; and if he will make a statement; [157733]

  (3) if the Type 45 destroyer will be provided with (a) an anti-ship and (b) a land attack capability; and if he will make a statement; [157748]

  (4) if the Type 45 destroyers will be provided with anti-submarine armament other than the torpedoes carried by their Lynx helicopter; and if he will make a statement. [157732]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Type 45 destroyer is primarily intended to provide effective area air defence against aircraft and missiles and will be equipped with the world-beating Principal Anti-Air Missile System. This will provide the Royal Navy with a significant increase in capability from the outset when it comes into service in 2007. In accordance with Smart acquisition practice, the Type 45 has been designed so that its capability can be upgraded throughout its life to take advantage of changes in defence requirements and technological advances.

  In addition to its primary role, the Type 45 will have an anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capability. Details of this capability were provided in answer to an earlier

  233W
  question raised by the hon. Member on 30 January 2001, Official Report, column 98W. It includes sonar, Lynx HMA Mk 8 helicopter carrying Stingray anti-submarine torpedoes, Ship Surface Torpedo Defence System (SSTD) towed and expendable acoustic decoys and, in the longer term, enhanced SSTD countermeasures. Should additional ASW armament be required to that provided by the Stingray torpedoes carried by the Lynx helicopter, the Type 45 design allows for the later fitting of a double-tubed Magazine Torpedo Launch System.

  The Type 45's anti-surface ship capability will be provided by the Sea Skua missile, fitted to its Lynx helicopter, together with the ship's medium range gunnery system, the 4/" Mk 8 Mod 1 gun, and two 30 mm guns. The Type 45 design also allows for the fitting of a Surface to Surface Guided Weapon.

  To provide a close range defensive capability, it is planned to fit Phalanx Close-In Weapon Systems to each Type 45. Should the requirement for the Type 45 class to have a land attack capability arise, provision has also been made in Type 45 designs either for fitting a Vertical Launch System for missiles, or for a larger calibre gun to be used.

  Through our close collaboration with the United States, we naturally look to see what lessons can be drawn from their equipment procurement and operating experience, including that of ships such as the USS Winston Churchill and its systems.

  NewDERA
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost was of the new name and logo selected for NewDERA. [157333]

  Mr. Hoon
  DERA announced on 5 April that its new name, when it becomes a plc in July, will be QinetiQ. The name will also serve as a logo.

  The process for generating and deciding on a new name cost £42,000. The design work needed to devise an associated corporate identity for all areas of NewDERA where the name will be used has cost a further £365,000.

  The application of this design work to new stationery, signs, marketing literature, etc. is still on-going with a view to formal introduction when the plc is formed on 1 July.

  It is too early to calculate the final cost of this. It is important to note, however, that even if the name had not been changed, such work would in any case have been required in order to adapt NewDERA to its new status as a plc.

  Submarine Communications
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he intends to provide the Royal Navy submarine fleet with an extra high frequency communications capability compatible and interoperable with that now used by the US Navy in their submarine communications; and if he will make a statement. [157737]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence has identified a requirement for the Royal Navy's submarine fleet to be fitted with a satellite communications capability that is compatible and interoperable with the US Navy's next 234W
  generation Extremely High Frequency (EHF) system. Options to meet the requirement are being evaluated as part of the SKYNET 5 programme.

  Related studies to address the integration of EHF satellite communications terminals into submarines are just getting under way.

  India
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what meetings he has had with his Indian counterpart in the past year. [157745]

  Mr. Hoon
  George Fernandes, the former Indian Defence Minister, and I met on two occasions in the past year. Our first meeting was during his official visit to the UK in June 2000, the second was during my visit to India last December as a guest of the Indian Government.

  I have also met the new Defence Minister, Jaswant Singh, three times in the past year, in his capacity as Foreign Minister.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Ministry of Defence staff are based in India in connection with procurement and disposal programmes. [157747]

  Mr. Hoon
  Service and civilian Ministry of Defence staff based at the British High Commission in New Delhi have a role in promoting UK procurement and disposal programmes as a part of their wider responsibilities.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many visits have been made by Defence Procurement Agency personnel to India in the past two years. [157744]

  Mr. Hoon
  During the period 6 April 1999 to 5 April 2001, no duty visits were made by Defence Procurement Agency personnel to India.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which former Royal Navy warships are in service with the Indian Navy; and what the date was of their commission into the Royal Navy. [157746]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are two former RN ships currently in service with the Indian Navy. They are:

  (i) Ex HMS Hermes (renamed INS Viraat), a Hermes Class aircraft carrier.

  (ii) Ex HMS Andromeda (renamed INS Krishna), a Leander Class frigate that was converted to a Training Ship for IN operations.

  HMS Hermes and HMS Andromeda were originally commissioned into RN service in November 1959 and December 1968 respectively.

  Future Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what implications further delay in the down select for the Joint Strike Fighter would have on(a) the timings and (b) the cost of the development and construction of the two future aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy; and if he will make a statement. [157735]
  235W
  Mr. Hoon
  The procurement strategy for the carriers has been designed to ensure coherency with the future carrier borne aircraft project, and the decision on the selection of a JSF variant. The time and cost implications for the future aircraft carrier programme of a delay in the down select of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) would depend on the nature and length of any delay, and an assessment of its likely impact on both programmes.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will place the orders for the(a) second batch and (b) third batch of the Eurofighter within the planned total of 232 aircraft. [157719]

  Mr. Hoon
  We currently plan to place orders for the second and third tranches of Eurofighter aircraft in 2003 and 2007 respectively.

  Link 16
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to install Link 16 in naval and air platforms; and what the projected in-service dates are for each aircraft type and class of vessel. [157727]

  Mr. Spellar
  Link 16 is already in service on the Tornado F3 and Sentry E3D aircraft, and the UK Air Defence Ground Environment. Additionally, on current plans, we will install Link 16 in several in-service naval and air platforms as follows:

  In-service platform

  ISD with Link 16

  Type 42 destroyer (Batch 2 and 3)

  2004

  CVS (Invincible Class)

  2004

  Sea King AEW

  2002

  Nimrod (R)

  2003

  Sea Harrier FA2

  2004

  Major new naval and air platforms, such as Eurofighter and the Type 45 destroyer, will be provided with situational awareness through secure tactical data links, in many cases by installing Link 16.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy SSNs are operational; and if he will make a statement. [157736]

  Mr. Spellar
  HMS Triumph is currently operational. HMS Tireless is expected to return to operational status in May and HMS Superb is due to return to operational status in June.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects HMS Tireless to be operational; and if he will make a statement. [157750]

  Mr. Spellar
  HMS Tireless is expected to return to operations in May.

  HMS Valiant
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy personnel are tasked with the maintenance of HMS Valiant. [157739]
  236W
  Mr. Spellar
  HMS Valiant has currently 18 staff. Not only do the ship's staff carry out routine maintenance work and safety checks but they are also responsible for the continuous security of the submarine.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future role of HMS Valiant. [157738]

  Mr. Spellar
  HMS Valiant has been decommissioned from the Royal Navy and will be stored afloat at Devonport.

  HMS Norfolk
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which private contractors are involved in the maintenance of the main gun armament of HMS Norfolk; what role Royal Navy personnel will have in the maintenance and repair of the gun system; and if he will make a statement. [157740]

  Mr. Spellar
  BAE Systems are responsible for the majority of support but routine on board maintenance and repair work of the 4.5 inch MK8 Mod I gun fitted to HMS Norfolk will be undertaken by suitably trained RN personnel.

  Rosyth
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Royal Navy maintenance and refit work is under way at Rosyth; and what work is scheduled to be undertaken at Rosyth over the next three years. [157742]

  Mr. Spellar
  HMS Sceptre, HMS Spartan, HMS Ark Royal, HMS Liverpool, HMS Atherstone, HMS Sandown and HMS Inverness are currently undergoing maintenance and refit work at Rosyth Royal Dockyard. We recently announced the intention to contract with the dockyard owners for the refits of five Type 23 Frigates, all of which are planned to start during the next three years. In addition, on current plans for the next three years, work is also scheduled to be undertaken on: HMS Illustrious, HMS Invincible, HMS Ledbury, HMS Brecon, HMS Cottesmore, HMS Dulverton, HMS Inverness, HMS Bridport and HMS Dumbarton Castle.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the implications are for the defence budget of his Department's contribution to meeting the foot and mouth emergency; and if he will make a statement. [157728]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are no significant implications for the defence budget arising from the support the armed forces are giving to MAFF during the current foot and mouth outbreak. It is normal practice when assistance is given to other Government Departments that additional costs will be refunded to the defence budget at the end of the crisis. The Ministry of Defence costs of combating the disease are, however, expected to be minor in comparison with the overall cost of fighting the disease.

  Sonar 2076
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Sonar 2076 will be available for the first of
  237W
  class of the Astute class submarines from the date of entry into service; and if it will provide the full stipulated military capability. [157730]

  Dr. Moonie
  The prime contractor, BAE Systems, has selected Sonar 2076 for Astute and it will be fitted to the first of class, HMS Astute, for its sea trials in 2004–05. Sonar 2076 is part of an incremental acquisition programme and will provide Astute with the full stipulated military capability.

  Fishery Protection Patrols
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact on the frequency and duration of fishery protection patrols following the replacement of Island class patrol vessels by future offshore patrol vessels. [157741]

  Mr. Spellar
  Subject to the satisfactory outcome of detailed discussions with the preferred bidder, Vosper Thornycroft (UK) Ltd., the Ministry of Defence would expect to be in a position shortly to place a contract for the lease of three future offshore patrol vessels to progressively replace the current Island class vessels from September 2002. Because of their higher availability, the three replacement FOPVs will provide identical fishery protection patrol frequency and duration to that which is currently carried out by the five Island class vessels.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Know How Fund
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which countries have received assistance from the know how fund during the last 12 months. [158735]

  Clare Short
  The know how fund was the name by which the programme in central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union managed jointly by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the former Overseas Development Administration was generally known. Since May 1997 the programme has been managed by the Department for International Development (DFID) in the same way as other DFID programmes.

  In the last 12 months those countries that have received DFID assistance are Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Albania, Serbia and Montenegro, Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Belarus. We have also assisted Kosovo, which is administered by the United Nations.

  Myanmar
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what assistance she has made for the condition of internally displaced people in Myanmar. [157902]

  Clare Short
  The situation for internally displaced people in Myanmar remains extremely vulnerable. Many of these people have taken refuge in remote, inaccessible 238W
  and politically sensitive areas, making it difficult to conduct any detailed humanitarian assessment of their situation.

  We are currently funding an international non-governmental organisation, Health Unlimited, to meet the emergency needs of displaced people in Kachin State, and we are providing core funding for United Nations humanitarian agencies and the Red Cross movement working inside Myanmar. Those agencies provide us with valuable information on the condition of internally displaced people in the country. In addition, my officials plan to visit the region in the coming months to look at the humanitarian situation in Myanmar and on the Thai/Myanmar border in more detail.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Policies (High Peak)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on the High Peak constituency of his Department's policies and actions since May 1997. [156779]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Since May 1997 my Department has introduced and developed a variety of initiatives which will impact on my hon. Friend's constituency which promote our objectives of access, excellence, education, and creativity and employment. We have published strategies to take this forward including Tomorrow's Tourism and A Sporting Future for All, which was recently followed up by The Government's Plan for Sport. We have tackled the issue of social inclusion taking forward the recommendations of Policy Action Team 10 on Arts and Sport and developing social inclusion policies across all our areas which is recognised within the most recent progress report, Building on PAT10.

  We have given more support to the cultural and sporting infrastructure. The Spending Review 2000 secured a doubling of the budget for sport and the largest ever increase for the arts: an increase of 80 per cent. from £186 million in 1997–98 to £336 million in 2003–04. In taking forward our aim to develop the educational potential of culture and sport £40 million has been allocated to developing Creative Partnerships; we have established through lottery funding the £30 million National Foundation for Youth Music; and secured an additional £130 million for primary schools sports and arts facilities through the Space for Sport and the Arts programme. With £120 million of central Government and Lottery funding we will be providing a school sports co-ordinator in one in four secondary schools to work with local primary and special schools to improve sporting provision and physical education for children in the most deprived areas. We have delivered free access to national museums for children and the over-60s and additional money will be provided to allow this to be extended to everyone in December 2001. We have commissioned a taskforce which is currently considering the issues facing non-national museums in the regions.

  We have made improvements in the way the Lottery is spent to ensure a fairer distribution. The introduction of the New Opportunities Fund for spending on health,

  239W
  education and the environment has made a real difference to communities everywhere. For instance it has invested £120 million to support the People's Network, which will enable all 4,300 public libraries to offer free public internet access through UK online learning centres; and a further £50 million to stimulate development of content to support the Network.

  We have set up a Regional Cultural Consortium in each of the English regions outside London to champion culture and creativity, including heritage, sport and tourism, and to draw up regional cultural strategies identifying regional objectives and priorities.

  We have published a Green Paper, "Culture and Creativity: The Next Ten Years", setting out how individual creative talent can be given the support it needs from childhood to flourish; how artists and cultural institutions can be freed from bureaucratic controls; and how the freedom to explore and enjoy creativity and culture can be made available to all.

  Through their commitment to public service broadcasting, the Government have helped to foster an environment in which a creative, commercially successful broadcasting industry provides a wide range of UK-made, high quality, original programmes catering for all viewers and listeners. We have ensured a secure funding base for the BBC and S4C, while giving them the freedom to develop commercial operations which complement and support their public service remit. We have made clear in the Communications White Paper that public service broadcasting will continue to have a key role to play in the digital future. The Government have introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over from 1 November last year.

  In delivering these initiatives we aim to make cultural and sporting activities inclusive ones, boosting participation and improving the quality of life for all.

  High Peak

  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been 115 national lottery awards to High Peak totalling £9,043,441.

  Thirty-nine Millennium Award Winners have been identified from High Peak and between them they have received grants totalling £143,968.

  Information from English Heritage (EH);

  Church Grants

  St. Margaret, Wormhill—£3,948 offered. Fully paid.

  St. Michael, Taddington—£15,900 offered. Fully paid.

  Others

  Derby county council—£10,000 offered towards a feasibility study on Torr Vale Mill. Fully paid.

  Conservation Area Partnership Schemes (CAPS)

  Buxton CAPS for 1997–98 and 1998–99—£149K p.a.

  Heritage Economic Regeneration Schemes (HERS)

  Buxton HERS for 1999–2000 and 2000–01—£20K p.a.

  Sport England have provided £32,000 for TOPs bags and £5,000 towards a 3-year sports development officer post.
  240W
  Information on the number of beneficiaries of free television licences by constituency is not available, but estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 6,300 people aged 75 or over living in the High Peak constituency.

  The National Foundation for Youth Music has awarded:
  High Peak Community Arts £25,565. This is a large scale songwriting and performance project. A team of four music makers will facilitate young people in 10 youth clubs to create music. The music will be recorded on location and produced as a professional CD.
  Fosbrooks £12,064. The project will provide new musical direction for young people to work within a structured course designed to enable them to perform traditional music suitable for community events. Activities will cover absolute beginners through to the gifted and very able.

  There are of course other initiatives in the wider area which may have an effect on the High Peak constituency. These are:
  Under the Space for Sport and Arts scheme, Derbyshire local education authority has been allocated up to £2.2 million towards providing improved facilities for sport and arts in primary schools which can also be used by the wider community.
  £20,500,000 for Sheffield—Remaking the Heart of the City Millennium Project.
  North West Arts Board received £14,061,000 in 2000–01 from the Arts Council to support arts and cultural activity across its region. In 2001–02 this will increase to £15,491,266 or by 10.17 per cent.
  Sport England provide £242,000 for Derbyshire LEA and £25,000 p.a. for Active Sports and £6,500 p.a. for Coaching for Teachers for the County as a whole.
  Derbyshire Library Authority, which covers the High Peak constituency, received awards of £90,100, £101,099 and £95,000 from the DCMS/Wolfson Public Libraries Challenge Fund in 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000 respectively. The funding was given for public library ICT projects.

  Departmental Policies (Amber Valley)
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Amber Valley constituency, the effects on Amber Valley of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157128]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Since May 1997 my Department has introduced and developed a variety of initiatives which will impact on my hon. Friend's constituency which promote our objectives of access, excellence, education, and creativity and employment. We have published strategies to take this forward including Tomorrow's Tourism and A Sporting Future for All, which was recently followed up by The Government's Plan for Sport. We have tackled the issue of social inclusion taking forward the recommendations of Policy Action Team 10 on Arts and Sport and developing social inclusion policies across all our areas which is recognised within the most recent progress report, Building on PAT10.

  We have given more support to the cultural and sporting infrastructure. The Spending Review 2000 secured a doubling of the budget for sport and the largest ever increase for the arts: an increase of 80 per cent. from £186 million in 1997–98 to £336 million in 2003–04. In taking forward our aim to develop the educational potential of culture and sport £40 million has been

  241W
  allocated to developing Creative Partnerships; we have established through lottery funding the £30 million National Foundation for Youth Music; and secured an additional £130 million for primary schools sports and arts facilities through the Space for Sport and the Arts programme. With £120 million of central Government and Lottery funding we will be providing a school sports co-ordinator in one in four secondary schools to work with local primary and special schools to improve sporting provision and physical education for children in the most deprived areas. We have delivered free access to national museums for children and the over-60s and additional money will be provided to allow this to be extended to everyone in December 2001. We have commissioned a taskforce which is currently considering the issues facing non-national museums in the regions.

  We have made improvements in the way the Lottery is spent to ensure a fairer distribution. The introduction of the New Opportunities Fund for spending on health, education and the environment has made a real difference to communities everywhere. For instance it has invested £120 million to support the People's Network, which will enable all 4,300 public libraries to offer free public internet access through UK online learning centres; and a further £50 million to stimulate development of content to support the Network.

  We have set up a Regional Cultural Consortium in each of the English regions outside London to champion culture and creativity, including heritage, sport and tourism, and to draw up regional cultural strategies identifying regional objectives and priorities.

  We have published a Green Paper "Culture and Creativity: The Next Ten Years", setting out how individual creative talent can be given the support it needs from childhood to flourish; how artists and cultural institutions can be freed from bureaucratic controls; and how the freedom to explore and enjoy creativity and culture can be made available to all.

  Through their commitment to public service broadcasting, the Government have helped to foster an environment in which a creative, commercially successful broadcasting industry provides a wide range of UK-made, high quality, original programmes catering for all viewers and listeners. We have ensured a secure funding base for the BBC and S4C, while giving them the freedom to develop commercial operations which complement and support their public service remit. We have made clear in the Communications White Paper that public service broadcasting will continue to have a key role to play in the digital future. The Government have introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over from 1 November last year.

  In delivering these initiatives we aim to make cultural and sporting activities inclusive ones, boosting participation and improving the quality of life for all.

  Amber Valley

  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been 136 national lottery awards to Amber Valley, totalling £3,211,436.

  Fourteen Millennium Award Winners have been identified from Amber Valley and between them they have received grants totalling £56,461.
  242W
  Information on the number of beneficiaries of free television licences by constituency is not available, but estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 6,600 people aged 75 or over living in the Amber Valley constituency.

  Derbyshire Library Authority, which covers the Amber Valley constituency received awards of £90,100, £101,099 and £95,000 from the DCMS/Wolfson Public Libraries Challenge Fund in 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000 respectively. The funding was given for public library ICT projects.

  The National Tramway Museum in Crich has been allocated funding from the Designated Challenge Fund as follows:
  £35,000 in 1999 towards curatorial support for project development and documentation/digitisation work on illustrations collections;
  £105,920 in 2000 towards the continuation of the above, and towards an extension to the existing tramcar restoration workshop; and £202,034 in 2001 mainly towards the building of an extension to the Museum's library and also a continuation of the digitisation programme.

  Fleet Arts have been awarded £10,249 by the National Foundation for Youth Music. This is a new departure for the Nail it Down project, extending it from rock and pop to include new technology and samba and the fusion of the two. The two music makers will create opportunities for performance and recording sessions and run workshops which are informal and focused on the individual and encourage the writing of original music and lyrics. English Heritage have offered the following:

  St. Matthew, Pentrich—£47,418

  Unitarian Chapel, Belper—£18,342

  All Saints, Mugginton—E75,476

  St. Luke, Heage—£65,014

  St. Michael Kirk, Langley—£49,745

  North Mill, Belper—£10,077 for feasibility study on major Building at Risk

  Heage Windmill—£38,775 for repairs as match funding with Heritage Lottery Fund Conservation Area Partnership scheme in Belper 1997–98—£100,000.

  There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of the region which may have an effect on the Amber Valley constituency. These include the receipt by the East Midlands Arts Board of £6,853,000 in 2000–01 from the Arts Council to support arts and cultural activity across its region. In 2001–02 this will increase to £7,771,701 or by 12.4 per cent.

  Departmental Policies (Eccles)
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Eccles constituency, the effects on Eccles of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157284]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Since May 1997 my Department has introduced and developed a variety of initiatives which will impact on my hon. Friend's constituency which promote our objectives of access, excellence, education, and creativity and employment. We have published strategies to take this forward including Tomorrow's Tourism and A Sporting Future for All, which was recently followed up by The Government's Plan for Sport. We have tackled the issue of social inclusion taking
  243W
  forward the recommendations of Policy Action Team 10 on Arts and Sport and developing social inclusion policies across all our areas which is recognised within the most recent progress report, Building on PAT10.

  We have given more support to the cultural and sporting infrastructure. The Spending Review 2000 secured a doubling of the budget for sport and the largest ever increase for the arts: an increase of 80 per cent. from £186 million in 1997–98 to £336 million in 2003–04. In taking forward our aim to develop the educational potential of culture and sport £40 million has been allocated to developing Creative Partnerships; we have established through lottery funding the £30 million National Foundation for Youth Music; and secured an additional £130 million for primary schools sports and arts facilities through the Space for Sport and the Arts programme. With £120 million of central Government and lottery funding we will be providing a school sports co-ordinator in one in four secondary schools to work with local primary and special schools to improve sporting provision and physical education for children in the most deprived areas. We have delivered free access to national museums for children and the over-60s and additional money will be provided to allow this to be extended to everyone in December 2001. We have commissioned a taskforce which is currently considering the issues facing non-national museums in the regions.

  We have made improvements in the way the lottery is spent to ensure a fairer distribution. The introduction of the New Opportunities Fund for spending on health, education and the environment has made a real difference to communities everywhere. For instance it has invested £120 million to support the People's Network, which will enable all 4,300 public libraries to offer free public internet access through UK online learning centres; and a further £50 million to stimulate development of content to support the Network.

  We have set up a Regional Cultural Consortium in each of the English regions outside London to champion culture and creativity, including heritage, sport and tourism, and to draw up regional cultural strategies identifying regional objectives and priorities.

  We have published a Green Paper "Culture and Creativity: The Next Ten Years", setting out how individual creative talent can be given the support it needs from childhood to flourish; how artists and cultural institutions can be freed from bureaucratic controls; and how the freedom to explore and enjoy creativity and culture can be made available to all.

  Through their commitment to public service broadcasting, the Government have helped to foster an environment in which a creative, commercially successful broadcasting industry provides a wide range of UK-made, high quality, original programmes catering for all viewers and listeners. We have ensured a secure funding base for the BBC and S4C, while giving them the freedom to develop commercial operations which complement and support their public service remit. We have made clear in the Communications White Paper that public service broadcasting will continue to have a key role to play in the digital future. The Government have introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over from 1 November last year.
  244W
  In delivering these initiatives we aim to make cultural and sporting activities inclusive ones, boosting participation and improving the quality of life for all.

  Eccles

  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been 33 national lottery awards to Eccles, totalling £2,022,071. This includes an award from the Millennium Festival of £340,000.

  Five Millennium Award Winners have been identified from Eccles and between them they have received grants totalling £16,117.

  Information on the number of beneficiaries of free television licences by constituency is not available, but estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 7,000 people aged 75 or over living in the Eccles constituency.

  £120 million of central Government and lottery funding is being invested in setting up a network of 1,000 School Sport Co-ordinators. These Co-ordinators will based in families of schools, in areas of greatest need, linked wherever possible through local education authorities to Specialist Sports Colleges. They will provide opportunities for young people to compete regularly for their school and take part in a wide range of sports. By 2004, there will be about 250 families established with 1,000 secondary schools and up to 6,000 primary schools benefiting directly from this programme. Eccles has School Sport Co-ordinators at Ashton-on-Mersey School.

  Under the Space for Sport and Arts scheme, Salford local education authority has been allocated up to £2.2 million towards providing improved facilities for sport and arts in primary schools which can also be used by the wider community. Moorfield and St. Peter's CE primary schools in my hon. Friend's constituency have been chosen to develop schemes under the SSA.

  On 21 February, Chris Smith announced the 16 areas in which it is hoped Creative Partnership pilots will be developed. Salford is one of these areas. The Arts Council of England, which is delivering the initiative, will be consulting schools and creative organisations in each location over the next few months to establish which bodies and schools will be involved. Details on how schools and cultural organisations can take part in Creative Partnerships will be available from the Arts Council from early May. Funding for the initiative will come on stream in April 2002.

  Salford Library Authority, which covers the Eccles constituency, received an award of £55,000 from the DCMS/Wolfson Public Libraries Challenge Fund in 1998–99. The funding was given for a public library ICT project. It is not possible to say what percentage of this funding benefited the Eccles constituency.

  English Heritage have awarded St. Mary the Virgin, Eccles, £159,046.

  There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of the region which may have an effect on the Eccles constituency. These are:
  North West Arts Board received £14,061,000 in 2000–01 from the Arts Council to support arts and cultural activity across its region. In 2001–02 this will increase to £15,491,266 or by 10.17 per cent.

  245W
  The Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester has benefits for Eccles constituents with the introduction of free access for children and the over 60s.

  Departmental Policies (Ribble Valley)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Ribble Valley constituency, the effects on Ribble Valley of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157851]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Since May 1997 my Department has introduced and developed a variety of initiatives which will impact on the constituency of Ribble Valley which promote our objectives of access, excellence, education, and creativity and employment. We have published strategies to take this forward including Tomorrow's Tourism and A Sporting Future for All, which was recently followed up by The Government's Plan for Sport. We have tackled the issue of social inclusion taking forward the recommendations of Policy Action Team 10 on Arts and Sport and developing social inclusion policies across all our areas which is recognised within the most recent progress report, Building on PAT10.

  We have given more support to the cultural and sporting infrastructure. The Spending Review 2000 secured a doubling of the budget for sport and the largest ever increase for the arts: an increase of 80 per cent. from £186 million in 1997–98 to £336 million in 2003–04. In taking forward our aim to develop the educational potential of culture and sport £40 million has been allocated to developing Creative Partnerships; we have established through lottery funding the £30 million National Foundation for Youth Music; and secured an additional £130 million for primary schools sports and arts facilities through the Space for Sport and the Arts programme. With £120 million of central Government and lottery funding we will be providing a school sports co-ordinator in one in four secondary schools to work with local primary and special schools to improve sporting provision and physical education for children in the most deprived areas. We have delivered free access to national museums for children and the over-60s and additional money will be provided to allow this to be extended to everyone in December 2001. We have commissioned a taskforce which is currently considering the issues facing non-national museums in the regions.

  We have made improvements in the way the lottery is spent to ensure a fairer distribution. The introduction of the New Opportunities Fund for spending on health, education and the environment has made a real difference to communities everywhere. For instance it has invested £120 million to support the People's Network, which will enable all 4,300 public libraries to offer free public internet access through UK online learning centres; and a further £50 million to stimulate development of content to support the Network.

  We have set up a Regional Cultural Consortium in each of the English regions outside London to champion culture and creativity, including heritage, sport and tourism, and to draw up regional cultural strategies identifying regional objectives and priorities.
  246W
  We have published a Green Paper "Culture and Creativity: The Next Ten Years", setting out how individual creative talent can be given the support it needs from childhood to flourish; how artists and cultural institutions can be freed from bureaucratic controls; and how the freedom to explore and enjoy creativity and culture can be made available to all.

  Through their commitment to public service broadcasting, the Government have helped to foster an environment in which a creative, commercially successful broadcasting industry provides a wide range of UK-made, high quality, original programmes catering for all viewers and listeners. We have ensured a secure funding base for the BBC and S4C, while giving them the freedom to develop commercial operations which complement and support their public service remit. We have made clear in the Communications White Paper that public service broadcasting will continue to have a key role to play in the digital future. The Government have introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over from 1 November last year.

  In delivering these initiatives we aim to make to make cultural and sporting activities inclusive ones, boosting participation and improving the quality of life for all.

  Ribble Valley

  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been 80 national lottery awards to Ribble Valley, totalling £3,416,734.

  Thirteen Millennium Award Winners have been identified from Ribble Valley and between them they have received grants totalling £29,350.

  Information on the number of beneficiaries of free television licences by constituency is not available, but estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 6,700 people aged 75 or over living in the Ribble Valley constituency.

  Lancashire Library Authority, which covers the Ribble Valley constituency, was a member of a consortium of north-west library authorities which received an award of £215,992 from the DCMS/Wolfson Public Libraries Challenge Fund in 2000–01. The funding was given for a public library reader development project. It is not possible to say what percentage of this funding benefited the Ribble Valley constituency.

  English Heritage have awarded Old Lower Hodder Bridge £13,998.

  There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of the region which may have an effect on the Ribble Valley constituency. These include the receipt by North West Arts Board of £14,061,000 in 2000–01 from the Arts Council to support arts and cultural activity across its region. In 2001–02 this will increase to £15,491,266 or by 10.17 per cent.

  Departmental Policies (Tiverton and Honiton)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Tiverton and Honiton constituency, the effects on Tiverton and Honiton of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157813]
  247W
  Mr. Chris Smith
  Since May 1997 my Department has introduced and developed a variety of initiatives which will impact on the constituency of Tiverton and Honiton which promote our objectives of access, excellence, education, and creativity and employment. We have published strategies to take this forward including Tomorrow's Tourism and A Sporting Future for All, which was recently followed up by The Government's Plan for Sport. We have tackled the issue of social inclusion taking forward the recommendations of Policy Action Team 10 on Arts and Sport and developing social inclusion policies across all our areas which is recognised within the most recent progress report, Building on PAT10.

  We have given more support to the cultural and sporting infrastructure. The Spending Review 2000 secured a doubling of the budget for sport and the largest ever increase for the arts: an increase of 80 per cent. from £186 million in 1997–98 to £336 million in 2003–04. In taking forward our aim to develop the educational potential of culture and sport £40 million has been allocated to developing Creative Partnerships; we have established through lottery funding the £30 million National Foundation for Youth Music; and secured an additional £130 million for primary schools sports and arts facilities through the Space for Sport and the Arts programme. With £120 million of central Government and lottery funding we will be providing a school sports co-ordinator in one in four secondary schools to work with local primary and special schools to improve sporting provision and physical education for children in the most deprived areas. We have delivered free access to national museums for children and the over-60s and additional money will be provided to allow this to be extended to everyone in December 2001. We have commissioned a taskforce which is currently considering the issues facing non-national museums in the regions.

  We have made improvements in the way the lottery is spent to ensure a fairer distribution. The introduction of the New Opportunities Fund for spending on health, education and the environment has made a real difference to communities everywhere. For instance it has invested £120 million to support the People's Network, which will enable all 4,300 public libraries to offer free public internet access through UK on-line learning centres; and a further £50 million to stimulate development of content to support the Network.

  We have set up a Regional Cultural Consortium in each of the English regions outside London to champion culture and creativity, including heritage, sport and tourism, and to draw up regional cultural strategies identifying regional objectives and priorities.

  We have published a Green Paper "Culture and Creativity: The Next 10 Years", setting out how individual creative talent can be given the support it needs from childhood to flourish; how artists and cultural institutions can be freed from bureaucratic controls; and how the freedom to explore and enjoy creativity and culture can be made available to all.

  Through their commitment to public service broadcasting, the Government have helped to foster an environment in which a creative, commercially successful broadcasting industry provides a wide range of UK-made, high quality, original programmes catering for all viewers
  248W
  and listeners. We have ensured a secure funding base for the BBC and S4C, while giving them the freedom to develop commercial operations which complement and support their public service remit. We have made clear in the Communications White Paper that public service broadcasting will continue to have a key role to play in the digital future. The Government have introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over from 1 November last year.

  In delivering these initiatives we aim to make cultural and sporting activities inclusive ones, boosting participation and improving the quality of life for all.

  Tiverton and Honiton

  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been 231 national lottery awards to Tiverton and Honiton, totalling £6,780,296.

  Sixty-Eight Millennium Award Winners have been identified from Tiverton and Honiton and between them they have received grants totalling £198,118.

  Information on the number of beneficiaries of free television licences by constituency is not available, but estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 8,000 people aged 75 or over living in the Tiverton and Honiton constituency.

  Devon Library Authority, which covers the Tiverton and Honiton constituency, received an award of £113,647 from the DCMS/Wolfson Public Libraries Challenge Fund in 1997–98. The funding was given for a public library ICT project.

  There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of the region which may have an effect on the Tiverton and Honiton constituency. These are:
  South West Arts received £6,694,000 in 2000–01 from the Arts Council to support arts and cultural activity across its region. In 2001–02 this will increase to £7,766,575 or by 16 per cent.The National Foundation for Youth Music has awarded The National Trust—Devon Region £20,500. This project will involve a composer working with three groups of local children at National Trust properties. A body of work will be created by the composer in joint collaboration with the children and will lead towards a final performance.

  Departmental Policies (Plymouth Unitary Authority)
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to(a) Plymouth, Sutton constituency, (b) Plymouth, Devonport constituency and (c) South-West Devon constituency, the effects on the Plymouth Unitary Authority area of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [158025]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: Since May 1997 my Department has introduced and developed a variety of initiatives which will impact on the Plymouth Unitary Authority area which promote our objectives of access, excellence, education, and creativity and employment. We have published strategies to take this forward including Tomorrow's Tourism and A Sporting Future for All, which was recently followed up by The Government's Plan for Sport. We have tackled the issue of social inclusion taking forward the recommendations of Policy Action Team 10 on Arts and

  249W
  Sport and developing social inclusion policies across all our areas which is recognised within the most recent progress report, Building on PAT10.

  We have given more support to the cultural and sporting infrastructure. The Spending Review 2000 secured a doubling of the budget for sport and the largest ever increase for the arts: an increase of 80 per cent. from £186 million in 1997–98 to £336 million in 2003–04. In taking forward our aim to develop the educational potential of culture and sport £40 million has been allocated to developing Creative Partnerships; we have established through lottery funding the £30 million National Foundation for Youth Music: and secured an additional £130 million for primary schools sports and arts facilities through the Space for Sport and the Arts programme. With £120 million of central Government and lottery funding we will be providing a school sports co-ordinator in one in four secondary schools to work with local primary and special schools to improve sporting provision and physical education for children in the most deprived areas. We have delivered free access to national museums for children and the over-60s and additional money will be provided to allow this to be extended to everyone in December 2001. We have commissioned a taskforce which is currently considering the issues facing non-national museums in the regions.

  We have made improvements in the way the lottery is spent to ensure a fairer distribution. The introduction of the New Opportunities Fund for spending on health, education and the environment has made a real difference to communities everywhere. For instance it has invested £120 million to support the People's Network, which will enable all 4,300 public libraries to offer free public internet access through UK online centres; and a further £50 million to stimulate development of content to support the Network.

  We have set up a Regional Cultural Consortium in each of the English regions outside London to champion culture and creativity, including heritage, sport and tourism, and to draw up regional cultural strategies identifying regional objectives and priorities.

  We have published a Green Paper "Culture and Creativity: The Next Ten Years", setting out how individual creative talent can be given the support it needs from childhood to flourish; how artists and cultural institutions can be freed from bureaucratic controls; and how the freedom to explore and enjoy creativity and culture can be made available to all.

  Through their commitment to public service broadcasting, the Government have helped to foster an environment in which a creative, commercially successful broadcasting industry provides a wide range of UK-made, high quality, original programmes catering for all viewers and listeners. We have ensured a secure funding base for the BBC and S4C, while giving them the freedom to develop commercial operations which complement and support their public service remit. We have made clear in the Communications White Paper that public service broadcasting will continue to have a key role to play in the digital future. The Government have introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over from 1 November last year.
  250W
  In delivering these initiatives we aim to make cultural and sporting activities inclusive ones, boosting participation and improving the quality of life for all.

  Plymouth Unitary Authority area

  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been:
  116 national lottery awards to Plymouth, Sutton, totalling £13,749,090
  91 national lottery awards to Plymouth, Devonport, totalling £2,237,942
  106 national lottery awards to South-West Devon, totalling £4,766.036.

  Millennium Award Winners:
  Fifty-six have been identified from Plymouth, Sutton and between them they have received grants totalling £180,782
  Fifty-one have been identified from Plymouth, Devonport and between them they have received grants totalling £151,641
  Twenty-nine have been identified from South-West Devon and between them they have received grants totalling £70,659.
  In addition, there were two larger travelling festival events which covered all three constituencies with total grant of £150,000; plus a grant of £75,000 for Plymouth new years eve celebrations 2000—A Festival of Light.

  Information on the number of beneficiaries of free television licences by constituency is not available, but estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately:
  8,100 people aged 75 or over living in the Plymouth, Sutton constituency
  5,400 people aged 75 or over living in the Plymouth, Devonport constituency
  5,800 people aged 75 or over living in the South-West Devon constituency.

  The National Foundation For Youth Music have awarded Estover Percussion Project £58,500. This project will be run through a structure of taster, extended and advanced workshops in the skills of Djing, scratching and sampling using the latest developments in computer generated technology. The Consortium is made up of E-A-Z, Music Zone, Plymouth Youth Service and the Racial Equality Service and Estover Percussion Project.

  English Heritage have made the following awards:
  Smeaton's Tower, The Hoe, Plymouth (Plymouth City Museums and Art Gallery), £5,000 for feasibility study and £60,000 for works
  1 The Esplanade, The Hoe, Plymouth (Devon Historic Buildings Trust) £70,000
  Mutley Baptist Church, Mutley Plain, Plymouth £60,936
  Saltram House (National Trust) £20,570 (Electrical Installation), £27,016 (Lead Statuary)
  St. Aubyn's Church, Devonport, Plymouth £177,069
  Conservation Area Partnership Scheme—Plymouth offered £100,000 in 1997–98.

  There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of the region which may have an effect on the Plymouth Unitary Authority area. These are:
  South West Arts received £6,694,000 in 2000–01 from the Arts Council to support arts and cultural activity across its region. In 2001–02 this will increase to £7,766,575 or by 16 per cent.
  Plymouth Library Authority, which includes the Plymouth, Sutton/Plymouth, Devonport constituency, received an award of £31,282 from the DCMS/Wolfson Public Libraries Challenge

  251W
  Fund in 2000–01. The award was from the Fund's Wolfson British History Programme which is wholly sponsored by The Wolfson Foundation and was to enhance the history collections of public libraries. It is not possible to say what percentage of this funding benefited the Plymouth, Sutton/Plymouth, Devonport constituency.
  Under the Space for Sport and Arts scheme, local education authorities in the south-west region including Cornwall, Bristol, north Somerset and Plymouth were allocated £9.1 million towards providing improved facilities for sport and arts in primary schools which can also be used by the wider community. Plymouth City Council is currently developing detailed applications for facilities at four primary schools, Barne Barton, St. George's, Plym View and Whiteleigh Community Primary which will actually be used by over 20 primary schools in the area.

  National Lottery (Test Purchasing)
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his Department's policy is on the use of children of compulsory school age in undertaking test purchasing of National Lottery tickets during school hours; and if he will make a statement. [158490]

  Kate Hoey
  It is an offence to sell a National Lottery ticket to a child under 16 years of age and my Department, and the National Lottery regulator, the National Lottery Commission, are concerned to prevent such sales. The National Lottery operator, Camelot Group plc, makes test purchases using 16-year-olds who appear younger, but cannot make test sales using children under 16. Trading standards officers are able to make test purchases using children under 16. Advice to them on the use of children to make test purchases was included in Home Office Circular 17/1992. A copy of this Circular is in the Libraries of the House.

  After-school Learning and Child Care
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the amount of money allocated in Wandsworth from the New Opportunities Fund for out-of-school hours learning and child care; and if he will list the schemes available for pupils in Battersea from these allocations. [158555]

  Kate Hoey
  I understand the New Opportunities Fund has written directly to my hon. Friend with the information he requires. I am arranging for a copy of the letter to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Libraries
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the quality of annual library plans which have been submitted to his Department. [158231]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Overall, the quality of annual library plans has much improved since they were introduced in 1998. I see this as a very positive development, indicative of the increased importance that library authorities are attaching to their duties. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that for the first time more authorities have been assessed as providing 'good' plans than submitting 'satisfactory' plans. In 2000, 73 library authorities were rated as 'good', 71 plans were 'satisfactory', and only five were rated as 'poor'; we found none to be unacceptable. I am taking steps to help the five authorities rated as 'poor' improve their position.252W
  My right hon. Friend published a report on last year's annual library plans in January, and copies of the report, "Appraisal of Annual Library Plans 2000, Report on Outcomes and Issues", have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies of the report can also be obtained freely from my Department (write to Andy Birleson, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2–4 Cockspur street, London SW1Y 5DH; or telephone on 0207 211 6128; or email to andrew.birleson@culture.gsi,gov.uk.) In addition, the report can be accessed via the Department's website www.culture.gov.uk.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many disabled people serve as justices of the peace in courts covering the Greater London area; and if she will make a statement. [158516]

  Jane Kennedy
  No figures are currently available on the number of people with a disability who serve as justices of the peace. However, following an equality audit of the procedures and practices surrounding the appointment of lay magistrates last year, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor plans to conduct a survey of existing magistrates later this year to find out how many classify themselves as having a disability.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Servants (Waivers)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what proportion of senior grade civil servants in each Department have signed waivers for(a) working time rights and (b) other social chapter rights; and if she will make a statement. [158328]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Information on the proportion of senior civil servants who have, under the working time regulations, entered into voluntary agreements to work more than 48 hours a week is not held centrally. It could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Social chapter rights do not give rise to waivers in other circumstances.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Advertising (Outside Agencies)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those occasions since 1 May 1997 on which his Department has used outside agencies for(a) rebranding and (b) advertising purposes; what the costs were; and if he will make a statement. [156272]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]: British Trade International, which reports jointly to FCO and DTI Ministers, has employed outside agencies for branding and advertising purposes. Its two operating units are Trade Partners UK and Invest UK (formerly the Invest in Britain Bureau).
  253W
  (a) Trade Partners UK: established in May 2000, it has used outside agencies for (i) branding on one occasion, and (ii) advertising on two occasions. The costs were:

  £

  Branding

  Advertising

  1999–2000

  250,000

  350,000

  2000–01

  0

  1,400,000

  (b) Invest UK: it has used outside agencies for (i) rebranding on one occasion, the work being spread over three years, and (ii) advertising on numerous occasions, largely overseas, to market the United Kingdom as an inward investment location. The costs were:

  £

  Branding

  Advertising

  1997–98

  0

  1,225,000

  1998–99

  145,000

  1,187,000

  1999–2000

  95,000

  1,344,000

  2000–01

  140,000

  1,536,000

  In 1998, the FCO employed outside agencies as part of
  a £1 million publicity campaign to reduce the number of ticketless fans travelling to France for the World Cup finals and to explain what consular services were available.

  Later this year, we will be launching a public awareness campaign to encourage British travellers to be better prepared when travelling overseas. We have appointed an outside agency to undertake this work. The cost of public relations activity, which is to include press and radio advertising, will be £255,000.

  The FCO has also used outside agencies to assist with routine advertising in the domestic press for recruitment purposes. There have been between 200 and 250 recruitment campaigns. It would involve disproportionate costs to establish a breakdown of expenditure.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Vaccination
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is his Department's policy that animals must be slaughtered following all forms of vaccination in order to regain disease-free status for the United Kingdom. [158382]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: The recent European Commission decision (2001/257/EC) authorises the vaccination without slaughter of cattle in specific areas in the UK. A copy of the decision has been placed on the MAFF website http://www.maff.gov.uk/.

  The Government are considering using vaccination as part of the strategy for controlling foot and mouth disease (FMD). Scientific and veterinary advice is that a limited programme of vaccinating cattle in north Cumbria, and possibly north Devon, is justified as a means of protecting animals. These animals would not be compulsorily slaughtered and could work out their normal economic lives.
  254W
  Chapter 2.1.1 of the OIE International Animal Health Code contains guidelines on the steps to be taken to regain FMD-free status in various circumstances.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will hold a briefing for hon. Members representing areas affected by the foot and mouth outbreak on the contingency plans by his Department to combat, control and exterminate the disease; [154923]

  (2) how many meetings (a) he and his predecessor, (b) the Minister of State in this House, (c) the Minister of State in the House of Lords, (d) officials in his Department and (e) the Parliamentary Secretary have attended for contingency planning in relation to an outbreak of foot and mouth in the UK since 1 May 1997; [156420]

  (3)if a contingency planning committee in relation to an outbreak of foot and mouth in the UK has been (a) established and (b) maintained since 1 May 1997; [156422]

  (4) if he will list those who attended contingency planning meetings in relation to an outbreak of foot and mouth in the United Kingdom attended by (a) his Department's officials and (b) himself; [156419]

  (5) if he will list those who attended contingency planning meetings in relation to an outbreak of foot and mouth attended by (a) the Parliamentary Secretary, (b) the Minister of State, House of Lords and (c) the Minister of State in this House, since 1 May 1997; [156417]

  (6) if his Department's regional offices have been involved in contingency planning in the event of a foot and mouth outbreak in the UK since 1 May 1997. [156423]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answers 22 and 30 March 2001]: Contingency planning for foot and mouth disease is carried out by the state veterinary service and the Ministry's animal health group on an on-going basis. There is no specific planning committee, nor is it possible to list officials who have attended contingency planning meetings. Ministers have not attended any contingency planning meetings between 1 May 1997 and the state of the current outbreak.

  The northern region of the state veterinary service has 'lead region' responsibility for the foot and mouth contingency plan. All regional and animal health divisional offices will have been involved in regular exercises to test the contingency plan.

  There are no plans to hold a specific briefing on the foot and mouth contingency plans for hon. Members representing areas affected by the current outbreak. However, all hon. Members have received regular situation reports and have been advised where they can obtain further information, for example from the Ministry's website http://www.maff.gov.uk/. A daily update on the disease is placed in the Libraries of the House, and a mechanism has been put in place to ensure hon. Members are informed directly as soon as a case is confirmed in their constituencies.
  255W
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what homoeopathic expertise his Department has access on the use of homoeopathic borax in the prevention of foot and mouth disease. [157706]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The Veterinary Products Committee gives advice to Ministers with respect to safety, quality and efficacy in relation to the veterinary use of any substance or article to which provisions of the Medicines Act 1986 may apply. The Advisory Board on the Registration of Homoeopathic Products offers advice to Ministers on the registration of homoeopathic products, whether for the treatment of humans or animals. However, homoeopathic products for the treatment of food-producing species are not covered by the registration scheme and are subject to the requirement to obtain a marketing authorisation.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has received on the use of homoeopathic borax in the prevention of foot and mouth disease. [157705]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: My officials have been in correspondence with the Dean of the Faculty of Homoeopathy in London on the use of the homoeopathic product borax.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what trials he proposes to establish the effectiveness of the homeopathic remedy borax in the foot and mouth disease outbreak. [155117]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]: The onus for providing evidence that supports the need for research into the effectiveness of borax against foot and mouth disease lies with the manufacturer. Products that are presented for the treatment or prevention of disease in animals, or which have that function, must be authorised under the terms of the Marketing Authorisations for Veterinary Medicinal Products Regulations 1994 before they can be legally sold or supplied in the United Kingdom. This ensures that such products are properly assessed and are demonstrated as being safe, of consistent good quality and effective when used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. The manufacturer of any such products may apply for such authorisation. No such application has been made for borax.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will issue guidance on restocking to farmers whose stock have been culled as a result of foot and mouth. [156489]

  Ms Quin
  Guidance on restocking, for farmers whose animals have been slaughtered as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak, is currently being prepared and has been discussed informally with industry organisations.

  This guidance currently under discussion would require that no animals susceptible to foot and mouth disease may be brought on to an infected premises until at least 21 days have elapsed since the final cleansing and disinfection procedures have been completed. Animals for restocking can be introduced only from areas not subject to restrictions in relation to foot and mouth.

  Animals introduced to the premises will be subject to regular veterinary clinical inspection, with the frequency of inspection depending on the species. Sheep and goats will also be subject to serological testing. Restrictions will
  256W
  be lifted only when it has been shown that none of the animals has developed any clinical signs of foot and mouth.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the manufacturers, stockists and distributors of protective clothing currently(a) supplying and (b) working (i) for and (ii) on behalf of (A) his Department and (B) agents of Government in relation to the foot and mouth epidemic who were contacted (x) by his Department and (y) on his Department's behalf before 19 February; [156412]

  (2) if he will list the manufacturers, stockists and distributors of (a) firearms and (b) firearms ammunition suitable for animal culling purposes currently (i) supplying and (ii) working (x) for and (y) on behalf of (A) his Department and (B) agents of Government in relation to the foot and mouth epidemic who were contacted (I) by his Department and (II) on his Department's behalf before 19 February; [156414]

  (3) if he will list the contractors and suppliers contacted by his Department centrally or regionally in the 36 months before 19 February in relation to a possible outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the UK; [156421]

  (4) if he will list the (a) vets, (b) hauliers, (c) renderers, (d) valuers and (e) slaughtermen, marksmen and contracting firms making available the services thereof currently (i) supplying services and (ii) working (A) for and (B) on behalf of (I) his Department and (II) agents of Government in relation to the foot and mouth epidemic who were contacted (x) by his Department and (y) on his Department's behalf before 19 February; [156413]

  (5) if he will list the (a) hardcore stockists and merchants, (b) timber stockists and merchants, (c) coal stockists and merchants, (d) diesel fuel stockists and distributors,
  (e) concrete slab stockists and merchants, (f) disinfectant stockists and merchants and (g) stockists and merchants of disinfectant sprayers currently (i) supplying and (ii) working (x) for and (y) on behalf of (A) his Department and (B) agents of Government in relation to the foot and mouth epidemic who were contacted (I) by his Department and (II) on his Department's behalf before 19 February; [156411]

  (6) if he will list the stockists and merchants of straw currently (a) supplying and (b) working (A) for and (B) on behalf of (i) his Department and (ii) agents of Government in relation to the foot and mouth epidemic who were contacted (y) by his Department and (x) on his Department's behalf before 19 February. [156415]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 23 April 2001, Official Report, column 50W, in connection with a number of related questions.

  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when he expects that sheep belonging to Clive Hawes at Blankney Estates, Blankney, Sleaford, Lincolnshire will be slaughtered; and on what basis the compensation will be paid; [155923]
  257W
  (2) when he expects that sheep belonging to Clive Hawes at FH Farms, Car Colston, Nottinghamshire, will be slaughtered; and on what basis compensation will be paid; [155926]

  (3) when he expects that sheep belonging to Clive Hawes on Waterside Farm, Claydyke Back, Boston, Lincolnshire, will be slaughtered; and on what basis compensation will be paid; [155924]

  (4) when he expects that sheep belonging to Clive Hawes at Saracen's Head Farm, Holbeach, Lincolnshire, will be slaughtered, and on what basis compensation will be paid; [155925]

  (5) when he expects that sheep belonging to Clive Hawes at Lower Barn Farm Dedham, Mannington, Essex, will be slaughtered; and on what basis compensation will be paid. [155928]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 March 2001]: It is not practicable or appropriate to comment on the position of individual applications under the various schemes in operation to meet the needs of farmers during the foot and mouth outbreak. Every effort is being made to minimise delay in paying farmers in respect of animals slaughtered under foot and mouth measures.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the viability of the foot and mouth virus in vacuum-packed meats. [156661]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: The viability of the foot and mouth disease virus in meat depends on the treatment and preparation of the meat, and on the presence of bones. The drop in pH during rigor mortis generally kills the virus in meat, but viable virus can be found in the bone marrow and lymph glands. Vacuum packing does not affect the viability of the virus.

  Meat Imports
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what inspection is carried out at transit points for personal imports of foreign meat. [152381]

  Ms Quin
  In the course of normal surveillance of individuals entering the UK, Customs officers do become aware of personal imports of foreign meat or meat products from third countries. Where they suspect the import is not permitted, they notify either local authority officials or MAFF officials where appropriate who take the necessary action. In most cases this involves seizing and destroying the product.

  Meat Production Industry
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to review the performance of the meat production industry; and if he will make a statement. [157897]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: Once we have succeeded in eradicating foot and mouth disease, we shall be consulting a wide range of interests on how the meat production industry can most effectively be organised to provide consumers with the types and quality of meat products they wish to buy.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the total gross running costs to his Department were of the NDPBs accountable through his Department in the 1996–97 financial year. [157627]

  Ms Quin
  Details of the net cost to MAFF of carrying out its NDPB sponsorship role in the financial year 1996–97 are shown in the 1997 edition of Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies". Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Dawn Cardington Abattoir
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the owners of Dawn Cardington abattoir in Bedfordshire concerning a date for the re-opening of the abattoir. [156800]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 4 April 2001]: I understand that the owners of Dawn Cardington took a decision to close their abattoir, stating that this was in order to protect their boning and cutting plant on the same site from the risk of infection with foot and mouth disease. The Government have sought to encourage operators in the red meat industry to participate in the market in as normal a manner as possible. Guidance to slaughterhouse owners has been issued by the state veterinary service on the consequences of a confirmed case being detected on their premises. This can be found on the foot and mouth website under moving livestock to slaughter at http://www.maff.gov.uk/.

  Sheep Shipments
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when the sheep exported to France by Mr. H. Inizan on 31 January were slaughtered and subsequently tested for foot and mouth antibodies; [156435]

  (2) if sheep confirmed as infected with foot and mouth in France spent time (a) in the same vehicles or premises as those exported by Mr. H. Inizan on 31 January and subsequently identified as antibody positive and (b) in the proximity of Mr. Inizan's sheep. [156434]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answers 30 March 2001]: We are in touch with the French authorities to establish the circumstances relating to the export of sheep by Mr. H. Inizan.

  Departmental Policies (Amber Valley)
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Amber Valley constituency, the effects on Amber Valley of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157133]

  Ms Quin
  MAFF does not hold statistical information on a constituency basis relating to the Department's policies. As many of the Department's policies flow from measures agreed within the framework of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, statistical data are normally available on a UK or England basis.
  259W
  Farmers in the UK receive approximately £3 billion per year in direct CAP payments. This does not include the significant additional costs to consumers as a result of CAP price supports which keep EU prices above prevailing world prices.

  Consumers in Amber Valley will benefit from the Agenda 2000 reforms of the CAP in the form of reduced food bills, with the average saving for a typical family rising to £65 a year by 2010.

  The Government are committed to securing a more economically rational CAP. This will benefit both consumers and taxpayers in Amber Valley. We aim to redirect public money from agricultural price support mechanisms to rural development measures of benefit to the wider rural community and visitors to the countryside.

  One of the most important outcomes of Agenda 2000 was the establishment of the Rural Development Regulation, which is being implemented in England through the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP), investing around £1.6 billion in rural areas over seven years. By supporting rural development, including diversification into tourist activities, and by conserving and enhancing the rural environment through support for "public" goods such as biodiversity and landscape appearance, the ERDP offers benefits to all who visit the countryside.

  Departmental Policies (Lincoln)
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Lincoln constituency, the effects on Lincoln of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [152983]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 20 March 2001]: MAFF does not hold statistical information on a constituency basis relating to the Department's policies. As many of the Department's policies flow from measures agreed within the framework of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, statistical data are normally available on a UK or England basis.

  Farmers in the UK receive approximately £3 billion per year in direct CAP payments. This does not include the significant additional costs to consumers as a result of CAP price supports which keep EU prices above prevailing world prices.

  Consumers in Lincoln will benefit from the Agenda 2000 reforms of the CAP in the form of reduced food bills, with the average saving for a typical family rising to £65 a year by 2010.

  The Government are committed to securing a more economically rational CAP. This will benefit both consumers and taxpayers in Lincoln. We aim to redirect public money from agricultural price support mechanisms to rural development measures of benefit to the wider rural community and visitors to the countryside.

  One of the most important outcomes of Agenda 2000 was the establishment of the Rural Development Regulation, which is being implemented in England through the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP), investing around £1.6 billion in rural areas over seven years. By supporting rural development, including diversification into tourist activities, and by conserving
  260W
  and enhancing the rural environment through support for "public" goods such as biodiversity and landscape appearance, the ERDP offers benefits to all who visit the countryside.

  Departmental Policies (Gorton)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on the Manchester, Gorton constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 30 November 2000. [154505]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]: MAFF does not hold statistical information on a constituency basis relating to the Department's policies. As many of the Department's policies flow from measures agreed within the framework of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, statistical data are normally available on a UK or England basis.

  Farmers in the UK receive approximately £3 billion per year in direct CAP payments. This does not include the significant additional costs to consumers as a result of CAP price supports which keep EU prices above prevailing world prices.

  Consumers in Manchester, Gorton will benefit from the Agenda 2000 reforms of the CAP in the form of reduced food bills, with the average saving for a typical family rising to £65 a year by 2010.

  The Government are committed to securing a more economically rational CAP. This will benefit both consumers and taxpayers in Manchester, Gorton. We aim to redirect public money from agricultural price support mechanisms to rural development measures of benefit to the wider rural community and visitors to the countryside. One of the most important outcomes of Agenda 2000 was the establishment of the Rural Development Regulation, which is being implemented in England through the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP), investing around £1.6 billion in rural areas over seven years. By supporting rural development, including diversification into tourist activities, and by conserving and enhancing the rural environment through support for "public" goods such as biodiversity and landscape appearance, the ERDP offers benefits to all who visit the countryside.

  Departmental Policies (South Shields)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the South Shields constituency, the effects on South Shields of his Department's polices and actions since 2 May 1997. [153086]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 13 March 2001]: MAFF does not hold statistical information on a constituency basis relating to the Department's policies. As many of the Department's policies flow from measures agreed within the framework of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, statistical data are normally available on a UK or England basis.
  261W
  Farmers in the UK receive approximately £3 billion per year in direct CAP payments. This does not include the significant additional costs to consumers as a result of CAP price supports which keep EU prices above prevailing world prices.

  Consumers in South Shields will benefit from the Agenda 2000 reforms of the CAP in the form of reduced food bills, with the average saving for a typical family rising to £65 a year by 2010.

  The Government are committed to securing a more economically rational CAP. This will benefit both consumers and taxpayers in South Shields. We aim to redirect public money from agricultural price support mechanisms to rural development measures of benefit to the wider rural community and visitors to the countryside. One of the most important outcomes of Agenda 2000 was the establishment of the Rural Development Regulation, which is being implemented in England through the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP), investing around £1.6 billion in rural areas over seven years. By supporting rural development, including diversification into tourist activities, and by conserving and enhancing the rural environment through support for "public" goods such as biodiversity and landscape appearance, the ERDP offers benefits to all who visit the countryside.

  Departmental Policies (Don Valley)
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to Don Valley constituency, the effects on Doncaster of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [153524]

  Ms Quin
  MAFF does not hold statistical information on a constituency basis relating to the Department's policies. As many of the Department's policies flow from measures agreed within the framework of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, statistical data are normally available on a UK or England basis.

  Farmers in the UK receive approximately £3 billion per year in direct CAP payments. This does not include the significant additional costs to consumers as a result of CAP price supports which keep EU prices above prevailing world prices.

  Consumers in Don Valley will benefit from the Agenda 2000 reforms of the CAP in the form of reduced food bills, with the average saving for a typical family rising to £65 a year by 2010.

  The Government are committed to securing a more economically rational CAP. This will benefit both consumers and taxpayers in Don Valley. We aim to redirect public money from agricultural price support mechanisms to rural development measures of benefit to the wider rural community and visitors to the countryside.

  One of the most important outcomes of Agenda 2000 was the establishment of the Rural Development Regulation, which is being implemented in England through the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP), investing around £1.6 billion in rural areas over seven years. By supporting rural development, including diversification into tourist activities, and by conserving and enhancing the rural environment through support for
  262W
  "public" goods such as biodiversity and landscape appearance, the ERDP offers benefits to all who visit the countryside.

  Departmental Policies (Jarrow)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out, with statistical information, relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on Jarrow of his Department's actions since 2 May 1997. [153545]

  Ms Quin
  MAFF does not hold statistical information on a constituency basis relating to the Department's policies. As many of the Department's policies flow from measures agreed within the framework of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, statistical data are normally available on a UK or England basis.

  Farmers in the UK receive approximately £3 billion per year in direct CAP payments. This does not include the significant additional costs to consumers as a result of CAP price supports which keep EU prices above prevailing world prices.

  Consumers in Jarrow will benefit from the Agenda 2000 reforms of the CAP in the form of reduced food bills, with the average saving for a typical family rising to £65 a year by 2010.

  The Government are committed to securing a more economically rational CAP. This will benefit both consumers and taxpayers in Jarrow. We aim to redirect public money from agricultural price support mechanisms to rural development measures of benefit to the wider rural community and visitors to the countryside.

  One of the most important outcomes of Agenda 2000 was the establishment of the Rural Development Regulation, which is being implemented in England through the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP), investing around £1.6 billion in rural areas over seven years. By supporting rural development, including diversification into tourist activities, and by conserving and enhancing the rural environment through support for "public" goods such as biodiversity and landscape appearance, the ERDP offers benefits to all who visit the countryside.

  Departmental Policies (Houghton and Washington, East)
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on Houghton and Washington, East of his Department's actions since 2 May 1997. [153028]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: MAFF does not hold statistical information on a constituency basis relating to the Department's policies. As many of the Department's policies flow from measures agreed within the framework of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, statistical data are normally available on a UK or England basis.

  Farmers in the UK receive approximately £3 billion per year in direct CAP payments. This does not include the significant additional costs to consumers as a result of CAP price supports which keep EU prices above prevailing world prices.
  263W
  Consumers in Houghton and Washington, East will benefit from the Agenda 2000 reforms of the CAP in the form of reduced food bills, with the average saving for a typical family rising to £65 a year by 2010.

  The Government are committed to securing a more economically rational CAP. This will benefit both consumers and taxpayers in Houghton and Washington, East. We aim to redirect public money from agricultural price support mechanisms to rural development measures of benefit to the wider rural community and visitors to the countryside.

  One of the most important outcomes of Agenda 2000 was the establishment of the Rural Development Regulation, which is being implemented in England through the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP), investing around £1.6 billion in rural areas over seven years. By supporting rural development, including diversification into tourist activities, and by conserving and enhancing the rural environment through support for "public" goods such as biodiversity and landscape appearance, the ERDP offers benefits to all who visit the countryside.

  Departmental Policies (Bristol, East)
  Jean Corston
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Bristol, East constituency, the effects on Bristol of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [150555]

  Ms Quin
  MAFF does not hold statistical information on a constituency basis relating to the Department's policies. As many of the Department's policies flow from measures agreed within the framework of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, statistical data are normally available on a UK or England basis.

  Farmers in the UK receive approximately £3 billion per year in direct CAP payments. This does not include the significant additional costs to consumers as a result of CAP price supports which keep EU prices above prevailing world prices.

  Consumers in Bristol, East will benefit from the Agenda 2000 reforms of the CAP in the form of reduced food bills, with the average saving for a typical family rising to £65 a year by 2010.

  Average subsidies received by full-time farm businesses, England 1999–2000

  £000

  Total direct subsidies

  Crop subsidies

  Of which: Livestock subsidies

  Agri-environment

  Other1

  Cereals

  37.8

  34.2

  2.3

  1.0

  0.1

  General Cropping

  31.8

  28.8

  2.4

  0.6

  0.0

  Horticulture

  0.4

  0.2

  0.0

  0.1

  0.2

  Pigs and Poultry

  3.6

  2.2

  1.4

  0.1

  0.0

  Dairy

  8.5

  2.8

  4.9

  0.8

  0.0

  LFA Cattle and Sheep

  29.3

  0.4

  25.4

  3.3

  0.2

  Lowland Cattle and Sheep

  14.1

  1.7

  10.6

  1.8

  0.0

  Mixed

  33.8

  21.4

  10.7

  1.7

  0.0

  All Types

  22.5

  14.8

  6.4

  1.2

  0.1

  1Includes capital grants and any other miscellaneous grants. These reflect a combination of nationally funded and partly match funded schemes.

  Notes:

  HLCA payments to hill farms are included under livestock subsidies

  The figures show direct subsidy payments; they do not include allowance for the financial benefit of prices supported above world market levels under the CAP.

  Source:

  Farm Business Survey
  264W
  The Government are committed to securing a more economically rational CAP. This will benefit both consumers and taxpayers in Bristol, East. We aim to redirect public money from agricultural price support mechanisms to rural development measures of benefit to the wider rural community and visitors to the countryside.

  One of the most important outcomes of Agenda 2000 was the establishment of the Rural Development Regulation, which is being implemented in England through the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP), investing around £1.6 billion in rural areas over seven years. By supporting rural development, including diversification into tourist activities, and by conserving and enhancing the rural environment through support for "public" goods such as biodiversity and landscape appearance, the ERDP offers benefits to all who visit the countryside.

  Departmental Policies (North-East Derbyshire)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the North-East Derbyshire constituency, the effect on North-East Derbyshire of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [150879]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: MAFF does not hold statistical information on a constituency basis relating to the Department's policies. Information on land use, crop areas, livestock numbers, and labour on holdings in England by parliamentary constituency has been produced from 1 June 1999 Annual Agricultural and Horticultural Census. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. Information from the 1 June 2000 census will be available shortly and also placed in the House Library.

  As many of the Department's policies flow from measures agreed within the framework of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, statistical data are normally available on a UK or England basis. Farmers in the UK receive approximately £3 billion per year in direct CAP payments. This does not include the significant additional costs to consumers as a result of CAP price supports which keep EU prices above prevailing world prices. The value of direct CAP payments to the average farmer is set out in the table.
  265W
  In addition to CAP direct payments, farmers in the UK are benefiting from £1.35 billion in short-term financial relief since 2 May 1997.

  This includes £785 million in agrimonetary compensation worth some £4,800 per average arable farmer, £3,200 per average dairy farmer, £1,400 per average sheep farmer, and £1,140 and £3,800 per average farmer for agrimonetary compensation related to the Beef Special Premium Scheme and Suckler Cow Premium Scheme respectively.

  Since May 1997 the Government have more than doubled expenditure on agri-environment schemes in England. We now have more than twice as much land covered by Countryside Stewardship agreements and we have increased the funding of organic conversion from £571,000 in 1997–98 to £12 million in 2000–01 and £18 million in 2001–02. Full-time hill farmers in England will be in receipt of some £6,360 on average following the introduction of the Hill Farm Allowance Scheme this year. This compares to £4,048 under the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance in 1997–98.

  Farmers in North-East Derbyshire can benefit from schemes available under the England Rural Development Programme, which is backed by funding of £1.6 billion over the period 2000–06. Three of the schemes within this programme—Rural Enterprise, Processing and Marketing, and Vocational Training—have a budget of around £190 million and are being operated on a regional basis; each region has its own allocation. These allocations are set out in the England Rural Development Programme.

  Average subsidies received by full-time farm businesses, England 1999–2000

  £000

  Total direct subsidies

  Crop subsidies

  Of which: Livestock subsidies

  Agri-environment

  Other1

  Cereals

  37.8

  34.2

  2.3

  1.0

  0.1

  General Cropping

  31.8

  28.8

  2.4

  0.6

  0.0

  Horticulture

  0.4

  0.2

  0.0

  0.1

  0.2

  Pigs and Poultry

  3.6

  2.2

  1.4

  0.1

  0.0

  Dairy

  8.5

  2.8

  4.9

  0.8

  0.0

  LFA Cattle and Sheep

  29.3

  0.4

  25.4

  3.3

  0.2

  Lowland Cattle and Sheep

  14.1

  1.7

  10.6

  1.8

  0.0

  Mixed

  33.8

  21.4

  10.7

  1.7

  0.0

  All Types

  22.5

  14.8

  6.4

  1.2

  0.1

  1 Includes capital grants and any other miscellaneous grants. These reflect a combination of nationally funded and partly match funded schemes.

  Notes:

  HLCA payments to hill farms are included under livestock subsidies.

  The figures show direct subsidy payments; they do not include allowance for the financial benefit of prices supported above world market levels under the CAP.

  Source:

  Farm Business Survey

  In addition to CAP direct payments, farmers in the UK are benefiting from £1.35 billion in short-term financial relief since 2 May 1997.

  This includes £785 million in agrimonetary compensation worth some £4,800 per average arable farmer, £3,200 per average dairy farmer, £1,400 per average sheep farmer, and £1,140 and £3,800 per average farmer for agrimonetary
  266W
  Consumers in North-East Derbyshire will benefit from the Agenda 2000 reforms of the CAP in the form of reduced food bills, with the average saving for a typical family rising to £65 a year by 2010.

  Departmental Policies (Staffordshire, Moorlands)
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to Staffordshire, Moorlands constituency, the effects on Staffordshire, Moorlands of his Department's policies and actions(a) since 2 May 1997 and (b) in the 12 months ending on 1 May 1997. [149195]

  Ms Quin
  MAFF does not hold statistical information on a constituency basis relating to the Department's policies. Information on land use, crop areas, livestock numbers, and labour holdings in England by parliamentary constituency has been produced from 1 June 1999 Annual Agricultural and Horticultural Census. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. Information from the 1 June 2000 census will be available shortly and also placed in the House Library.

  As many of the Department's policies flow from measures agreed within the framework of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, statistical data are normally available on a UK or England basis. Farmers in the UK receive approximately £3 billion per year in direct CAP payments. This does not include the significant additional costs to consumers as a result of CAP price supports which keep EU prices above prevailing world prices. The value of direct CAP payments to the average farmer is set out in the table.

  compensation related to the Beef Special Premium Scheme and Suckler Cow Premium Scheme respectively.

  Since May 1997 the Government have more than doubled expenditure on agri-environment schemes in England. We now have more than twice as much land covered by Countryside Stewardship agreements and we have increased the funding of organic conversion from

  267W
  £571,000 in 1997–98 to £12 million in 2000–01 and £18 million in 2001–02. Full-time hill farmers in England will be in receipt of some £6,360 on average following the introduction of the Hill Farm Allowance Scheme this year. This compares to £4,048 under the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance in 1997–98.

  Farmers in Staffordshire, Moorlands can benefit from schemes available under the England Rural Development Programme, which is backed by funding of £1.6 billion over the period 2000–06. Three of the schemes within this
  268W
  programme—Rural Enterprise, Processing and Marketing, and Vocational Training—have a budget of around £190 million and are being operated on a regional basis; each region has its own allocation. These allocations are set out in the England Rural Development Programme.

  Consumers in Staffordshire, Moorlands will benefit from the Agenda 2000 reforms of the CAP in the form of reduced food bills, with the average saving for a typical family rising to £65 a year by 2010.

  Comparable information for the 12 months preceding 1 May 1997 is not available.

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

EU: Future Structure
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to promote the broad public debate on the future institutional structure of the European Union agreed at the Nice European Council in December 2000.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Government welcome the debate on the future of the European Union called for in the Treaty of Nice. It will offer an opportunity for all European citizens to help shape the Europe of tomorrow. We need to ensure that the EU is in a position to adapt to suit changing circumstances and changing needs. We also need to ensure that it has popular support. That is why a debate which touches as many of the people as possible is so important. We intend to have such a debate in the UK and we shall announce the details as soon as practically possible.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that interesting Answer. I am interested to know in a little more detail what the words "as soon as practically possible" mean. I suspect that they might mean "any time after 8th June". Does the Minister accept that the commitment given at Nice clearly implied that national governments would lead and encourage a debate within each of their own countries during the course of 2001? We are now four months into 2001 and the Government have not provided a lead on this matter. Will the Minister further accept that this is the second British government, of a different party, who have called for Britain to be at the heart of Europe, and that it is rather difficult for Britain to be at the heart of Europe unless the Government provide a lead for an intelligent domestic debate on the large questions about the future structure of Europe? The Government might wish to take a more active role as soon as possible, and not just "perhaps a couple of months before next winter".
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that eloquent speech—with much of which I agree. "As soon as possible" means just that. The noble Lord will know that the Prime Minister has already started such a debate. Mention has been made by him of a speech on the European website, as was requested. We are hopeful that there will be a proper debate before the end of this year. We are energetically
82
looking at how that debate should be brought forward and we shall obviously include all of those whom we know to have an interest in this subject, including many Members of this House.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I welcome what my noble friend has said and it is clear that in this country the wish to enlarge Europe is almost universally accepted. However, does my noble friend agree that there are fainter hearts in some of the other European countries? What can the Government do to ensure that this debate takes place not just in Britain but across all European Union countries in order to speed up the process of European enlargement?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure my noble friend that this issue has been taken up by all our European partners. At Nice there was a request that that should be done and it has been accepted. The debate will take place throughout Europe. It is important that such a debate takes place and that it is deep and wide-ranging; and it must obviously be completed by 2004. I can reassure my noble friend that everything possible is being done to encourage that deep debate.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House a little more about what this wide-ranging debate will involve? Does she agree that, although one or two matters were decided at Nice, a great deal about the future structure of the European Union was not decided at all? Will she tell the House whether the debate will focus on such issues as the entire future governance of the European Union; the need to change its antique and centralised systems of law-making, which have been much criticised; the proposition that we have reached the end of the mantra of "ever closer union", and that the Commission should cease to be the motor and driving force of European unity; and the removal of real obstacles to enlargement, of which Poland is finding agriculture the most serious? Are those the issues that will be debated, or are we merely going to repeat some of the old clichés of the past?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am not quite sure what the noble Lord means by "the old clichés of the past". If he means the aspirations for the betterment of Europe that we hold jointly, those are inherent in our aspirations and they will be repeated—and indeed should be. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister started this debate in his Warsaw speech in October 2000. He set out many of the issues in that speech, which has been well publicised, as regards the important questions that we need to debate. Those remain the issues which we believe need to be debated today.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House how the Government have the nerve to pretend that they wish to encourage discussion about the future of the European Union when they so stubbornly refuse to debate the now

83
unanswerable case for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union altogether? If the Minister is minded to answer that there is no point in discussing what life might be like outside the European Union because the advantages of membership are so obvious and overwhelming, will she be so good as to admit to your Lordships that she will have proved the point of my question?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, no.
Lord Carter: Leave the answer at that!
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear the temptation to my right! The issues, as the noble Lord rightly knows, will be broad. There will be plenty of time for the noble Lord to have his voice heard, along with many others, when this debate takes place.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that part of the Maastricht Treaty in which we were encouraged to develop a liaison between national parliaments? Should not this House take the lead in accomplishing that greater liaison with the peoples of Europe?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I know that many noble Lords have been most active in that field. I hope that that long tradition of co-operation will continue.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on resisting the temptation presented by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. My understanding is that the great speech made by the Prime Minister was in Warsaw, but that another great speech was previously made in Brussels. Does the noble Baroness think that now is the time for the Prime Minister to speak out in Britain, given the fact that all the polls indicate—especially on the issue of the euro—that British people say over and again that they do not know enough about the question and badly want more information in that respect? Will the Government please respond a little more quickly to such requests than they have up until now?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness says. I can assure her that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has spoken out and that he is continuing to do so. If noble Lords read the speeches that have been put on the European website and also, I suggest, on the FCO website (which is an award-winning website of extreme excellence), they will find that many very positive statements have been made. That will continue. We are considering with real care how this debate can best be expanded to include everyone, so that everyone feels that he or she has a voice and can participate. I reassure the noble Baroness that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will be most strongly in support of all those efforts.

Children Act 1989
2.44 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will amend Section 2(2) of the Children Act 1989 with a view to providing (a) that every natural father is responsible jointly with the mother for the financial support of any child of his and for using his best endeavours to ensure that the child receives the love, care, guidance and education which it needs from birth to maturity; and (b) that fathers who fulfil these responsibilities shall have joint parental responsibility for the child and appropriate access arrangements in cases where the parents do not live in the same household.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have acknowledged the noble Lord's commitment in this area before, and I do so again. His concern, which is very well founded, is about the adverse effect of absent fathers on boys and young men. But, with the best will in the world, there is no point in putting every natural father under a legal obligation to use his best endeavours to provide love, care, guidance and education for his child, when the father may have no—or no committed—relationship with the mother, nor, sadly, any feelings of love or responsibility towards the child: love cannot be compelled.
Conversely, attending to the other part of the noble Lord's Question, nor should natural fathers have contact with a child only if they fulfil their financial responsibilities to the child. A child may crave contact with a father who has not fulfilled those responsibilities, and can actually benefit from it sometimes. So the child's welfare is the paramount consideration. The courts will consider the wishes, and the feelings, of the child. I have the greatest respect, which I repeat, for the noble Lord's ideals and intentions; indeed, I believe that he has shared his ideas with my officials both in detail and most helpfully on at least two occasions. However, I just cannot think that this particular proposal could work.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that careful reply. Under the circumstances, it may seem impertinent of me to say that hard cases make bad law. I fully acknowledge the difficult borderline cases to which the noble and learned Lord drew attention in his response. However, will the noble and learned Lord accept that over 700,000 boys in our society today are growing up without any contact whatever with their fathers? Do the Government accept the increasing body of research which shows that a child has a better chance of attaining his full potential if he has contact with a caring father, as well as with a caring mother? The burden of my Question is this: do the Government

85
have any plans to try to reduce in any way the number of children who are presently growing up without a caring father?
The Lord Chancellor: Yes, my Lords. I acknowledge that a very large number of young men grow up without the benefit of having a father. Such a benefit is inestimable. Of course, life chances are much greater if one has the advantage of a caring father, but government cannot legislate to bring all good things about.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend be quite specific in relation to the following point: should a father who fails to fulfil his financial obligations to a child be deprived of access to that child? Does my noble and learned friend deem that, in any circumstances, to be in the interests of the child?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the short answer is that the paramount interest is the welfare of the child. Just as a father who does not support the child financially may still benefit the child by having access to him or her, so also it is the wishes and the feelings of the child that matter. As I said, children may crave contact with the father. Therefore, to penalise the father for non-payment of support would also be to penalise the child. However, the discharge of financial responsibilities cannot purchase access. The overriding consideration must be the benefit and the welfare of the child.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord give the House an assurance that the mentor service, which may be said to act as a father substitute and which has been successfully in operation with a small number of authorities, will be expanded and that the necessary resources will be made available to recruit and train mentors of the highest calibre for this very skilled and important work?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Viscount referred to an important initiative which is highly relevant to this Question, but it is in its infancy. Expansion and, indeed, consequential funding will depend upon the success of the pilots which I am about to describe.
I believe that the noble Viscount refers to three pilot schemes which have been operational since January to test the effectiveness of mentoring young people. I believe that one is in Birmingham and the others are in Kensington and Chelsea and Salford. They test different models of co-ordinating, recruiting and supporting mentors directly related to the needs of young people. The aim is to establish minimum quality standards in mentoring. Mentors come, for example, from local businesses, higher educational institutions and from the retired community. These people are volunteers. A major objective of government policy is to promote volunteering. They are being briefed, trained and may move on to accreditation by a
86
recognised body. It is too early to talk about the extent of funding. However, I undertake to write to the noble Viscount with as much detail as is presently available of a scheme which is in its infancy.

Highways Agency: Road Cleanliness
2.51 p.m.
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they intend to take to improve the cleanliness of those motorways and trunk roads for which the Highways Agency is responsible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Highways Agency aims to secure continuous improvement in its routine maintenance and to move towards performance-related procurement for all new contracts. One of the performance criteria of the new contracts is an environmental amenity index that includes the overall cleanliness of the road. The Highways Agency is also working to target litter at its source by making drivers aware of the effect on the environment of refuse thrown from vehicles.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that slightly uninspiring Answer. Does he agree that the state of our roads creates a very had impression on foreign visitors and that it is bad for the self-respect of the British people? Is he as irritated as I am by the fact that large sums of taxpayers' money are paid to contractors to clean roads and that they are manifestly failing to fulfil those contracts properly? Does he agree that this should be one of the easiest problems for the Government, or any government, to solve? Does he, as a former general secretary of the Labour Party, agree that we might perhaps on this issue at least have a cross-party concordat? Does he think that the Labour Party would be prepared to sign up to cleaner British roads by the end of the next Parliament?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, regrettably, the formal position in this House is that I answer for the Government rather than the Labour Party. I am sure that all parties in this House would wish to see a reduction in litter whether on our highways or in our urban streets and villages. I do not necessarily accept that the position on our highways is worse than elsewhere. I say that from my experience of driving on roads in other countries. Nevertheless, there is on occasion a problem. As regards roads that are the responsibility of the Highways Agency, the managing agents for the Highways Agency inspect them every day. Of course, the prime responsibility is to keep roads open. Therefore, obstructions and litter which constitute a safety hazard are removed first. Nevertheless, in designing the new contracts the agency has recognised the need substantially to improve litter clearance.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the Minister consider that abandoned cars constitute litter? Last

87
weekend I saw three cars which had apparently been abandoned for weeks and weeks. Do the Government intend to do anything about that?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the legal position with regard to abandoned cars is complex in that one has to establish whether they are abandoned or simply untaxed. However, through pilot projects in two London boroughs—one has already been completed in north Kent—we are co-ordinating powers to enable abandoned cars to be removed rapidly through cooperation between the various agencies. Those cars will be disposed of if they are not speedily claimed. Therefore, there is a new co-ordination of powers to deal with what I accept is a growing problem.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, in my part of Somerset tyres are regularly dumped on verges. Cannot non-custodial sentences be imposed to help clear up something to which we all object?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, a range of penalties is available to the courts but, of course, it is difficult to catch those who litter highways. I suspect that in Somerset as elsewhere it is difficult to catch those who dump tyres. However, tyres constitute a safety hazard and should be dealt with as a matter of absolute priority by the district council or the relevant highway authority.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, will my noble friend give the House statistics on the amount of litter dumped on the roads over the past five or 10 years, as I have the impression that the situation has improved? Can my noble friend provide some information on that matter as many roads on which I drive look much cleaner than they were five or 10 years ago?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I cannot give that information as regards trunk roads and highways. However, the Highways Agency is under the impression that there has been an improvement and that impression is borne out by those who carry out the contracts. Certainly as regards urban litter, despite problems in particular areas there has been a measurable improvement over the past five years.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the noble Lord reflect upon the fact that his initial somewhat relaxed Answer to my noble friend did not exactly portend any very energetic action on the part of either himself or his department? Will be take the opportunity raised by my noble friend's Question to stir up his department and get it to deal with something which is an appalling nuisance?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord and to the House that I am so relaxed and uninspired today! I believe that the new form of contract, which includes the environmental elements to which the Highways Agency is committed, is a major improvement and will be energetically enforced.
88
Someone who is both inspired and distinctly not relaxed—namely, the Prime Minister—today announced a number of measures to deal with litter, principally in urban areas. Those include the establishment of a street warden scheme; an extra £50 million for environmental improvements, enabling local authorities to retain and recycle money gained in fines from litter dumping; and the introduction of a new scheme under the Youth Justice Board to involve young offenders in removing litter, graffiti and so on. The Prime Minister made a major speech today designed to improve quality of life, principally in our urban areas. We are being very energetic and totally unrelaxed about these matters.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, rubbish on our roads unfortunately includes wildlife. Do authorities still as a matter of course collect badgers, muntjaks and any deer that are killed on our roads? If so, do they systematically test all of them for disease or infection?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards roads for which the Highways Agency is responsible, those animals are systematically collected. I am under the impression that county bodies also collect them on county roads. However, I need to find out about testing for infection. I suspect that that is not comprehensive but I shall reply to the noble Baroness on that point.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, would it be a good initiative if Members of your Lordships' House were to draw to the Minister's attention roads that they find to be unacceptably dirty?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that would be interesting. However, I am not sure whether it would be helpful. On a number of occasions the noble Lord has drawn to my attention the state of roads in the county of Suffolk. Should other noble Lords be equally inspired—if I may use that word—we shall take all such complaints seriously.

Uninsured Drivers
3 p.m.
Lord Hoyle Lord Hoyle asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that every vehicle owner has a valid motor insurance policy.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the law requires the user of a vehicle to have insurance. Each time a vehicle is relicensed evidence of insurance covering the use of the vehicle must be produced. Police have powers to stop vehicles to check insurance and other matters. There are about 300,000 convictions and 29,000 disqualifications each year. The Vehicles (Crime) Act which came into force on 10th April will give police additional powers to check the computerised

89
insurance database which will be set up later this year with government support. This should enable the police to detect and prosecute more drivers at less cost.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that statistics demonstrate that at least one driver in 20 or perhaps as many as one in 10 is driving without insurance, involving between 1 million and 2 million vehicles? It costs the industry over £400 million and adds £20 to £30 to the premium of the law-abiding motorist. Even if those drivers come to court, the penalty is usually £150, which is hardly a deterrent. Will the Minister make the punishment fit the crime by advising the courts that the penalty should at least equal the cost of third party insurance, which is roughly £350?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend is correct that the average level of fine is relatively low. In the last full year the figure was £210. He is also right to say that that does not represent the cost avoided of insurance. However, the magistrates' courts have to take account of the likelihood of payment in these cases. The maximum fine available to the courts is £5,000; and disqualification is available. Therefore, I believe that the level of potential penalty is adequate.
However, the Home Office has just engaged in consultation on road traffic offences in general. It suggests that with regard to uninsured, untaxed cases we should also consider community service orders, or forfeiture of vehicle when the driver owns the vehicle, as well as the existing penalties.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that those who steal vehicles appear to cause more trouble than vehicle owners? We have had recent tragic cases of young boys who steal cars, have no insurance, and kill people. Should not the Government initiate a fund which can be used for compensation in that sort of crime?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is such a fund. The Motor Insurance Bureau provides for compensation in cases where an uninsured driver has been involved. That is what gives rise to the additional cost to the law-abiding insured motorist to which my noble friend Lord Hoyle referred. The bureau pays out a substantial amount each year for uninsured accidents, so the system exists. The cost to the law-abiding motorist is effectively an additional £15 to £30 a year on his premium.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, will the Government give consideration to the automatic confiscation of any vehicle in such circumstances?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, even if we were to adopt the option proposed in the Home Office consultation paper to which I referred, we need to give the courts some discretion. But forfeiture of a vehicle should be
90
an option. The problem is that in a large number of cases, including those referred to, the driver is not the owner and may have stolen the car.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, while the Motor Insurance Bureau picks up the tab and the remainder of the premium-paying public has to bear the cost, is the Minister satisfied that the amount of compensation paid to people who are injured by noninsured drivers is adequate in all the circumstances?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the payments will be on the same basis as though the drivers were insured. That is the whole point of the Motor Insurance Bureau safety net in these circumstances. Whether the victims or their families regard the payments as adequate can, I admit, in individual cases be open to dispute and may well invoke some sympathy from myself and this House. However, the payments by the Motor Insurance Bureau should reflect the kind of payments which would be paid if those drivers were insured.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, under the proposal set out by the Minister, are those sentenced to community service orders likely to be set to work to clear up litter on the roads which the Highways Agency looks after?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General says to me, that is an inspired suggestion! We shall certainly commend it to the courts.

Homes Bill
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Homes Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 9,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 10 to 30,

Schedules 2 and 3,

Clauses 31 to 35.—(Lord Whitty.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Health and Social Care Bill
3.6 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Determination of allotments to and resource limits for Health Authorities and Primary Care Trusts]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert—
"(1B) The Secretary of State shall in directions under subsection (1A) have regard to the need to ensure and maintain an adequate distribution throughout England and Wales of medical

91
practitioners providing general medical services under arrangements made under section 10 of the 1977 Act, or providing personal medical services under section 28C of that Act.""
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 29. In doing so, I return to a matter we debated in Committee: how the Secretary of State will use the powers in the Bill to ensure that there is an adequate distribution of GPs throughout England and Wales.
I shall not reiterate at any length the points I made in Committee about the proposed abolition of the Medical Practices Committee. I simply say that, notwithstanding its limited powers, over the years the MPC has done a remarkable job in ironing out what were, at the time the NHS came into being, serious imbalances in the spread of GPs nationally. The secret of the MPC's continuing success throughout the past 50 years has been the development of a body of knowledge and expertise which has enabled it to maintain a close watching brief on regional and national requirements and to co-ordinate and balance out the way in which those requirements are met.
The Government propose to adopt what many see as a bold alternative to the MPC without acknowledging the importance of the central coordinating role that the MPC has played. Despite the Minister's detailed reply to me in Committee, I still do not see how a combination of a regional funding formula and what is termed a performance management framework can possibly deliver the same results as or better results than those we have had from the MPC. We are told that there will be a workforce mechanism at national level, but it is far from clear how this will interrelate with the regional initiatives or how the regions will interrelate with each other as surely they must.
There will be market mechanisms in place. But with a national shortage of GPs health authorities will in practice be competing with one another by means of incentives which would not be necessary under the current system. How will the unsuccessful health authorities make up for their lack of success? The proposed machine looks enormously bureaucratic and difficult compared with what we have currently.
I hope that the Minister will forgive me for taking a second bite at the issue. However, I should be grateful if he will take this opportunity to give us fuller and better particulars of how the new system is meant to deliver the result that we all want to see.
For example, what will happen if there turns out to be a maldistribution of some kind? What powers will the Secretary of State have in those circumstances? What will happen if the health authorities with an overworked GP contingent are tempted not to fill posts and so save resources? I bemoan the loss, once the body has been abolished, of the MPC's expertise and the element of central guidance that it has given. The amendments are designed to retain what many people see as the key element of the current system in
92
the sense that I have described. I should like nothing better than to be persuaded that they are unnecessary, but for now I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I support my noble friend on the amendments. He should not apologise for taking a second bite at the cherry, because this is an important subject. The amendments would restore to an extent the influence that general practitioners currently have on how and where their practice operates.
Since they came to office four years ago, the Government appear to have been determined that family doctors should lose ever more of their influence over how the National Health Service works. The recent Health Act removed the right to become a fundholding practice—a right that general practices were increasingly taking up—as well as the other mechanisms that went with that system, which involved the money following the patient rather than it being in the hands of hospitals.
The effect has been an almost total loss of clout by general practitioners in getting their patients into hospitals. The Minister must know that. I know the desperation on that point among doctors at the practice where I go.
That is water under the bridge. However, Clause 22 will abolish the Medical Practices Committee, which has been the mechanism by which doctors can influence where practices should operate—where their place of work is. Presumably, the Government are convinced that a more centralised form of management is the way forward for greater efficiency and success in the National Health Service. They want the Secretary of State to have more power. The Minister said at an earlier stage that the Secretary of State needed that power. The Bill will enable him to manipulate the distribution of practices through the way in which funding is allocated to health authorities. The Bill does not even require him to ensure a reasonably equal distribution across the country.
That is very threatening to already desperate general practitioners. They are demonstrating how desperately they feel about a number of matters by threatening to strike on 1st May and probably having a ballot on resigning from the health service. They feel powerless. This is an important issue for them. In one small way, the amendments would alleviate their sense of powerlessness.
The advisory body would help. It is a small point, but it would address concerns about how general practitioners can speak to the Government and the authorities. They would also be comforted if the Bill specified that the distribution of practices had to be reasonably equal across the country. The Minister should take the amendments seriously in the spirit in which they have been moved. They represent small ways in which the Government could improve the Bill.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I support the amendments, particularly Amendment No. 1. As a

93
result of our debates in Committee, many of us are more doubtful about the new scheme proposed in the Bill than we were before. The Minister's comments in Committee make the new proposals even more of an act of faith or a leap in the dark—or any other metaphor that I can think of—than we might have thought before.
The Minister paid tribute to the Medical Practices Committee, saying:
"Our proposals detract not a jot from the hard work that the MPC' has undertaken over the years".
He paid particular tribute to the current chair of the committee. However, he then said:
"After many years, the MPC has had some success"—
and this is the key passage—
"but it has not been as successful as one would want in ensuring a much fairer distribution of GPs throughout the National Health Service".—[Official Report, 15/3/01; col. 1074.]
He is not proposing a more effective central system of overview, oversight, data collection and control. Instead, he is splitting those responsibilities between the health authorities. Despite the tributes that he paid to the MPC, he believes that it has not been as effective as it should have been and has decided to split its functions and responsibilities up among all the different health authorities. That is how the Government propose to get a more equitable distribution of GPs across the country.
That seems paradoxical. In the new scheme of things, each health authority will determine for itself the appropriate number of GPs and practices in its area. Health authorities will be subject to constraints in other ways, as they always are. They will have to make decisions about whether to recruit additional GPs. depending on the resources that they have available. I do not deny that the Government's motives are entirely correct, but how will they ensure that their national priorities and the importance that they attach to having a proper distribution of GPs across the country will be met by that fragmented approach of giving health authorities sole responsibility? That is not a sensible approach to workforce planning.
Funnily enough, in other respects the Government have moved in the other direction on workforce planning. One does not need a long memory to remember our debates on the recent Health Act. The Government were initially determined to retain workforce planning at local and regional level, but they then sensibly shifted towards more central planning to consider how many consultants we need in particular specialties. We appear to be reversing that process here. There will be a better, more centralised system of workforce planning for acute care, but for GPs and primary care there will be a much more fragmented approach.
There are an enormous number of questions that one could ask to test the Government's faith in their new scheme. How will inequity in GP distribution be assessed? Will health authorities have to make a return to the Secretary of State? Will be have the power to insist on recruitment and the use of particular
94
resources in a particular direction? What measures will be in place to ensure consistency and fairness in decision-making between one health authority and another? What transitional arrangements will be in place and what safeguards will be contained in the Secretary of State's directions to health authorities to ensure and maintain an adequate distribution throughout England and Wales?
The current system is tried and tested and has worked, although it may not have worked totally to the Government's satisfaction over a period of years. However, the alternative that we are offered is no more than the Government's belief that a system operated through health authorities will ensure a better distribution. The jury is out. I very much look forward to what the Minister has to say.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I wonder whether the word "new" is becoming a bit of a plague. Everything has to be changed every now and again. Ministers get apprehensive that even those committees that show signs of working well and being useful—I admit that there are some, even though I am not a lover of committees—might become a source of embarrassment, so they charge in with a wish to change them.
I wish to look at the words in new subsection (2A) under Clause 1(5) of the Bill. The subsection is not one of great charm or clarity, but I do not suppose that that is regarded as a defect by Ministers. However, I believe that the wording to which I refer in particular is designed to make the throne of the health authority more comfortable and better protected than it is at present. I do not believe that such a reform is in any way necessary.
I believe that health authorities should be open to criticism and to advice as to how they might improve matters. But here they are given a vast discretion. The Bill states that,
"the Health Authority may take into account, in whatever way they think appropriate, but subject to any directions"—
that certainly lets the Minister in—
"the distribution within their area of",
certain things,
"during any period they think appropriate (or such elements of such uses of resources as they think appropriate").
That is a ghastly piece of legislation. There is nothing to be said for it at all. I certainly applaud my noble friend's desire to amend it, but I slightly doubt whether the particular cure that he has chosen would prove effective. However, I certainly join him in believing that this type of verbiage, and the intention behind it in so far as it is clear, is greatly to be regretted. One is always grateful to the Minister for the attention that he pays to arguments in your Lordships' House. I believe that he will have difficulty in convincing noble Lords that this subsection is anything but vulnerable.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as a former general practitioner who has a continuing interest in reversing the inverse care law, which was first enunciated by my friend Dr Julian Tudor Hart approximately 30 years

95
ago—unfortunately, it still applies—I find myself very much in agreement with the spirit of these amendments. They seek to take account of the abolition of the Medical Practices Committee as set out in the Bill.
I do not believe that because a certain institution is not functioning perfectly it is appropriate simply to abolish it. One should look at the problems that it has experienced and examine how its work can be improved. As noble Lords have said, the Medical Practices Committee has carried out some extremely useful work in evening out the distribution of general practitioners throughout the country. I believe that leaving it to individual health authorities to work out what is best within their areas is, again, asking for a possible increase of inequalities because health authorities may have varying powers of persuasion. In addition, the doctors within their catchment areas will have varying strengths in the case that they can put forward for their need of greater expenditure and more personnel.
I believe that the amendments will make the Bill less harmful in abolishing the Medical Practices Committee. The committee has a considerable archive of information. It has such a large amount of work to do that it meets once a week. I believe that the store of information that it has should be preserved and could well be used by a medical practice advisory body, as the amendment suggests. I hope that my noble friend can move some way towards meeting these amendments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the remarks of noble Lords. One thing is clear: we all share a desire to ensure a proper and fair distribution of general practitioners throughout the National Health Service.
However, I believe that the context in which we must consider the matter is, first, the NHS Plan. In the plan we announced our intention to introduce a new way of distributing resources in order to address some of the undoubted inequities that exist in primary care services. Historically, those have been excluded from the weighted capitation formula, which has been used to ensure a fair distribution of funding for other NHS services.
As I said in Committee, I pay tribute to the hard work undertaken by the Medical Practices Committee. I also pay tribute to the leadership of Ro Day, who chairs the committee. I believe that, after many years of hard work, we are faced with a situation in which the distribution of GPs across the whole of the National Health Service is not fair. I believe that unless we take the action that we intend to take, there is absolutely no assurance that, if the MPC were to continue under its current arrangements, it would be able to improve the situation.
Before I turn to the details of the debate, perhaps I may make two general comments. The first is to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, who
96
said that GPs have been losing influence. I do not believe that to be the case. The whole thrust of our aim is to push greater responsibility on to the primary care level. We established primary care groups and then primary care trusts because we believe that the closer the decision-making is to the primary care level, the more effective we are likely to be in achieving right and proper decisions.
I also say to the noble Baroness that, in relation to the development of national service frameworks, which describe how we wish to see different services develop in the future, the role of primary care is given a great deal of prominence.
So far as concerns the noble Baroness's comment about the referral of patients from GPs to hospitals, I have been encouraged by the efforts of consultants and GPs to agree protocols for those referrals. I am sure that the right way to progress is with agreement between consultants and GPs about which services should be provided in hospital and which should be provided in primary care, and agreement on the circumstances under which patients are referred to hospitals by GPs.
The noble Baroness referred to the current actions of the BMA. No doubt we shall debate that matter later. I understand that one complaint made by GPs is that we are pushing too much on to them. I accept that an issue exists in relation to workload pressure. However, what I do not believe to be in doubt is our record in ensuring that GPs have a pivotal role to play in the future provision and planning of services.
My second point by way of general introduction concerns the role of health authorities. I was interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. Indeed, I believe that the Medical Practices Committee is the first committee to which I have ever heard him pay tribute. So far as health authorities—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, there are not many committees of which I wholly approve. However, I believe that this one deserves some commendation, and I am sorry that it should be so roughly and ungratefully handled by the Government.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am happy to pass the noble Lord's commendation to the MPC. He may acknowledge that I have paid tribute to it for its work. The point is simply that we feel that its time has usefully come to an end. There is no intent to disparage its work.
We want to give local health authorities a much more proactive role. That role, combined with a national mechanism for examining workforce issues, will give us the best balance from which to sort out the difficult problem of ensuring that we have enough GPs throughout the country.
On the financial formula, we have commissioned the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation to develop a formula for the GMS non-cash-limited element. When that is implemented there will be a single funding formula, which will set a target or a fair

97
share for each health authority and primary care trust. That will cover the GMS non-cash-limited expenditure—that arrangement is new—as well as a unified allocation. When we allocate the extra resources for unified allocations in future, our pace-of-change policy will apply to those new targets. Those who are spending less than their fair share on GMS non-cash-limited services can be given a larger increase for their other services. If they are spending more than their fair share, they may get a smaller increase. We shall do that through a process of levelling up so that no area will have its existing level of resources reduced. That will have the effect of providing a financial incentive and support for those health authorities that need to increase the number of GPs in "under-doctored" areas.
We do not believe that a separate framework is needed to oversee national GP distribution, as Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 envisage. Health authorities need to consider GP numbers as part of their whole NHS workforce planning strategy.
The new formula is intended to improve the equity in the distribution of primary care services, including GP distribution. However, it is clearly important that that takes place within a national framework, and we are therefore setting up at national level the national workforce development board, which will advise the Secretary of State on GP numbers and on the whole range of workforce issues that are faced by the NHS nationally. I assure noble Lords that within that board an overview will be taken of the whole of the primary care workforce, including, but not limited to, GPs. Through that development board, the Secretary of State will set a national strategic direction for the NHS workforce. Within that, health authorities will produce integrated plans for the workforce who are needed to deliver services locally. The determination of need for GPs will form part of that local strategic planning role.
We are seeking to give health authorities a financial incentive and a much greater freedom to be proactive but—here I come to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe—we shall have a robust performance management framework. Targets for GPs will be agreed between the health authority and the regional office. That will be based in the context of the national strategy that is agreed through the national workforce development board. That is surely the right approach.
Health authorities will be given the freedom to manage the development of their local services across primary and secondary care. They will have the financial arrangements that will enable that to happen. Our new structures for workforce planning and regional office performance management will provide the national framework and the necessary safeguards within which health authorities will make decisions about the distribution of GPs.
We are not simply leaving GP distribution to health authorities; we are giving health authorities a leadership role but we are doing so firmly within a national framework and a performance management
98
culture. I am convinced that that is the best way to achieve a fair distribution of all GPs, which all noble Lords wish to secure.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does the Minister think that that provision will do anything to help the relationship between health authorities and GPs and, if so, why? I feel that it will do the reverse.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do. Under the current arrangement for the replacement of GPs, many decisions have to be referred to the MPC at national level. A health authority does all of the legwork and arranges the discussions with GPs and it refers that to the MPC. Under our provisions, a health authority will seem to be much more proactive and to have a leadership role. GPs will welcome that. They will know that the key discussions will take place not in London but at local level between local GPs and the health authority. I expect that that will improve relationships.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Much of what he said was of great help but I confess that his response leaves me with several questions.
The Minister spoke of the wish to allocate fair shares in terms of resources for each area of the country. That relies on having an understanding of what "a fair share" is. He spoke of the role of the national workforce development board. As I understand its role, it will be responsible for overseeing the workforce development of all NHS clinical staff. However, it is not clear how it will operate—no details are yet available on its constitution or remit.
GP workforce planning is an extremely complex science. It needs expertise to interpret and act on workforce data. It is not clear whether the national workforce development board will have that expertise or on what it will base its decisions. The Government's intention is to transfer funding to areas in which there are insufficient numbers of doctors. That could run the risk of weakening the infrastructure in areas in which there are currently sufficient numbers of GPs and it could involve levelling down, which could damage patient care.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to intervene—I realise that we are on Report. I pick up on the issue of expertise. Expertise is obviously held by the MPC at national level. We expect the new workforce board to ensure that it has the right professional staff to provide the capacity and expertise in workforce planning. I agree with the noble Earl that that is a challenging art. Much of the legwork of the MPC is already undertaken by health authorities, which have to put together the submission and collect all of the details. Much of the expertise in the present arrangement lies at the health authority level. That will be available under the new arrangements.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am again grateful to the Minister. Unless health authorities speak to one

99
another in this context, no single health authority will have a view of the picture outside its region. That role, I take it, will be undertaken at national level. It still seems to involve quite a lot of bureaucracy and has more difficulties than the current system. Nevertheless, I do not wish to labour these issues any longer. The Minister has been helpful and I am grateful to him for his comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Payments relating to past performance]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 6, leave out from first "objectives" to end of line 11 and insert "set by the Authority as objectives to be met in performing their functions and approved by the Secretary of State, or
(b) they met the performance criteria set by the Authority and approved by the Secretary of State as criteria relevant to the satisfactory performance of their functions (judged by the method of measuring their performance against those criteria set by the Authority and approved by the Secretary of State),
and the Secretary of State shall publish details of such objectives, performance criteria and method of measuring performance within 28 days of approving the same."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 3, I return to an issue which we debated at some length in Committee, which was the way in which targets should best be set as the basis of payments from the NHS performance fund. Once again, I do not intend to repeat all the arguments that I set out in Committee as to why the Government's approach seems to be misconceived.
The central point that I sought to make was that, when such targets are agreed, it is important that they relate closely to the needs of the particular area and that local managers feel a real sense of ownership of them. The only way to be certain of achieving that is to involve management in defining what the targets should be. I do not suggest that managers should be given carte blanche to rig the system in their favour or that we should open the way to creating perverse incentives that would allow health authorities to choose only those objectives that they knew they could achieve, as that would be equally foolhardy.
Any targets proposed should be subject to approval and agreement by Ministers. I have no difficulty with that. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said so eloquently in Committee, the setting of objectives should be a mutual process. That is a basic principle of good business practice and it is the basis of this amendment.
The Minister's reply to me in Committee suggested that I was in some sense chasing windmills because he emphasised that the whole process of NHS planning involves officials negotiating individual targets with health bodies. He thereby sought to repudiate any suggestion that the Government were pursuing an overly prescriptive top-down approach.
Perhaps I may take him up briefly on that point. The consultation document issued by the Department of Health on 18th January explained the traffic light scheme in the context of nationally set objectives and earned autonomy. The problem that I have with that much-used phrase "earned autonomy" is that the autonomy which it posits is in reality no such thing. As I understand the word, autonomy carries a connotation of independence and freedom. No such independence or freedom will exist, even for health bodies with green light status. I accept that there must be a number of nationally set priorities. In the main, those should relate to health outcomes. But the whole flavour of the consultation document is of a prescriptive process involving a range of politically driven objectives which health authorities and trusts will have to achieve if they are to be given favoured status.
Top of the list in the "must do" box is the achievement of nationally set reductions of waiting list numbers. The next target is the elimination of 18-month waits. The one after that is the reduction in patients waiting longer than 13 weeks. Looking down the list, we see a target relating to delayed discharges and another relating to the Government's cancer referral pledge. Altogether, there are 10 targets in the must-do category and a further 77 in the priority category.
Apart from the fact that that is a huge list of objectives, it is quite clear that it is not a list which takes account of local needs and priorities. It is a list drawn up by officials from the Department of Health. It may be that that list will now be modified in the light of consultation but it is a top-down approach writ large.
The Minister expressed the view that my amendment risked creating perverse incentives. I can only say to him that the more targets that are imposed by Ministers that serve to distort clinical priorities, the more perverse incentives will be built in to fiddle the figures. There is a must-do target for health authorities to reduce the number of emergency admissions of older people. What is that target but a perverse incentive to set practices which may work directly against patients' interests?
But the waiting list initiative is the classic example of clinical priorities being distorted in order to meet political targets. We know of regrettable examples around the country of those figures being manipulated by trusts, out of sheer desperation. But even without such manipulation, those must-do targets encourage doctors to depart from the normal clinical principle that the sickest patients should be treated first.
I am afraid that the same is true of the cancer pledge. The Government's pledge that suspected cancer patients should be seen by a specialist within two weeks of an urgent GP referral has resulted in a spectacular misallocation of resources. Recently, Dr Joan Austoker, of the Cancer Research Campaign, said:
"The two week rule has completely backfired. It has led to a waste of resources and a waste of specialists' time".

101
The cancer target may spring from the best of intentions but, ironically, it works directly to the detriment of many patients.
So, far from creating local autonomy and independence, the process appears to move in quite the opposite direction. I find it both sad and laughable that just about the only section of the consultation document which tried to address the need for local involvement was a brief question and answer. Question 7 asked:
"How can we ensure that the process is locally driven and has local ownership? How can we encourage and support the local development of suitable incentive schemes?"
The answer was:
"It is intended that there will be continuous learning by encouraging the NHS to share examples of good practice on the NHS learning zone".
The paragraph then goes on to talk about championing innovative schemes on the national website, giving an award for the best scheme from each region and so on. I have to say that I find it difficult to see what that has to do with local ownership of targets.
I think back to the words of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege in Committee when she spoke about giving local people the opportunity to be creative, to use their imagination, to take risks and to be forgiven when things go wrong. She asked what it is about the great Modernisation Agency that ensures that it always knows better than the people on the ground. I do not believe that we have yet had an answer to that question.
Perhaps the strangest feature of this clause emerged right at the end of the Minister's remarks in Committee. After the fairly detailed exchanges about the traffic light system, he disclosed that Clause 2 is not needed to implement the traffic light system at all. We understand now that that can be done using current powers. This clause is there to enable Ministers to move on from the traffic light system at some undefined stage in the future and to make additional payments to green-light organisations as an extra incentive.
I confess that that was news to me. But if it is the case, then it seems to me that there is all the more reason to take the greatest care in setting appropriate targets, and by that I mean targets which most closely reflect local priorities, where extra money is spent to best effect. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, my noble friend deserves some support. In particular I echo what he said about targets, which are artificial things, dreamt up by Ministers and their officials. They are really nothing to do with what is happening on the ground. Again and again, targets are designed to increase the comfort of Ministers when they face a television interview on a sensitive subject. Such targets are useful then but they are certainly not useful in the hospitals themselves where targets become a source of total confusion. It becomes a matter of people meeting their targets either by fudging or otherwise distorting the
102
situation to the great disadvantage of the patients. I entirely agree with my noble friend and I hope that the noble Lord will give very careful consideration to the amendment.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as chair of a local health authority, I should like to say a few words in favour of targets. I am subject to them constantly. I have two red-lighters, an amber and two greens in my health authority area.
It is quite important that we do not lose sight of the purpose of targets for the health economy.
I chair the waiting list initiative in my health authority, and I know that it has led to a huge amount of work for GPs and clinicians from the acute trusts in trying to identify what is happening in terms of the waiting lists, which patients have been waiting the longest, what level of pain a patient may be suffering, and how best we can address such matters.
In our discussions, which can reflect a rather straightforward view that waiting list initiatives may be wrong, I do not want to lose sight of the important work that takes place because we have targets. I should like to have fewer targets than I have currently, but they mean that we look carefully at the services that we offer our population to ensure that they are provided to the best of our abilities.
In my view the distortion that has been described is something that has been created by the media. Such a distortion does not happen in my health authority. We carefully look at which patients are treated, and we are required to identify which patients are treated by the different specialties so that we do not distort the figures. We should not lose sight of the need for targets to ensure that health authorities, trusts, GPs and all the professions allied to medicine work together to provide the best possible healthcare.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords admire the fact that the noble Baroness is extremely good at her job. However, I do not believe that the evidence from various health authorities shows that targets never cause distortion; they appear to cause a lot of distortion and the wrong people are treated in the wrong order. The noble Baroness knows more about that than I do. The system is operated by human beings; it is not just a theory or a bureaucratic structure. Health authorities comprise human beings.
I am sure that the Minister would agree that my noble friend Lord Howe made an extremely thoughtful speech. He examined the system carefully and pointed out some of the dangers. I agree with what he said. I simply add that I can think of nothing more foolishly demotivating of people than for the Secretary of State to tell them their objectives and that their money will be topped up only if they do exactly what they are told in following those objectives. How much more sensible it would be—I should have thought that any sociological advice would say this—to allow the authority to consider what its objectives and criteria should be, to agree them with the Secretary of State, and then to try to implement them and thus get extra financial help.

103
These provisions are obviously the wrong way round. I honestly believe that the Secretary of State must have lost his head if he considers that it should be done this way round. I should not want to serve on a health authority that was told its objectives and then bribed into implementing them. That is not the right way round. I should want to convince the Secretary of State of what we felt was right for our authority and to get his agreement before the money might be forthcoming. I should have thought that that was obvious.
The noble Baroness appears to accept this bossy approach from above. Probably her inbuilt niceness allows her to do that. Presumably she turns it around into whatever she wants, which shows her good feminine instinct. I am sure she does a good job, but it is not the way in which Parliament should legislate.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to that. Do not be too sure about my inbuilt niceness!
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate. It goes to the heart of the question of how best one manages a national service where the key decisions and key services are provided at local level. The truth of the matter is that that debate first started in the post-war Attlee government when decisions were made about how the NHS should be formed and there was a fierce debate about whether the NHS should come within local government or whether it should be a national service. Ultimately, the decision was made that it should be a national service, but the first Minister for Health, Bevan, made it clear that as much as possible decision-making should be devolved to local committees of locally appointed people.
Essentially we have retained that model through many structural reorganisations over 52 years. We have also retained a debate between various governments about the balance between national direction and local autonomy. I tease the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that through the many years of their stewardship of the NHS his government were responsible for many centralising approaches and the production of many varied priorities. Indeed, one regional health authority added up 57 different priorities set by the Conservative government on which health authorities should deliver. Clearly, there is a big problem if central Government set far too many targets for local health services to deliver, because ultimately a confusing picture is presented to people who manage at a local level and they do not know which are the priorities.
I believe that it is absolutely right that government at national level should set targets and priorities. The service is a national one in which Ministers are accountable to Parliament for its effectiveness and quality. Over the years problems have been caused in the national service and there have been enormous
104
variations in the quality and quantity of services provided at local level. That is not tenable within a national health service.
In our first debate noble Lords opposite were exercised by the new arrangements that they feared may take us away from national targets in relation to general practitioners. In our many debates on the NHS it is rare that a noble Lord asks the Government to devolve more power to the local level. The argument from all sides of the House is always, "Please give instructions to the NHS about this, that or the other important issue".
It is difficult for governments to achieve the correct balance between what should be left to local autonomy and what should be decided nationally. We believe that earned autonomy is the best approach because essentially that says to the NHS at local level, "If you can deliver on those matters that we believe are core to the delivery of a good standard, consistent health service, we are talking turkey in terms of giving you much greater autonomy than you have had in the past".
I know that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has carefully gone through the consultation document that implements the performance improvement agenda setting out the ideas for the use of the performance fund and the earned autonomy package. That is a consultation document which we are discussing with people within the National Health Service. I make it clear that local health authorities can choose from the list of "must dos" in the consultation document from which he quoted rather than every item having to be delivered by the NHS locally. Of course, the end-product of that process will be fewer targets than are listed and we shall listen carefully to the arguments and views put forward by local health authorities and NHS trusts.
I also say to the noble Earl that targets for individual NHS bodies that contribute to national priorities will be agreed locally.
We are talking about a national health service which is accountable to Parliament. I believe that it is right that Ministers should set the key priorities and targets which the service rightly expects its agents at local level to deliver.
4 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to noble Lords who joined in the debate. I am grateful in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, for what she said and I respond by saying that I am not against targets. I am sure that we need them—some being set centrally. I found it baffling to hear the Minister disclose that some of the "must do" targets about which I read in the consultation document do not have to be achieved. I had not realised that on first reading and perhaps I may be forgiven. The noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, spoke about plans to deal with the local waiting list situation. It was an example of responsible local management dealing with a local priority, which is the way it should be done.

105
I do not believe that I can be the only person who found the consultation document a fairly dismaying example of pressures being exerted on health service bodies from the centre. Of course I take on board everything the Minister said but I wonder how, when such pressure builds up, we will avoid serious strains emerging in the operation of the whole system. I strongly believe in the principle of business management which states that those who have executive responsibility work best if they are working to objectives in which they really believe.
The Minister indicated that he agrees with that overall principle and I am sure that he does. However, I hope that he will follow his convictions in the fullest possible way when the proposals are worked through and put into practice. In my judgment, a great deal will depend on it. However, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Supplementary payments to NHS trusts and Primary Care Trusts]:
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Functions of overview and scrutiny committees]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 6, line 40, at end insert—
"() as to the provisions of resources to an authority to which this section applies to enable effective review and scrutiny"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 6 brings us back to a concern I raised in Committee about the ability of local authority overview and scrutiny committees properly to carry out the responsibilities which the clause places on their shoulders.
In Committee, I expressed the concern that even as things stand local councils are overstretched not simply in terms of finance but also in terms of workload. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, took me somewhat to task for what he understood to be my suggestion that local councillors do not have the time to devote to the work of OSCs. The noble Lord reminded us that in recent months the nature of local government work has changed.
All that is right, but I sought to make the point that at officer level, which is where most of the spade work for OSCs will be done, resources are already stretched to the limit. I am a bit of an agnostic about the benefits which are likely to flow from local government supervision of the health service, but, if we are to have it, for goodness' sake let us have something which does a proper job and whose work commands respect.
If overview and scrutiny committees are to exist, they must count for something. There is a huge risk that through lack of financial resources some local authorities may exercise their scrutiny role in a tokenistic, bargain-basement way. In the poorest areas, where the health scrutiny function is perhaps needed most, hard-pressed local authorities may be tempted to reduce their levels of scrutiny.
Rightly or wrongly, I see OSCs as being part of the quality agenda in the health service. The Government have chosen to create these new statutory functions to ensure better local accountability for services in an area and to monitor the standards of those services. If they are serious about those aims, they should have a clearer idea than appears to be the case of how local authorities are supposed to cope with the workload not only as regards OSCs but also in connection with their many other health-related functions. Issues such as care trusts, Section 31 arrangements, child protection, care leavers, adoption services and preserved rights for those in care homes will increasingly occupy the time of local authority officers. All are worthy activities in themselves but the same group of people cannot work more than a certain number of hours in a day.
I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in Committee that we want to avoid the process of overview and scrutiny becoming antagonistic. One feature I have found in my business and parliamentary life is that when people are not properly informed about a subject they tend to become aggressive rather than be shown up to be ignoramuses. They tend to nit-pick rather than look at the wider picture. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, so when we talk about the provision of proper resources to support the work of overview and scrutiny committees, we are talking about ensuring that a satisfactory flow of information and balanced argument goes to scrutiny councillors to enable them to do justice to their job.
Part of that flow of information will originate with patients' councils, as I shall argue when we debate a later amendment. However, like Ministers in government, local councillors are entitled to expect that they will be sufficiently well briefed by officials to be able to understand, first, how the system works and, secondly, to ask the right questions of NHS chief executives. I felt that the Minister, in Committee, had not taken those concerns sufficiently on board. I hope that he will be able to reassure us about them in more detail today. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, as my noble friend suggested, this is one of a number of amendments which relate to the effect of local government involvement in the NHS. Anyone who has been a local government councillor is strongly aware that councillors feel they cannot spend the money they have raised from the council tax or the balance of their expenditure, for which they depend on government, without a degree of answerability to their electors. We do not know what it will cost local government to be involved in the overview and scrutiny committees but inevitably the cost will vary. Some of it will be available from the NHS and some will not.
No doubt the councillors who undertake the work will become increasingly interested and enthusiastic. Whether the effect of that will be good or bad for the NHS as a whole I questioned at an earlier stage. However, such local government involvement is a big move and it is inevitable that councillors will want to

107
comment on whether they have enough money. The amendment merely suggests that they should be able to make such comment to the overview and scrutiny committee.
Those are inevitable results and when we deal with later amendments we shall see that there will be others. The Local Government Association feels strongly about the matter, and I can understand that.
Lord Smith of Leigh: My Lords, as someone who comes from an under-funded local authority it may seem odd that I should question the noble Earl's comments. The noble Earl painted almost a doomsday scenario, in the sense that without resources things would not happen. We need to view this in the context of the Local Government Act and the power of wellbeing that local authorities now have. They will not review simply health bodies but other bodies which affect the lives of citizens within their areas. There will be a cost in time rather than extra cash, and it will be for local authorities to consider priorities. However, as the noble Baroness said, at this stage it is very difficult to know how much one should give a local authority.
In this as in other areas performance will be variable, but I believe that this is one of the most exciting developments. The hope is that this will be driven by members who have time rather than officers. My authority has a system which parallels the Select Committees in Parliament. Back-bench members who have more time and effort to devote to this will be able to get the information themselves, with the support of local authority officers and, presumably, the health bodies themselves and patients' councils. It will not always be one way. We must learn from experience.
We need to get the system up and running and then see how well it works. In those local authorities which approach it with enthusiasm it will work well; in other cases we may need to give them a little more encouragement. While there is a question as to resources, it is too difficult to define it at this stage. We do not know how much to put into each local authority to make sure it is done well.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I realise that we are at Report stage, but I believe that I am in order. Before the noble Lord sits down, can he say whether he supports the amendment which proposes that in the committee a local authority should be able to comment on whether it has enough money to do the job?
Lord Smith of Leigh: My Lords, I believe that it is too early to say how much money a local authority will need to do the job of scrutiny properly. Performance will be variable, and I do not believe that in this case money will necessarily deliver good performance. One may well put money into some local authorities which do not necessarily do the best job.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, following the observation of the noble Lord, can the Minister say what will be done in the case of those local authorities which do not do a good job of scrutiny?
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am slightly disappointed by the tone of the debate because I believe that in future the role of the overview and scrutiny committee will be very important and will bring local authorities to the table in terms of decisions about the development and monitoring of services at local level. I agree with the noble Earl that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. If we look back at the record of local government we see the product of that little knowledge in terms of its reaction to necessary changes and developments in services proposed by the NHS. I believe that one reason a number of local authorities adopted an unhelpful attitude was that they were not sufficiently engaged with the NHS and knowledgeable about health service matters at local or national level.
In the past three years there has been a great turnaround in the relationship between local authorities and the NHS. To start with, many more councillors are now non-executive members of the boards of NHS authorities and trusts. The partnership powers are being used in a number of imaginative ways, but I believe that there is also a much more serious approach to discussing problems together. Last winter I was very impressed by the fact that the planning teams involved local authorities very much as partners and took part in detailed discussions about how the NHS and social care would meet the challenges that winter always brings in terms of the demand on services. That excellent foundation, on which we shall build, will give local authorities much more influence in the NHS in future. From the point of view of the NHS, I believe that decisions that are made will give it more local democratic legitimacy which in the past has been very much lacking.
As my noble friend Lord Smith said, local authorities are developing a very different approach to government with the use of overview and scrutiny committees, which is proving to be extremely successful. I do not believe there is any evidence that local authorities will not wish to embrace with enthusiasm this role in relation to the National Health Service. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that if ultimately a local authority, which is a democratic body, does not prove to be good at carrying out that responsibility, the answer must lie in the ballot box. I believe that at the end of the day very few local authorities will not wish to take this matter seriously.
The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is the lead government department for local authority activity. I can assure the House that officials of both my department and the DETR are working together on some of the issues that impact on the role of local authority committees in undertaking NHS scrutiny. We are considering whether to include in regulations the potential, for example, for the joint secretariat for patients' forums and councils also to support local authority overview and scrutiny committees. That may be one answer to the question raised by the noble Earl about the availability of expertise within local government. For a number of

109
years some local authorities have had health committees 'with responsibility for liaison with the NHS, and I am sure that the officers who have worked with those committees will provide a wealth of experience which can be made available to the OSCs.
We are also considering the potential for regional government offices to work with NHS executive regional offices to provide training on NHS structures and operations so that we can develop the expertise of local authority councillors to enable their overview and scrutiny role to be as effective as possible.
As to funding arrangements, surely that must be a matter for the local authority concerned. My noble friend Lord Smith referred to the overriding responsibility in relation to the well-being of a particular locality covered by a local authority. I would have thought that local authorities would see the National Health Service as such an important part of what happens at local level that they would have no hesitation in ensuring that overview and scrutiny committees received support in terms of both funding and the expertise of staff to make sure that they operated effectively.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I have no doubt that the noble Lord is right when he says that many local authorities welcome the proposed new role that is to be conferred on them by the Bill. At the same time, there is considerable worry in local authorities about how they are to do justice to that role within existing budgets. I do not believe that it is enough to say that local authorities must simply work within the envelope of existing resources. That answer begs all the questions that I sought to raise in my remarks. As I tried to explain to the House, OSCs are but one element of a range of local authority responsibilities in the health arena, all of which are of increasing significance and must be tackled simultaneously.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Smith, for his wise remarks. I did not suggest that we should try to define the level of extra resources required. The noble Lord is quite right: it is the responsibility of government to ensure that the system that they are now creating works in practice, and, to the extent that it is not working, to consider whether lack of resources is an issue.
A Minister in another place said that because these powers are essentially permissive, the exact cost of implementing them will be up to local decision making. I found that statement very worrying because it suggests that central government are not in the end concerned about how local authorities actually undertake their overview and scrutiny role, or how well they do it, just so long as the mechanisms are in place. If that is the attitude of government then we can be sure that many local authorities will pay only lip service to the whole process. That would benefit no one.
Nevertheless, the Minister has clarified a number of uncertainties in my mind. He has added some flesh to the bones. I am grateful to him for that. We must all
110
wish overview and scrutiny committees the best of good fortune in the work that they do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 8:
Before Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
"REFORM OF COMMUNITY HEALTH COUNCILS
(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide for the reform of Community Health Councils established for districts in England under section 20 of the 1977 Act.
(2) The regulations shall provide for—

(a) renaming Community Health Councils as Patients' Councils (referred to in this section as "Councils");

(b) the information which local National Health Service bodies must provide to Councils;

(c) the funding of Councils and the provision of premises and other facilities by the Secretary of State;

(d) the membership of Councils.

(3) The functions of a Council are—

(a) to establish sub-committees for each National Health Service trust and Primary Care Trust in the district of the Council, to be known as Patients' Forums (referred to in this section as "Forums");

(b) to facilitate the co-ordination by Forums of their activities;

(c) to make reports and submit recommendations to Health Authorities, local authorities and their committees. National Health Service trusts, Primary Care Trusts, the national patients' body for England and to the Secretary of State in accordance with the regulations;

(d) to carry out such arrangements as may be made with the Council under section 19A of the 1977 Act (independent advocacy services);

(e) to appoint, for each Forum within its district, one member as a non-executive director to the board of the trust to which the Forum relates;

(f) to appoint a representative, having such functions as may be prescribed, to attend meetings of each relevant health authority;

(g) to arrange for functions of Forums to be performed under joint arrangements between Councils, where such arrangements are appropriate to meet the needs of their communities;

(h) to receive and respond to disclosures under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (c. 23) where such disclosures reveal matters of concern for patients in the health service or for the wider community;

(i) to refer issues of concern to patients to health authorities, local authorities and such national quality assurance bodies as the regulations may prescribe and to the Secretary of State;

(j) such other functions as the regulations may prescribe.

(4) The functions of a Forum are to—

(a) monitor and review the operation of services provided by, or under arrangements made by, the trust to which it relates;

(b) obtain the views of patients, carers and the wider community about those services and report on those views to the Council and to the trust;

(c) having regard to the views obtained in accordance with subsection (4)(b), provide advice and make reports and recommendations about matters relating to those services to the Council, the relevant Health Authority, and the trust;

111

(d) make available to patients and their carers advice and information about those services;

(e) carry out such functions in relation to primary care services as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;

(f) in prescribed circumstances, to perform any prescribed function of the trust with respect to the provision of a service affording assistance to patients and their families and carers;

(g) carry out such other functions as may be prescribed.

(5) Regulations shall provide for the membership of a Forum, which shall comprise—

(a) as to at least a quarter of its membership, members or representatives of voluntary organisations whose members or client groups have an interest in the health service;

(b) as to at least a quarter of its membership, patients;

(c) as to at least a quarter of its membership, carers;

(d) such other persons as may be prescribed.

(6) References in subsection (4) to "services" are references to—

(a) services provided as part of the health service (within the meaning of the 1977 Act) in England,

(b) services provided in England in pursuance of section 31 arrangements in relation to the exercise of health-related functions of a local authority, and

(c) services provided elsewhere (and not part of the health service in England) in pursuance of section 31 arrangements with a local authority in England.

(7) In this section—

(a) "relevant Health Authority" in subsection (4)(c) in relation to a Forum for a Primary Care Trust, means the Health Authority whose area is, or includes, the area for which the trust is established:

(b) "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;

(c) "section 31 arrangements" means arrangements under regulations under section 31 of the Health Act 1999 (c. 8) (arrangements between NHS bodies and local authorities);

(d) "carer", in relation to a patient, means a person who provides care for the patient, but who is not employed to do so by any body in the exercise of its functions under any enactment;

(e) "the health service" has the same meaning as in the 1977 Act;

(f)"patient" includes (as well as a patient within the meaning of that Act) a person who receives services provided in pursuance of section 31 arrangements in relation to the exercise of health related functions of a local authority."

The noble Earl said: This is an issue that, perhaps more than any other in the Bill, divides the Government from the two opposition parties; namely, the proposal to abolish community health councils. In moving Amendment No. 8, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 12, 14 and 15. Ever since these proposals were announced last year, many of us have been unable to fathom what is really at the back of the Government's mind.
Both the Minister and myself believe that CHCs in their present form suffer from deficiencies. In many cases CHCs do not deliver what patients now want and expect. They are under-resourced and, in general, they are ripe for review. Where the noble Lord and I differ is in our conclusions. The Minister believes that we should go back to the drawing board and has done so.
112
I believe that the ideas and principles that underlay the creation of CHCs are as valid today as they were when CHCs first came into being. I believe that many CHCs do a first-class job. Some of them make life awkward for Ministers. I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, if he has found them to be a nuisance, but even he will recognise that that is what CHCs are there for. They are all about accountability and communication and the voice of ordinary people. No government department should be free of such influences; and no government department is.
If I do not misrepresent him, the Minister's view is that, taken overall, CHCs have proved a disappointment. According to him they have not made the impact on the NHS that once we thought they might. We could all wish that some CHCs had been able to do more. However, I take issue with the suggestion that CHCs as a whole have been ineffectual creatures. The document published in 1997 called CHCs Making a Difference catalogued a wealth of examples of CHCs bringing about improvements across the whole range of health services, from hospitals, to dentists, to ambulances and GPs. Some of these improvements are relatively minor; others are very significant.
Their watchdog role has been particularly notable in recent years when one thinks of Bristol, Rodney Ledward, Shipman and Alder Hey. Thirty thousand patients a year turn to CHCs for help with making a complaint. Despite under-resourcing, or perhaps because of it, the truth is that CHCs are highly cost-effective bodies. But matters could be a great deal better. While a great deal has happened to the NHS since 1974, CHCs have seen very little change in their statutory powers and functions. Patients have become more aware of their right to complain. Yet CHCs have no statutory duty to assist complainants or act as advocates, even though many of them actually do.
When NHS trusts were created, they were not required to be accountable to CHCs as tightly as perhaps they might have been. Neither the advent of community care nor the more recent reforms to primary care brought about the kinds of changes to the powers of CHCs that might have been appropriate. In the wake of those reforms there are noticeable fault lines in the right of CHCs to be consulted about major changes in the NHS. That suggests to me that CHCs should not be done away with but should be reformed. Deficiencies in their powers should be put right. Any scope for improvement in professionalism and training of staff and in meeting proper performance standards should be tackled. Gaps in accountability to local people should be filled. But the key features of CHCs should not be lost. Those features are independence from the NHS; being a one-stop shop for patients; and the right to be consulted at local and national levels.
What is sad about the Government's proposals is that the multi-faceted role of CHCs is to be divided up and fragmented between a whole lot of new bodies. That fragmentation brings with it a great many disadvantages. One of them is that the route open to an aggrieved patient is much less clear. For those noble

113
Lords who were not present in Committee to listen to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, who is in her place, let me give a simple example. Imagine that someone is taken ill in the night at home. He rings NHS Direct. He is told to ring his GP. The GP is not there. Later on in the night the symptoms, whatever they are, become worse. The patient phones an ambulance. The ambulance takes its time in arriving. When the patient gets to hospital he is unconscious and needs intensive care. A bed is not available. The patient dies.
That sequence of events is not altogether fanciful. But consider the course of action that the patient's family may wish to take if they believe that somewhere along the line there has been incompetence or negligence. To whom do they complain? Do they complain to NHS Direct; to the GP; to the PALS of the ambulance trust; to the PALS of the hospital; or to one or other of the patients' forums? If they go to any of those there is all manner of scope built into the system for them to be shunted about as each body blames the other for what has happened.
A properly resourced complaints service in a community council would cut through all that. I said in Committee that what we are presented with in the NHS Plan and the Bill is a pile of structures. But it is worse than that; not simply for the reasons I have just given, but also inbuilt into the very fabric of the new system there is an absence of communication between all the bodies and committees that are supposed to be taking on the various CHC functions.
The Government may well say that communication will be vital. But one reason why a one-stop shop is good for patients is that it acts automatically as the single repository and processor of information from every corner of the NHS in its area—not just one hospital or one trust, but the entire local health service. The best watchdog is the well-informed watchdog; the watchdog that knows what to look out for. The best advocate is the one that knows exactly how each part of the system fits together and where its weak points are. With the best will in the world, how will we get this kind of synergy for the patient when scrutiny is separated from complaints work; when there is ambiguity on the degree of real independence in both PALS and patients' forums; and when the proactive strategic role played by CHCs is in danger of disappearing between the cracks? The short answer is that we will not.
I readily concede that the Government have listened to the views put to them. Much has changed since the proposals first emerged. Amendments tabled in another place brought us patients' councils and the independent advocacy service. But the impression given is that the Government are making things up almost as they go along. These proposals are not well thought through. They are woolly, loose and ill-formed. Even the Prime Minister is confused about what exactly they involve. Setting aside the perils of any transition process—they are likely to be
114
considerable in this case—one really has to doubt whether it is worth the risk and expense of even embarking on this course.
Now that the Government, one way or another, have attempted to make up for many of the things that we might have lost with the demise of community health councils, I ask them: why get rid of CHCs at all? I do not believe that there is a sensible answer to that question and I am disappointed that so far Ministers have refused to recognise the fact.
The underlying premise of the amendment standing in my name is quite simple. I wish to ensure the continued existence of community health councils and to build on some of the ideas contained in the Bill in order to reform and strengthen them. I am looking for change, but with continuity. The amendment does not simply dismiss what the Government are proposing. Far from it. It takes as its starting point the fragmented structures currently proposed in the Bill and attempts to rationalise them. It seeks to bring patients' forums and advocacy services within the embrace of patients' councils; it seeks to ensure that some of the essential statutory functions and features of CHCs are preserved, such as the power to refer contested decisions and the power to whistle blow; and it seeks to ensure that, reborn as patients' councils, CHCs retain that vital characteristic of operational independence. I genuinely believe that that is the way we should proceed for the good of patient representation and patient empowerment in the health service. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of Amendment No. 8 to which I have attached my name. The amendment is strongly supported by noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I do not propose to elaborate at great length. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, cogently put the case for Amendment No. 8 and the related amendments.
We have had several debates on CHCs. Many of us have picked apart what is still an unsatisfactory set of proposals. This has been an unhappy episode in legislating. It started with the NHS Plan, which, in terms of these proposals, was very much constructed on the hoof. The Bill contained some very fragmented proposals, improved to some degree during its passage through the Commons by the creation of patients' councils and by putting on the face of the Bill the requirement to establish a national body for patients. However, the Bill remains deeply flawed, principally because it does not build on the good work done by CHCs.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, was quite frank—I very much share his view—that CHCs have not all been wonderful in their operations. However, by and large, with rather limited resources, they have provided a fairly effective service over the years. For the Government simply to decide to abolish them outright and put in their place some rather unsatisfactory structures is an extremely cavalier way of proceeding. In addition, it is not as though the Government's

115
proposals are so clearly worked out that we can all understand exactly what is proposed. After all, in Committee the Minister said:
"It is very difficult at this stage to say what will happen in practice.—[Official Report. 19/3/01; col. 1199.]
In the circumstances, that is something of an admission. Indeed, with his pedigree in this area, if the Minister were in opposition I believe that he would be supporting Amendment No. 8 and the associated amendments.
The new clause is an attempt to pull together a satisfactory outcome. It is not an attempt completely to reinvent CHCs as they currently exist. It seeks to provide a scheme by which we can build on the experience of the past while providing a blueprint for the future. The new clause provides for the reforming of CHCs and their renaming as patients' councils. It makes patients' councils broader based, more integrated bodies. They will be the main building blocks of the new structures rather than the patients' forums, which, as they currently exist in the Bill, are narrowly focused structures and rather disparate in terms of the sheer number of trusts that must be mirrored by patients' forums.
The new clause creates patients' forums as subcommittees of patients' councils. It provides more detail on the face of the Bill for patients' forums and councils, so that their functions are broader, clearer and more consistent across the country. It is more desirable that the powers of patients' councils and patients' forums should be set out on the face of the Bill. In particular, the new clause provides a prescribed role for patients' councils with regard to health authorities.
One of the key areas is the referral of issues to health authorities. Nowhere on the face of the Bill are patients' councils or patients' forums given that right. A letter to the Minister of Health, Mr Denham, from London Health Link, the Regional Association of London CHCs, states that,
"we were perplexed to note that the Health and Social Care Bill does not reproduce the statutory power to refer and there is no intention on the face of the Bill to do so by regulation. A dilution of powers will surely lead to a dilution of accountability on an issue that is often enormously sensitive. We understand that it is proposed that the referral of the decision from local to national level be provided in Directions to health authorities. Health authorities have no incentive to refer decisions that may reflect badly on them".
That is one of the essences of the case and the reason why we need the additional powers for patients' councils.
Furthermore, the new clause ensures a broader membership for patients' councils. The Bill restricts involvement in statutory bodies to recent service users and members of local voluntary organisations. The new clause seeks to involve local citizens. The experience of CHCs is that it has often been the people who are neither recent patients nor members of voluntary organisations who have had the most to give in terms of time and breadth of experience. It is vital
116
that the broader citizen perspective is incorporated into the new arrangements. That is building on the experience of CHCs.
The new clause, if carried, would provide for a smooth transition from the old structures to the new. It would enable the Government to introduce the reforms they are committed to, such as patients' forums and independent advocacy, in a way that would ensure a seamless move for the benefit of patients and the public. It would ensure that the skills, commitment and experience—this is extremely important—of CHC staff and members were utilised as effectively as possible. This form of transition would also ensure that both the drawing up of regulations consequent on the passing of the Bill and the local implementation of the new structures would be able to draw on the full range of skills and experience of CHCs.
The proposed abolition of CHCs has caused deep concern in local communities. The new clause preserves the Government's reforms while addressing the concerns expressed about the proposed abolition of CHCs. I very much hope that the scheme commends itself to the House.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like to make a short contribution to this debate. At one point I thought that Mrs Archibald had passed away, but now I think that perhaps my noble friend shot her and resurrected Mr Archibald. I am concerned about what is in the Government's mind as regards what lies behind these proposals. If I were less generous of spirit, I might think that there really was a sinister intention to fragment the service so much that it becomes unworkable from the point of view of the complainant—the patient with a problem.
In this House, we have a great deal of expertise. On the whole, Members try to work together to achieve solutions that will be workable and constructive, not only as regards the National Health Service, but also in all the other work undertaken in the House. In that spirit, I visited Brighton to look at the patient advocacy and liaison service offered there. I have to say that I was extremely impressed. At that level it is working well, but it fulfils a different role from that performed by community health councils. The patient advocacy and liaison service is staffed with people employed by the trust and thus performs the role of what would be the customer relations department in a commercial organisation. No doubt every organisation needs that kind of service. When speaking to the person who has been in post for some years, it appeared that the work she has been undertaking prevents issues inappropriately moving up the chain and thus reaching a court of law. That element of the Government's proposals is constructive and good. However, I am extremely concerned about the balance of the proposals.
My noble friend Lord Howe has pointed out that it is the managers who resent criticism. Throughout the debate on these proposals I have been enormously impressed by the number of medics who have expressed their deep concern about the abolition of the

117
CHCs. As clinicians, they understand the service in a slightly different way from managers who are professionals but who do not perform a clinical role. We know that managers have been very strictly controlled by the Government and many of them fear losing their jobs if they do not perform as expected. People can have "off" days when they do not work as efficiently and thoughtfully as on other days, but managers know that, if they make a serious mistake, it will be "off with their heads". Clinicians are in a much more protected position and understand well the contribution that an independent body can make—not only through criticism but also in a constructive manner—towards improving the service. Many clinicians have said to me that they do not agree at all with the Government's proposals to abolish the CHCs, as they see that independent force performing an extremely important role to the good of the NHS.
In Committee, the Minister said that if CHCs had performed better, the entire service would have been better. I think that that was an unfair criticism because CHCs have been working on a shoestring. Under-investment in the councils has led to low levels of stalling and limited resources with which to carry out their work. To think that they, alone, should improve the service is, I think, totally unrealistic. For that reason, I believe that the Minister's criticisms were not well founded.
My noble friend Lord Howe put the question: why get rid of the CHCs? It seems that that is the question which needs to be answered. I do not believe that we have yet received a response to it. Many noble Lords believe that the Government have their reasons, but those reasons—my noble friend pointed this out—turn on the fact that they do not want to be criticised. That is not a view which could be described as adult. Every organisation expects some kind of criticism because that leads to improvements in service provision. I believe that it would be a retrograde step to get rid of the CHCs, albeit that from time to time they embarrass the service and the Government.
I hope that, in the spirit of this House, the Minister will make some concession to the enormous amount of concern that has been expressed on this issue—certainly among community health council members themselves. I am surprised that a government who have set out to be so populist should have aggravated, annoyed and caused such a degree of disillusion among so many people who voluntarily give their time to the service.
No doubt the Minister will take note that the amendments tabled on this matter are cross-party. My noble friend's amendment is well thought out and coherent. It builds on the strengths of the CHCs. It is now up to the Government to study it carefully and see whether something more constructive could be brought forward at Third Reading.
4.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I should like to express my strong support for what has been said from the Benches opposite. I am sorry that I have
118
not been able to take part in the earlier stages of this Bill in your Lordships' House—indeed, it may be a little rash to contribute at this late stage. I agree entirely with all that was said by the noble Earl, Lord Howe: CHCs are in the business of accountability and communication; they represent the voices of ordinary people. They are not always as good as they should be and if they had been better, the service would have been better. To that extent, I can agree with the Minister. However, I believe that the CHCs have done an extremely useful job and I strongly support their continuation. Failing that, I support the imaginative and intelligent way in which the amendment before us seeks to perpetuate the best of CHCs within the context set out by the Government in the Bill.
I have been vicariously involved with these issues over many years from both sides, through my wife's membership, over a period of some 30 years, as successively chairman and vice-chairman of two CHCs, as a member of a health authority and as a non-executive director of an acute hospital trust. Through that connection, I have heard a great deal about the issue. Perhaps, through my wife, my experience of CHCs has been unduly good—one might expect that if she has been involved in their leadership—but, to my knowledge, they have done good work. I refer to CHCs both in the areas in which we have lived and those on which my wife has served.
It is extremely desirable to retain the independent functions of the CHCs. The relationship between the CHC and the health service provider does not need to be confrontational. Occasionally it will be, but generally there is a complementarity of purpose. It is very much in the best interests of patients that a body should quite clearly and unambiguously represent their concerns, and is able to negotiate and, if necessary, to campaign on their behalf. The new patients' councils must retain that independent role.
Health service providers stand to benefit from the retention of the clearly defined independent role. At present, if a complaint is brought by the CHC, is thoroughly investigated and proved to be groundless or if a perfectly reasonable explanation is given, the CHC can report back, with a considerable degree of authority, to the complainant and the service provider can be exonerated. The patient will believe that justice has been done as far as is possible in a way which would not be the case if there were the damaging possibility of divided loyalties, which I believe would be the case with the Government's proposals.
Health service providers do not have the time or the resources to follow up complaints in detail. They have a strong vested interest in suppressing them or fobbing off those who believe that they have a grievance. Only a fully independent body can properly safeguard patients' interests and allow health service providers to get on with the real job of maintaining and raising standards—something we all want to see—while effectively being brought to book over serious lapses which, sadly, occasionally do occur.
In the past, as the non-executive director of a trust, my wife performed the role of "complaints convenor" and had to deal with a number of these issues. In that

119
role on behalf of the trust, she found that it was extremely useful to be able to negotiate with the CHC. That was the best way of handling the problems which arose. If that is to be muddied by the Government's proposals, as I believe it would be, we shall be less well served in the future. Reform: yes, certainly; abolition or fragmentation: I hope not. I strongly support this amendment and I hope very much that the Minister will accept it.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I, too, rise to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Howe. This is a neat amendment because it takes account of the best of what we have in place in the community health councils and prevents the baby being thrown out with the bath water, which so often happens with reform. We then start again from the base and everyone makes up the rules precisely from where we should not, which is usually in the middle.
The advantage of the amendment is that the community health council base and structure would be retained. It would be possible to build on that rather than starting again with new patients' councils and forums, which would have to be set up from scratch. I agree that there is a lamentable lack of coherent detail within the Bill, particularly in regard to the patients' councils and patients' forums.
The amendment gives me an opportunity to raise again a problem and anxiety that I have had from the outset. Perhaps I may remind the House that, as chairman of an NHS trust, I have a vested interest in what comes before us. My noble friend Lord Howe has included within his amendment a proposal that the community health councils should be responsible for appointing patients' forum's non-executive directors to the boards. Your Lordships may recall that I have made at least two speeches on this subject and indicated my anxiety about the proposal contained within the Bill that the patients' forum should itself appoint one of its members to be the representative non-executive director. I have concerns about the independence of such a person and about the scrutiny of that non-executive director as a member.
At the moment, all non-executive directors are put forward by the regional health office—or, indeed, in the case of the chairman, by the Secretary of State—and are subject to independent scrutiny. When I last spoke on this issue, I was challenged, to some extent, by the Minister, who cited to me that the Dean's representatives were appointed directly by the Dean. That is correct, but such an appointment is sometimes challenged by there being two nominations and goes through the regional health authority scrutiny process.
I am anxious that there should be within the Bill provision for the proper overview of the person being appointed to a trust as a non-executive member. If the patients' council or the community health council were part of that process, we could build in the nomination from the community health council or patients' council to the appointments commission, which is to be set up, and establish a proper route.
120
Such a person will have to accept corporate responsibility. If the regulations come forward, he will, through the patients' forum, have the right and, indeed, the responsibility, to inspect—I put it in those terms—the trust. As he will be a part of the patients' forum which will have the right to inspect, I believe that his independence will be seriously in jeopardy within the terms of the corporate structure.
The Minister has responded to me on at least two occasions on this subject and I have not moved him very far. However, if the amendment were accepted, I can see a way in which a structure can be built to give comfort, not to the patients' forum which will be appointing such a member, but to the trust which will have that member appointed to its board. Indeed, as the Minister described on the previous occasion, he will ultimately replace one of the non-executive directors who has already been appointed.
It is terribly important that the trust's board has confidence in the person being appointed and do not see him as a stool pigeon of the patients' forum. It is important from that person's point of view that he is not seen as a stool pigeon but as an accepted member of the board. I believe that, in order to achieve that, he must be appointed independently, and my noble friend's amendment provides a structure for that.
Before I sit down, perhaps I may refer to Clause 5(d) in the amendment, which states:
"such other persons as may be prescribed".
as members of a forum. It is very important that there should be an opportunity for people other than those connected with voluntary organisations for patients and carers to be members of a forum. It is inevitable that such people have a vested interest. We need a wide view of what is wrong; we need people to come into a trust or into a hospital who have not necessarily had anything to do with such an organisation before, either in an adverse or good way. In much the same way as having non-executive members on any other kind of body, it is very good to have as members of forums people from the community who do not necessarily have much of a view on what they are coming into. The category of member outlined by my noble friend would enable that to happen. It would strengthen very much the work of the forum and how it will be seen by its host trust.
I hope, first, that the amendment will be agreed to; and, secondly, that when it has been agreed to, the Minister will take into account what I have said about the absolute necessity for the patients' forum's appointee—if that is to happen—to be seen as coming on to the board by a clear, independent route, without baggage, to enable him to fulfil all the roles of a non-executive director during the time that he is on the board.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my noble friend knows that I have been a critic of the Government's intention to abolish the community health councils rather than to reform and strengthen them. I readily admit that they are far from perfect as they are, being so under-resourced, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, pointed out.

121
The amendments seek the recreation and reform of the CHCs, retaining their independent status but using the nomenclature of the new bodies in the Bill. They do so rather ingeniously. Almost certainly, my noble friend will not be able to accept the amendments as they stand, but I recommend him to take them away and undertake to come back with a government amendment at Third Reading which includes most of the features incorporated in these amendments. Otherwise, I feel that the Government will be in danger of having to reject these amendments in another place, with the likelihood of losing the entire Bill because of the short time that will be available.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, "patients' councils", I feel, is a much better name than "CHCs". I suggested this at Second Reading. Having several bodies will confuse the very people who need them most. Fragmentation is the very worst solution when dealing with distressed people who need help, advice and information quickly.
At the moment, many people do not know who to go to when they have a complaint. I have a letter in my bag which I am waiting to copy to the Minister. It asks for my help on a complaint. People do not know who to turn to. Something must be done to improve this situation.
I know that we need an efficient, independent body for patients. Patients, who are in the front line of the NHS, must have help with which they feel safe and confident. If such help is not independent, people will not speak out in order to obtain better services for patients. People who are involved with a trust will certainly not speak out if their jobs are involved.
I am interested in good standards for all patients. I hope that your Lordships seek the same goal. The amendment is important and I hope that all Members of the House will give it serious consideration.
5 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by echoing the delicate compliment paid to the Minister by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I share the noble Lord's respect for the Minister; therefore, I am certain, as was the noble Lord, that were the Minister sitting on this side of the House faced with these proposals, he would be expressing a very similar point of view to that which was wisely espoused by my noble friend Lord Howe. I simply cannot believe that he would be standing at the Dispatch Box, apparently with every sign of enthusiasm, advocating the setting up of these two bodies, crammed as they will be with the Secretary of State's creatures. We have no evidence that that will not be the case.
I shall not rehearse the whole argument. As I see it, it relates to whether it would be better to build on the experience of community health councils and to improve matters, or to utter the famous, dreadful words, "Back to the drawing-board", on which so many hopeless governments have previously been willing to unite. Those words are so easy to say. They
122
give the impression that those who say them are quite broad-minded and know what they are talking about. But such people have very little idea of the chaos that is caused. It is rather like saying to an army on the march in a whisper at the front, "Halt". Everyone at the back just goes on marching, and there is chaos. I cannot think that the Government's present proposals, if they come to fruition, will have anything but a similar chaotic result.
Parliament is being asked to give the Secretary of State the skeletal instructions that he himself wants and has asked for in order to carry out a purpose which he has not yet had the time or the skill to define. We have no details whatever of the numbers of people who will serve on the patients' forums; nor do we know the numbers who will serve on the patients' councils. We have nothing more than a very hazy idea of who will man the two important bodies that are to be assembled in the place of community health councils—about which we did know something, and which would have provided a basis on which to build.
This is a piece of casual, sloppy, slovenly legislation—the kind in which governments rejoice when they do not know exactly what to do. It offers a broad-brush effect. The Government can claim that they are acting to cope with a very serious problem, and they are either unaware of or unconcerned about the reactions of those on the ground who are trying to cope with the mammoth problems of the health service.
One of our troubles has always been that the health service and all appertaining to it has become such a political icon for the party opposite that the patients, the interesting people about whom speeches should be made, the real architects of the services, and the medical professions, including nurses, feel themselves to be at low level in the councils of this huge organisation. I am not an expert, but again and again I hear complaints from qualified consultants and physicians that their plans, indeed their business plans, are to be made for, and reviewed by, people many of whom know very little of what it is all about.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, was correct when he said that the issue relates to "reform of the old" versus "creation of the new". It is important that we explore that point as a matter of principle.
The three aspects of the changes that have particular resonance for me are, first, that they are about putting patients to the fore in the health service. As a health authority chairman, I am amazed that patients do not have a voice in individual hospitals, GP surgeries and so on. It is vital to find ways in which these "consumers" have as much say in the health service as they expect to have in other aspects of life. That is increasingly important—indeed vital. After all, they are the means by which we shall review, inform and develop our services, not just clinically but in terms of how we treat people. It is an issue that is raised by more and more patients.

123
The second aspect is the insistence on better communication. I was particularly pleased with the idea that PALS would be developed in each NHS trust. The constant lesson that I learn when I talk to individuals and organisations is how difficult it is to know where to go if one has a problem—not necessarily a complaint, but a problem. The problems set out in most of the letters I receive could have been dealt with at the time had someone been available to do so. Insisting on such communication being available to people is a vital and crucial part of the changes.
The third aspect is the involvement of democracy and scrutiny. It is a difficult subject. Not only is the health service a political icon; it is a political football. The appointment and role of non-executives is constantly under scrutiny and review, particularly as elections approach. It is crucial to understand that democratically elected bodies should play a far greater role in deciding how services develop. After all, they are answerable in a way in which I, as chairman of a health authority, am not—I am answerable in a different way, as an accountable person.
I do not say that the Bill as it stands could not be improved. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, talked about the role of health authorities. I am currently having meetings with individual patients who have made complaints and with organisations to examine the role of the health authority in terms of accessibility to people who need information or who need to complain and who feel that they do not know where to go. I have no easy answer. I wonder whether the Minister might address health authorities in his response.
I am concerned also that we should further develop the independent advocacy service. It is true that Mrs Archibald is alive and well and living in Hertfordshire, where she has played a major role in every example that I have given to the group working on these proposals. Mrs Archibald has to be dealt with at every step of the way; otherwise, our proposals are inadequate. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for introducing Mrs Archibald to the debate. But many of Mrs Archibald's problems, when they become as acute as those described by the noble Baroness in previous debates, need to be dealt with by independent advocacy. We have been looking at how the sign-posting to such services can be better developed. One of the great criticisms of CHCs is that people do not know that they exist. That was certainly my experience as a patient. It was not until I became a health authority chairman that I heard of CHCs. Such experience is not uncommon. That is not a criticism of the councils; it is a fact and needs to be addressed.
I think it is true to say that we are already developing the new ideas. The process has begun. I have fears, if we press this matter to a vote, as to how the vote will go, and as to the impact that it will have on those who are trying to develop the new services. There is a great deal of enthusiasm on the part of community councils. They have said that they would like to see most of the Bill's proposals developed for the future.
124
I am also pragmatic about the transformation. I know that individuals who are currently involved in community health councils will indeed transform themselves; and part of the building block of CHCs will be transformed into the new bodies. It is precisely by building on experience, not by returning to the drawing-board, that we shall create something even better than the councils. That is the crucial point. However, the changes are too far-reaching for us simply to reform what currently exists. We need to build on what we have done and introduce the new model in order to make sure that patients are better served.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, if I may say so, the speech just made by the noble Baroness was most interesting. The moves that she advocates could actually be brought into being through the amendment proposed by the noble friend Lord Howe; indeed, they would not be precluded. However, the noble Baroness was defending the Bill, which is doubtless her duty, and she did so very well. A number of points that she put would not be impossible to achieve if the Government were to accept the amendment.
Several interesting speeches have been made during the debate. I have in mind the right reverend Prelate's clearly detailed knowledge, gained by the fireside while listening to the adventures of his wife. He seems to think that the amendment is a good idea, although, as he said, it might have to be redrafted by the Government in the event of it being accepted. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, with all his experience as a practising doctor, feels the same way. I think he was suggesting that the Government should look very carefully at the proposal.
Having listened to all the speeches, I am confirmed in my mystification of what the Government propose in the Bill as regards doing away with the community health councils if they are not, as my noble friend Lord Peyton suggested, trying to change things for the sake of change. We are told that the CHCs have not worked as well as they might have done. I accept that, although I am not in a position to know whether that is so. It is possible that certain changes that are needed are not included in my noble friend's amendment. But I suspect that they are, because he incorporates most of what the Government are suggesting under the umbrella of a body that would build on the existing CHCs. That seems to me a very sensible way of trying to assist the Government in getting the Bill right.
The Minister spoke with great conviction about the importance of central leadership by the Secretary of State because of his accountability to the public in this huge operation, and argued that that was the right way forward. I am driven to the conclusion that the noble Lord really believes that; indeed, I am sure that he does. However, it terrifies me. The facts do not bear out the possibility of someone running an organisation of such a size from the centre. It is just not possible. One wonders whether that is the motivation behind the proposal.

125
If CHCs were reformed so as to ensure that they operated more successfully than they do perhaps at present, they would be very strong bodies. It would also be very tricky for Ministers to deal with them and to stand up to them; indeed, it would be very difficult for authorities to do so. The public would also have a very strong voice; perhaps the Government are afraid of that possibility. It is interesting to note how few Back-Benchers opposite have contributed to the debate. I do not know, but one wonders whether they agree with what I have just said.
I accept that bringing local government into the system is a very interesting move. The noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, explained that the concept is that local government should have a wider responsibility than it currently has in statute. Of course, we must bear in mind that local government only operates under statute; in other words, it can only do what the law says it can do. In the long run, the widening of what local government does may be right. It would fit in with what I hope some government will do before long; namely, pull local government out of running schools directly and give it a more advisory overseeing role. That would leave a great gap for local government. It is so important for our country that local government should be strong and that it should have the right things to do. Involvement in this sort of way in the health service and in other areas of life, as the noble Baroness said, would fill that gap. That is possibly what lies within the glass ball into which we are looking at present.
If the new system is to work, it seems to me that the contribution to the health service must go much wider than that to patients. As a rule, people are only patients for a short time: you are ill, you go into hospital and then you have to see your GP, whom you may not have seen for quite a long time. In relation to hospitals, patients are short-term people. But the public have an interest the whole time in the working of hospitals. Any of us may need to go into hospital at any time, and that may apply to our relations, our children and our parents. Indeed, some will already be in hospital. There needs to be a large local public input into the health service.
I know that the Bill relates only to small parts of Scotland, but there is a huge row going on at present in the area where I live. The public are holding up the implementation of very unpopular decisions. I see the noble Lord, Lord Patel, is smiling; he knows all about the matter. People are making a big fuss and holding up what in my part of the world we would regard as very damaging decisions in the health service. I should like to see that possibility in the future in England and Wales. I believe that community health councils could do that if they were strengthened in the way suggested by my noble friend. I strongly support his amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I should declare an interest because, before entering your Lordships' House, I was a national official of the Manufacturing Science and Finance Union. As such, I worked with many employees in community health
126
councils who are members of MSF. I should stress that they were from CHCs throughout the country, so I am not talking about just one area. Those employees recognise that CHCs need changing. Any body established since 1974—nearly 30 years ago—would need some kind of change.
The employees to whom I have spoken agree, first, that there is a need for change in the CHCs, and, secondly, that, by and large, they support the Bill now before us and most of its proposals. However, they are genuinely worried about the proposals for the abolition of CHCs because they believe that these councils could be revitalised, with their role being changed to enable them to continue. Part of that feeling is due to the fact that they, above all others, recognise the danger of losing the expertise and the knowledge of the CHC staff both as regards the local health service and the difficulties that patients face when dealing with the NHS. I do not believe that that should be underestimated.
The staff of community health councils actually chose to work in CHCs because they were independent organisations. Many of them believe that they cannot transfer easily to—and, indeed, are not attracted by—the proposals regarding the new structures. Because of the uncertainty about their future, there are already cases of CHC staff taking early retirement or seeking secondments. This means that some CHCs are having to cut their advisory services to patients. Due to the deadline of March 2002, CHCs do not wish to take on new cases because they fear that they may not be able to see those cases through to their conclusion. In a sense, it is the worst of all worlds—a situation that will worsen as we approach the year 2002.
I am advised that the society of CHC staff has indicated that some of its staff will try to work within the new structures. However, I know that that by no means represents the views of all those working in community health councils. I remain concerned that as drafted the measure will not give the best deal to patients. To give them the best deal must be the key purpose of the legislation. Therefore, I support the proposal of my noble friend Lord Rea that the Government should look again at the issue.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Howe. I should say at the outset that I have not in the past been a fan of CHCs. When I worked at the centre in the NHS they were seen by many as a source of irritation. They were often inconsistent in what they said and in how they behaved and operated. They seemed to many to stand in the way of progress. If they irritated some at the centre, I assure the House that they irritated people at many other levels in the NHS although it may not now be fashionable to say so.
I say that to show that I understand what led the Government to the conclusion that they should abolish CHCs. I can quite see how that could have developed into a reaction of, "Off with their heads". However, I suggest to the Minister that if the Government had counted to 10 before saying, "Off

127
with their heads", a better solution could have been arrived at and the form of vandalism which is proposed in the Bill could have been avoided.
If one looks at CHCs through the other end of the telescope, not from the perspective of the centre or other levels of NHS management, one sees a success story from the perspective of patients and carers. CHCs are well known in local communities and are trusted by patients and carers. It does not seem to me to make any sense whatever to throw away those virtues. As many have said, CHCs are not perfect and have not operated perfectly. However, if they are worth developing as they have some value and some virtues, they should be subjected to a programme of reform, as proposed in my noble friend's amendment.
Given that CHCs have a strong brand name, it may be unnecessary to change that to patients' councils. However, I accept that the latter is a much more modern formulation and potentially more accessible. The important point is that we should allow the NHS to build on the success of CHCs, whatever their name may be. That is the most secure way to protect the interests of patients and of carers in the long term. I support the amendment.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Gibson, I declare an interest. I am a past president of the Manufacturing Science and Finance Union. However, my involvement in the health service is not just confined to representing the interests of members. Prior to entering the other place I was a member of regional health authorities for a number of years. I have taken a keen interest in the health service of which I have always been extremely proud. I was involved with the Warrington CHC which is one of the most progressive and has done much good work.
Although some CHCs are better than others and some have not done a good job, we must bear in mind that under successive governments their budgets have been peanuts compared with that of the health service as a whole. Considered from that perspective they have done a good job with limited funds. However, I shall not argue for the retention of CHCs as such. They ought to move forward, adopt a wider base and become more involved with patients.
However, I am concerned—this has been mentioned on all sides of the House—about the retention of independence. As has been said, CHCs may have been a thorn in the side of the health service but they are independent. My noble friend the Minister has worked hard on the Bill and I thank him for all that he has done. He has listened to our comments, thought them through and considered how the Bill might be improved. However, I believe that people may find it extremely difficult to know which body to address if we do not tackle this issue carefully.
Recently in Warrington someone required emergency helicopter transport. It was blocked, and, unfortunately, the person died shortly after arriving in hospital. The relatives must wonder whether that person's life could have been saved. It is right that
128
people should be able to investigate such cases. In future will an independent mind be able to investigate such cases or will that be blocked? Those are matters that concern us.
If a Division is called, I shall not support the Opposition. However, I hope that my noble friend will reassure me that the Government are considering this important matter. The new bodies which we all welcome must respect patients' views and must be properly funded. People must know which body to address in order to seek help. The new bodies must be independent if people are not to be afraid to speak out. I do not want people to be suspicious that the new bodies may not be fully independent when investigating complaints. That is my concern. However, I am sure that my noble friend will be able to reassure us on these matters.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I have taken part in the many debates that have taken place in your Lordships' House on this subject since last autumn. I point out the somewhat delicious irony of the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, suggesting that CHCs have been in existence for some 34 years and therefore need to be reformed.
It seems to me that what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has done is what we have sought to do throughout the passage of the Bill; that is, to find a means to give coherence to patient involvement through the new structures that are proposed. I congratulate him on his efforts.
In the debate last autumn instigated by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, I pointed out the distinct difference between three things which patients need: information, advocacy to tackle immediate problems and support in tackling the wider NHS. In all the debates we have had and the suggestions that people have made with regard to the functions of the CHCs, those three elements have been confused time and time again. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has separated out the three elements but has recognised that each of them is an important constituent part of full patient involvement in the National Health Service, as is the stated aim of the NHS Plan.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I remain concerned about the potential loss of a strategic view of the health and health needs of a community. That is what the best CHCs have hitherto provided. I still think that that is in danger of being lost. I rather think that those in the NHS who are often wont to dismiss CHCs as simply a collection of people with their own vested interests will come to regret that. In so far as it is possible to safeguard a strategic view of the health and health needs of a community, I believe that the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, achieves that.
Throughout our discussions the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has supported the rights of Mrs Archibald whom some of us have come to know and love during the many hours of debate. I remain concerned about the rights of Mrs Patel. Mrs Patel does not speak English as a first language but Sylheti—a language which is not written.

129
Some of the best CHCs have reflected the diversity of their communities. They have formed a bridge between the skills and expertise of our NHS, of which we are proud, and those people who have some of the hardest-to-reach needs. The measure before us is not necessarily the best that we could have achieved for Mrs Patel. With the noble Earl's amendment, she might have a better than even chance of having her problems addressed. Therefore I support the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, we seem to be having two debates, one about functions and the other about nomenclature. I seek clarification and reassurance on a point about which I have given the Minister notice.
A concern about the abolition of community health councils is whether the new patients' forums will be able to carry out all their functions as effectively as CHCs. I give an example. At present, if a GP practice is under threat through property development, problems of planning, or a lease running out, a CHC can intervene to maintain the status quo while a satisfactory solution is found. For this purpose, CHCs are aligned with the local government unit—that is helpful—and the new patients' forums with the NHS trusts although local government will come in in a different way.
Assuming that I have stated the position accurately, is not the CHC prima facie a more effective instrument in dealing with such an example? I put the question in a form to which the Minister can respond. How will the new structure provide for the kind of example I have given? In describing these new functions in a way that would be difficult to achieve on the face of the Bill, it may help some of us to make up our minds.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting debate. It is abundantly clear that nothing separates noble Lords on all sides of the House in seeking the most effective way to involve patients and the public in decisions about the NHS, and putting in place responsive systems which are able to deal with complaints and concerns as speedily as possible.
Perhaps I may start by responding to the charge, I think from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that these arrangements are being put into place because we find CHCs a bit of a nuisance. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, underpinned that from her experience as a senior executive of the NHS. I want to state clearly that that is simply not the case. I expect robustly independent patients' forums and patients' councils to provide plenty of nuisance, robustness and noise in the future and to be a jolly sight more effective than the current arrangements. That has to be the test on which these proposals are judged. We bring them forward in order to produce a more effective patient and public voice in the NHS. We bring them forward in order to produce a more effective mechanism to deal with patients' concerns. It is on that basis that we want these proposals judged.
130
Often, despite outstanding work by many in the service, we know that the public find the system difficult to manoeuvre. They experience problems. They often find it difficult to have those resolved quickly and effectively. Of course, since 1974 community health councils have played a valuable role in seeking to help members of the public and individual patients. But they have not been perfect. I think that most noble Lords who have addressed this issue have acknowledged that. Nor, I suggest" have they been particularly visible to members of the public or individual patients. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and my noble friend Lady Ashton, that patients do not know that CHCs exist.
I detract nothing from the work of CHCs and the contribution by staff over the years. However, when considering some of the problems that we face in the NHS, the experience of patients and problems in relation to food and cleaning—one could quote many other examples where the patient experience has not been what it should be—I do not seek to pin responsibility on to CHCs. But I do not believe that they have been effective in persuading, encouraging and cajoling the health service to make improvements and changes in those services.
Because of that, we have decided not to reform CHCs, as we might have done. We have decided to go for a wholesale overhaul of the way in which we engage with patients. By doing so, we are responding to what hundreds of thousands of patients told us in the consultation over the NHS Plan. They wanted help in dealing with complaints when they arose, not after the event. They wanted to be able to influence services locally. They wanted a voice. That is what we propose. We believe that a fresh start is the best way.
As the Bill has made its way through Parliament in another place and in your Lordships' House its contents have been much improved. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in Committee for a national body is an example of that improvement. In another place we were able to accept amendments about patients' councils and independent advocacy. The combination of the Bill as drafted, and the improvements, mean that the new system will deliver all the functions of CHCs and much more.
Noble Lords may compare the present system and the system to which we aspire. I stress that we are not seeking a like-for-like change. We have considered the functions needed to give patients the support they require and the influence they want. They are complex tasks. The tailor-made solutions we propose are more complex than community health councils. But, most importantly, they will be more effective. This has to be the key test. We are adding completely new services such as patient advocacy and liaison services. Unlike CHCs, they will be trust based. They will be front-of-house customer services for patients. They will be on hand either to deal with complaints on the spot or to point people in the direction of independent advocacy services if that is more appropriate. They will be accessible and visible services.

131
I was glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, visited the Brighton service. In many ways that must be seen as a forerunner. The noble Baroness will know that I was involved in its establishment. I believe that it points the way to enabling issues and concerns—at present they are often allowed to fester—to be dealt with immediately, much to the patient's benefit.
Alongside that, independent patients' forums will also relate to NHS trusts. I stress the word "independent" because a number of noble Lords have suggested that the new arrangements will not be independent. Patients' forums will be robustly independent. They will have a critical role in monitoring services and reporting to the management in trusts. They will have a real influence on how those services are delivered.
We are talking not just about services provided by hospitals; patients' forums will inspect services provided by GPs, nursing homes and private healthcare providers. We are giving the Secretary of State a new duty to make arrangements for independent advocacy. Some CHCs currently provide advocacy and we want to make that service universal for patients who want to make complaints against the NHS.
We also want to make the most of existing advocacy arrangements by not tying down any particular body to provide that service. Of course I accept that some CHCs have excellent translating services, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, but CHCs are not the only ones with that expertise. We are introducing some flexibility to ensure that the independent advocacy service at local level provides the services that she wishes to see.
We also cannot ignore the role of the local authority in the new arrangements. The overview and scrutiny committees will have a major role to play. I am aware of the service changes in Scotland to which the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, referred, although I could not possibly comment on them. However, the involvement of local government in England through the new committees will lead to much more constructive engagement between the local authority and the health service and will allow changes to be made where there is local ownership and agreement.
The national patients' body will be a new national voice for patients. It will have a role in overseeing and facilitating the implementation of the new system and will be a brand new way in which patients can have their say about the NHS and influence its policy. It will build on the role that the ACHCEW has with CHCs and become more substantial. All the components of the new system have clear roles. The arrangements comprehensively cover everything that CHCs do and much more.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, argued that the new arrangements were fragmented, but there are connections between them all. One example is the
132
shared secretariat between a patients' council and a patients' forum. All the different parts of the mechanism will have clear and distinct jobs. Patients' forums relate to trusts. Patients' councils take a wider view of health authority services and pick up on the issue of strategy to which the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, referred. Patients' forums and patients' councils will focus on patients' concerns, while the local authority overview and scrutiny committee will be concerned with the wider public view.
I doubt that I shall ever persuade the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, but I believe that the NHS has experience of people being appointed to boards through different routes. The case of a dean nominated by a university and appointed by the Secretary of State is a good example of how that can work. The patients' forum nominee will be appointed to the board of the trust through arrangements agreed with the independent appointments commission. That provides the safeguards that we require.
Independence is guaranteed by the process of appointments. Some 50 per cent of the members of a patients' forum will come from local voluntary sector and patients' groups. The remainder will be, or have been, patients or the carers of patients of the trust. As I have said, the NHS appointments commission will ensure that those members arc appointed through a fair and open process. I believe that those bodies will be robust and independent. I was responsible for appointing the review to look into the case that my noble friend Lord Hoyle mentioned. I assure him that such a case could be taken up under the new arrangements.
I have been asked about staff. I recognise that that is an important issue. We have made commitments to build on best practice from CHCs and others and to put that learning to good effect in the new system. To do so, we shall look to retain the skills and experience of CHC staff and members in the new structures and the wider NHS by encouraging them to seek new opportunities. I have no doubt that the new structure will provide wonderful opportunities for many CHC staff, whom my noble friend Lady Gibson mentioned. Those opportunities will be not just in patients' forums and patients' councils, but in independent advocacy services and the patient advocacy and liaison services. There will be a much better career structure for staff, who often hit a glass ceiling once they become a CHC chief officer.
The amendments embrace both patients' councils and patients' forums with virtually identical functions to those suggested in the Bill. The real difference between us on the amendments is the relationship between patients' councils and patients' forums. My disagreement with the amendments is that they would place patients' councils at the forefront of the new arrangement at local level, whereas the Government believe that the focus and emphasis must be on the

133
forums, based in each individual NHS trust, if we are to ensure a real impact and change patients' perception at that level.
I do not disagree that patients' councils have an important role in facilitating the activity of groups of forums, but I have great concerns that the amendment would result in the patients' council becoming the primary body for dealing with patients' issues.
The rationale behind our proposals is that patients' forums are the key agents of change and patient representation. There will be one for every trust and they will be close to the patients and the services that they use. They will also be close to the doctors and managers so that they can have a real, everyday impact on changing services to meet patients' needs. We want the patients' forums to be the main representatives of patients' views at local level. We see them as the most effective organisations for securing improvements.
We have talked consistently today about the balance between centralisation and decentralisation in the NHS. Surely we want the patient's view to be heard at its strongest at the point at which the patient receives everyday services from the NHS. That must surely be at the patients' forum level.
Of course, we recognise the need to co-ordinate the actions of the different forums and to ensure that they do not become isolated. That is why we introduced the concept of patients' councils. However, the councils should not dictate to the forums. That would simply, using the service, move power away from the patients to a more remote representative body.
As I reach my conclusion, perhaps I may point out that there has been a steady decrease in the number of health authorities in this country. At the same time, they have served a greater population. Are we really saying that, if that trend continues, the patients' council should be the primary body at that level? Surely we should ensure that the real authority of the patient lies at trust level.
I accept the real and necessary role of the patients' council. I also understand the concerns that have been expressed about its role, and I understand why noble Lords do not wish to lose any of the positive functions of CHCs. Between now and Third Reading I shall be happy—particularly if the noble Earl does not press the vote—to engage in further discussions about the role of patients' councils. However, I believe that the arrangements that we have put forward will provide a much more effective way for both the public and the patients to become involved in the service to the benefit of us all.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I want to raise one issue with him. He said that the functions of the patients' councils and patients' forums as set out in the amendment are almost identical to those set out in the Bill. I am sure
134
that if the Minister looks at subsection (3) of Amendment No. 8 he will note in particular that the right,
"to appoint a representative, having such functions as may be prescribed, to attend meetings of each relevant health authority";
the right,
"to receive and respond to disclosures under the Public Interest Disclosure Act";
and the right,
"to refer issues of concern to patients to health authorities",
are all additional powers. What is the Minister's view on those additional powers? If he believes that they are virtually identical, does he believe that they are desirable and should be incorporated into patients' councils?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as I said, I am very happy to discuss that matter further with the noble Lord. I certainly believe that the amendment addresses the fundamental issues of the patients' council and the patients' forum and the key functions that we believe they should undertake.
However, I pull the noble Lord back to the core argument. He seeks to make the patients' council, which will cover a very large population, the prime agency. Surely he can see that there is a fundamental difference at the patients' forum level, where the patient receives services and where the management of the service is most closely attuned to patient services. We are concerned that, if the amendment is accepted, we shall take away from that crucial patient service level the impact of the new arrangements that we seek to put into place.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. To my mind, the debate has been remarkable for the very few voices that have been raised wholly and unequivocally in favour of the Government's proposals. Many noble Lords favour aspects of those proposals, but I have not heard anyone, even from the government Benches, roundly endorse the central plank of the Government's plans—namely, the abolition of community health councils. That is the main point at issue.
By contrast, I have heard many noble Lords express gratifying support for the amendments that I have tabled. I thank in particular my noble friend Lady Hanham for her helpful remarks and especially for highlighting two features of this amendment. The first is the element of continuity for which it provides. The second is the fact that it opens the way to resolving the concern about which I know she feels strongly—that is, offering safeguards in the appointment of non-executive directors to trust boards.
I was grateful, too, to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford for what he said with regard to his experience, or, at least in part, that of his wife. I was grateful for his support for the principles of the amendment. I also appreciated the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. How well she highlighted

135
two of the key points of this issue in particular: the need to preserve independence and the avoidance of fragmentation.
My noble friend Lady Noakes, in her characteristically succinct way, emphasised the importance of building on the success of community health councils. Indeed, that point was taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle. I quite understand that he is probably not wholly of my persuasion on this matter. However, he was right to say that community health councils have done a good job on the resources given to them. Once again, he was right to emphasise the importance of retaining the vital independent role that CHCs possess. As I know he realises, my amendment seeks to do just that.
My noble friend Lord Peyton reminded us of the importance of maintaining morale and expertise in the NHS in its widest sense. He rightly pointed out the gaps in our knowledge of who will be appointed to those new bodies as proposed by the Government. The Minister helpfully clarified some of those areas but, inevitably, not all because I do not believe that the plans had been fully worked out.
On the government Benches, I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for what he said, with all his personal experience in the health service. Once again, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, who stressed the importance of communication, including the role of the PALS in trusts, and the importance of enhancing local democracy. I have no problem with those sentiments, nor, indeed, with her wish to see the proposals in the Bill developed. That will happen under my amendment. My proposals have no effect whatever on either PALS or overview and scrutiny committees, which, of course, reflect the Government's wish to bring into the workings of the health service a better element of local democracy.
In my submission, the merit of my amendments is that they allow for both continuity and change. My noble friend Lady Carnegy was right in all that she said. Perhaps I may repeat that it is not part of my intention to knock down everything that the Government have proposed in the Bill. I have deliberately not done so.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for her endorsement of the approach that I have adopted—that is, to confer greater coherence on the Government's proposals and to safeguard the strategic view of health services in the locality that she rightly emphasised.
The Minister was right to say that there is a difference between us concerning the proposed relationship between patients' councils and patients' forums. He was also right to say that he regarded the role of patients' forums as being close to patients and ensuring that the patient's view is heard at the level of the NHS trust, and that there should be one forum per trust. I simply say to him that under my amendment none of that would change.
136
The tenor of his reply was not altogether unexpected. He has made clear on numerous occasions that he is not prepared to think again about the essence of the proposals. I believe that that is a great pity. I am grateful for the measured way in which he tried to put the Government's case. He has not answered all of my questions in a way that I find convincing.
There are overriding arguments, which I set out at the beginning of this debate, that clearly favour maintaining the essence of the current structures and building on their strengths. In the end our debate is not primarily about saving CHCs; it is about doing the best that we can for patients. I believe that my amendment would do that. I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Enough has been said to convince me that I should test the opinion of the House.
6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 162; Not-Contents, 121.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Addington, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Ampthill, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Elton, L.

Attlee, E.

Ezra, L.

Avebury, L.

Falkland, V.

Barker, B.

Feldman, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ferrers, E.

Bell, L.

Fookes, B.

Biffen, L.

Freeman, L.

Blaker, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Blatch, B.

Garel-Jones, L.

Boardman, L.

Geddes, L.

Bowness, L.

Geraint, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Glentoran, L.

Brightman, L.

Goodhart, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Greenway, L.

Burnham, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Buscombe, B.

Hamwee, B.

Byford, B.

Hanham, B.

Caithness, E.

Hanningfield, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Carrington, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Clement-Jones, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L

Coe, L.

Hogg, B.

Colwyn, L.

Home, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Hooper, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Howe, E.

Craigavon, V.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Cranborne, V.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Crathorne, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Jopling, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Kimball, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Deedes, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Denham, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Dholakia, L.

Listowel, E.

137

Liverpool, E.

Rawlings, B.

Lucas, L.

Razzall, L.

Luke, L.

Redesdale, L.

Lyell, L.

Rennard, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Renton, L.

McNally, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Maddock, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Mancroft, L.

Roper, L. [Teller]

Mar and Kellie, E.

Russell, E.

Marlesford, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Seccombe, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Selborne, E.

Monson, L.

Selsdon, L.

Montrose, D.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Sharples, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Naseby, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Newby, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Swinfen, L.

Noakes, B.

Tebbit, L.

Northbrook, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Northover, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Tope, L,

Onslow, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Trumpington, B.

Palmer, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Palumbo, L.

Vivian, L.

Park of Monmouth. B.

Waddington, L.

Patten, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Walmsley, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Plumb, L.

Weatherill, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Prior, L.

Wilcox, B.

Pym, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ahmed, L.

Dubs, L.

Alli, L.

Eatwell, L.

Andrews, B.

Elder, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Bach, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Barnett, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Bath and Wells, Bp.

Filkin, L.

Berkeley, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Gale, B.

Billingham, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Blackstone, B.

Gilbert, L.

Blease, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Borrie, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Brennan, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Brett, L.

Greengross, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Grenfell, L.

Brookman, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Harrison, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hayman, B.

Burlison, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Christopher, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Hoyle, L.

Crawley, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

David, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Davies of Oldham, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Islwyn, L.

Desai, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

138

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Laming, L.

Serota, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Simon, V.

Lipsey, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Lockwood, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

[Teller]

Strabolgi, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Thornton, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Turnberg, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Uddin, B.

Mitchell, L.

Varley, L.

Molloy, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Walpole, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Warner, L.

Nicol, B.

Whitaker, B.

Orme, L.

Whitty, L.

Parekh, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.11 p.m.
Clause 12 [Patients' Forums]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 9:
Leave out Clause 12.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Patients' Councils]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 10:
Leave out Clause 13.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Independent advocacy services]:
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 13, line 29, at end insert "through each Patients' Council"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [National patients' body for England]:
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Abolition of Community Health Councils in England]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 14:
Leave out Clause 19.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Power to abolish Community Health Councils in Wales]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 15:
Leave out Clause 20.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 21 [Intervention orders]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 17, line 6, leave out from second "is" to third "or" in line 7 and insert "failing significantly in the performance of one or more of its functions,"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 17 and 18.With Amendment No. 16, we return to one of the hardy perennial issues of this Bill; namely, the Government's interventionist tendencies. I make no apology for doing so because, as the Minister said both today and in Committee, the balance between national direction and local autonomy has been a subject for discussion and debate ever since the creation of the NHS. Where, as here, it is proposed that the balance be altered, and altered quite substantially, it is right that we should put those proposals under a microscope.
In Clause 21, the Government are seeking to create new powers to enable the Secretary of State to intervene in failing NHS bodies. The interventions could take the form of removing or suspending the board of that body and replacing its members with other people nominated by him; or it could take the form of requiring the NHS body to contract out to a third party the function that is assessed as failing. It could also take the form of a combination of both those measures.
By any standards, those are drastic steps. We have been assured by the Minister that they would not be taken lightly. In Committee, he gave us various examples of circumstances when it might be appropriate to use the powers. In each case he made clear that exercising the powers would be a last resort when other actions had failed or were inappropriate.
It is natural for anyone in the Minister's position to defend the creation of powers of this kind, believing, as I have no doubt the Minister does, that they would always be used responsibly and out of absolute necessity. The task of this House, however, is to scrutinise the language of the Bill and to decide whether that language is appropriate to the purposes that Ministers have set out.
As I said in Committee, I have great difficulty with the language of Clause 21. It says nothing about last resorts. It is far from clear as to the gravity of the test for triggering an intervention order; and it allows such an order to be made without any requirement for openness or transparency. It seems to me that all that is dangerous. It should not be acceptable for us to allow through Parliament a power to Ministers that runs far wider than the sorts of exceptional and serious circumstances that Ministers have quoted; nor should it be acceptable for us to do so on the basis of assurances from Ministers that we should trust them to use the powers responsibly.
We hear rather a lot of pleas of that kind and they are to be resisted. We may place our trust in the assurances given by Ministers. We may hold the Ministers themselves in the highest esteem. That is not the issue. If the wording in the legislation permits
140
future Ministers to exploit the power more frequently and more freely than we are told is now required, we should question its validity.
One very real risk in that context is that a diagnosis of failure in an NHS body might rest not on some clinical disaster, professional malpractice or financial mismanagement, but on a failure by the body to fulfil an objective set by Ministers that has nothing to do with any of those matters. The waiting list initiative is a classic example of a ministerial directive that can play havoc with clinical priorities. As I said earlier today, it has resulted in sicker patients waiting longer; resources being wrongly targeted; and the covert manipulation of waiting lists. Where there is that sort of political interference, a situation may easily occur in which a hospital may be treating patients according to clinical need, yet be seen to be failing when they do not meet waiting list targets. To punish hospitals which are so brazen as to act in the best interests of their patients is, in my view, a travesty of what the NHS is about.
The Minister in another place said in Committee that this clause would allow appropriate action to be taken if an NHS organisation was acting outside the policy statements in the NHS Plan. That is right and that is why the clause as it stands should be resisted.
Local autonomy in the health service does not exist merely as a matter of political or administrative convenience. It is there to ensure that those in charge of the NHS at a local level feel a sense of ownership of it and thereby do a better job. It is there because we need high calibre professional people to take responsibility for one of the most demanding managerial tasks that the country has to offer. It is simply not acceptable to play fast and loose with that autonomy by overriding it from Whitehall other than in the most exceptional circumstances.
Morale, motivation and creativity depend on people feeling that they are trusted and not threatened. That is why I suggest, through these amendments, that we should hold the Government to their word. We should make it explicit on the face of the Bill that an intervention order should be triggered only when no other action will do. We should make it explicit that the test to be passed for such an order is a situation in which the NHS body is failing significantly in the performance of one or more of its functions. We should seek to ensure that whatever the Secretary of State chooses to do when using those powers, it is subject to public scrutiny. I commend the amendments to the House and I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I support the amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Howe. The original clause produces a significant change in the way that the NHS is run. An intervention order introduces a significant effect. It allows the replacement of a board and it allows the functions of a trust to be completely taken over by another body. The consequences of such an order strike at the heart of the way in which an NHS trust operates. We are not talking about a marginal intervention, but about turning around what is happening.

141
There may be circumstances where that is necessary, but I have doubts about the need for an extensive legislative provision to allow for that. In the past, when there is significant failure in the NHS, the service has always coped largely by informal means. Where there is manifest failure in the NHS, it is not usually difficult to achieve the results that Ministers and those in the NHS executive require.
If we are to have legislative rules, we must look carefully at the test. The Bill as drafted contains the low hurdle of failing to perform,
"one or more of its functions adequately".
The word "adequately" does not produce a high test. My dictionary says that "adequately" means sufficiently or "equivalent". In considering that test one could conclude that practically every NHS body in this country would not meet it. It would be remarkable to find any NHS body that has not failed in one or more of its functions according to that low test.
Such a power would create the ability for the Secretary of State to interfere with an NHS body. The board of directors of such a body would have its targets and the whole panoply of overview and yet on top of that we are creating a power that means that the Secretary of State can move in. For that reason I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend which would create a higher hurdle before quite draconian powers could come into play.
We must also remember that NHS managers already manage largely by looking over their shoulders. Many requirements are placed on them; they have to juggle many often conflicting priorities; and they have to manage within difficult resource situations. This provision creates another shadow that will hang over NHS managers. It is something else with which to beat them. If we create this power for circumstances other than the most extreme, the stability of NHS management will be undermined further. I believe that that is an issue of significant concern.
On Amendment No. 18, transparency is an extremely important requirement and full publication of such an intervention must be an absolute necessity. It should not take place only behind closed doors.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, Secretaries of State usually give Ministers in this House room to accept an amendment here and there, if only to please noble Lords. I hope that this amendment may be one that the Minister has been told he could accept. For the reasons that my noble friends have given, it is important that the reason for allowing an intervention should be very clear. An intervention should not be worded in the way in which such difficult subjects are worded in discussion, when someone is trying to sell an idea. These phrases may have to be discussed in the courts and it is important that they should be sharp and that the people who run the service locally and who will be affected should know precisely what the statute states. It is also important that Parliament and the body concerned should know the reasons for such
142
an intervention. These are important amendments and I shall be surprised if the Minister does not accept them.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I hope I can reassure noble Lords that the power will be used in a sensible and important way, ensuring that ultimately the Secretary of State can discharge his responsibilities to Parliament for the performance of the National Health Service.
The Secretary of State can intervene using this power as set out in subsection (1) only if he is satisfied that an NHS body is not performing one or more of its functions adequately, or that there are significant failings in the way that the body is being run. In addition, the Secretary of State must also be satisfied that it is appropriate for him to intervene.
The clause would permit intervention in cases where there has been a serious one-off incident, or where there has been failure to provide a satisfactory service to patients over a period of time. In the second of those situations it would clearly be inappropriate to use intervention powers at the first sign of merely "inadequate" services being delivered. I can reassure the House that that would not be our intention.
The kind of situations in which the Secretary of State may use that power could include a failure of trust management to address serious malpractice—for instance, carrying out procedures without informed consent; a continuing failure of a trust board to take the necessary action to ensure that the trust was in financial balance; or a continuing failure to provide services to an adequate standard. We envisage that the use of those powers of intervention would, generally speaking, be a last resort when other actions had failed or were deemed inappropriate because of the seriousness of an incident.
When an NHS body was first identified as providing inadequate services we would not ordinarily look to use the intervention power. Other possible actions to improve the performance of failing NHS bodies are already set out in the NHS Plan. They do not require legislation. It could take the form of a recovery plan agreed between the NHS body and the Department of Health; it could include monitoring of the body by the regional office; and it could include more frequent inspections by the Commission for Health Improvement.
Those wider messages and the powers included in this clause have to be seen as part of a much wider package of performance improvement initiatives that we outlined in the NHS Plan. Again, I stress that we are committed to developing within the NHS a system of earned autonomy that removes the burden of bureaucracy and allows greater operational freedom to those parts of the NHS that are performing well. The other side of the coin is the need for us to take action where there are NHS bodies that are not up to the task and are not providing adequate services.

143
Amendment No. 16 would alter the first element of the test for intervention so that the Secretary of State would have to demonstrate that an NHS body was,
"failing significantly in the performance of one or more of its functions",
rather than, as the Bill now states, failing to perform "adequately".
I do not believe that such a change is necessary. The test of whether the body is performing adequately is not intended as a low test. Indeed, I have already outlined the sort of circumstances in which we may use the power and that we envisage such intervention being taken only after other steps have been taken. However, we should not accept inadequate services. It is right that the Secretary of State should be able to intervene where adequate services are not being provided. To suggest otherwise is to accept very low ambitions for the NHS and the services that it delivers.
Amendment No. 17 stipulates that the Secretary of State should make an intervention order only when all other appropriate remedial action has been taken. I have no disagreement whatever with the principle put forward here. As I said, we see the measures in the clause as being taken as a last resort or at the end of a series of other measures, except in the event of an immediate or catastrophic failure when urgent action must be taken.
However, it is important to remember that if an example of performance failure were particularly serious, such as one which posed a real or potential threat to patient safety, and it was clear that other measures would be insufficient, an intervention would be appropriate as it would enable quick and decisive action. I do not believe it would be helpful to impose on the Secretary of State a duty to ensure that he had exhausted all other appropriate action in those circumstances.
Amendment No. 18 relates to making available to Parliament details of the reasons for intervention. It would be unusual to make it a statutory duty to lay copies of an intervention order before both Houses as the order is not astatutory instrument. That is because intervention will by its nature be particular to the individual body rather than general in application, and particular account will need to be taken of local circumstances. Our view is that these orders largely concern operational detail. They are concerned with how an individual NHS body is performing its functions or being run. Although an intervention order may remove or suspend the individuals involved in managing the body, it will not fundamentally alter the body's constitution or remove or alter any of its powers or duties.
In our view, given the nature of the order, it is not then necessary to subject them to the parliamentary procedure. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation agreed that it was appropriate to disapply the negative procedure. I reassure the House that that does not mean that the Government would not seek to be fully open about the reasons for intervention and what was expected of the
144
NHS body in terms of performance improvement. The key document that would set that out for the NHS body would be the recovery plan agreed with the regional office and normally the Modernisation Agency.
I believe that, given that reassurance and the fact that the plan will be in the public domain, there is no need to go down the route set by the noble Earl. I envisage the intervention order being used very sparingly and I hope that I have reassured your Lordships on that point.
6.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Minister certainly reassured me that the present Government have no intention of using these powers lightly or wantonly. I fully accept that. However, I sought to make the point that once the power is on the statute book, a future government can use it to the full extent that the law permits. I found his answers unsatisfactory in that regard particularly.
My noble friend Lady Noakes was right to say that by any standards we have here a fundamental intervention in the operation of the NHS. She was also right to say that the NHS has typically in the past coped with catastrophic failures that reflect badly on management. There are ways of doing that without resorting to an intervention order. Furthermore, I agree with my noble friend that in the wording of the clause, particularly the word "adequate", we have potentially a low threshold of failure, even if current Ministers do not view the terminology in that way.
Alarmingly, the Minister said that generally speaking the power in the clause would be a last resort and that the Government would not ordinarily look to use the power when other actions are open to the Department of Health. If anything, those words are less strong that those which the Minister deployed in Committee. But even if they are intended to represent an equal measure of reassurance to me, I return to my earlier point: we are talking about putting on to the statute book a draconian power which is capable of being used in a way which runs counter to the intentions of the present Government. I am not in the least comfortable with that.
The Minister said that there was no need to go down the route that I propose. I am certain that on the principle of my proposal he has no objection, other than the principle of Amendment No. 18, in respect of which he believes that there are problems. But as regards Amendment No. 16, if he feels that there is no need to go down my proposed route—clearly, he has no fundamental objection to it—I should like to take the opinion of the House.
6.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 115.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Jopling, L.

Attlee, E.

Kimball, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Kingsland, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Biffen, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Blatch, B.

Lucas, L.

Boardman, L.

Luke, L. [Teller]

Bowness, L.

Lyell, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Mancroft, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Marlesford, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Buscombe, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Byford, B.

Monson, L.

Caithness, E.

Montrose, D.

Carnegy of Lour, B

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Coe, L

Noakes, B.

Colwyn, L.

Northbrook, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Cranborne, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Onslow, E.

Darcy of Harptree, L

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L.

Palmer, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Palumbo, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Patten, L.

Elton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Feldman, L.

Plumb, L.

Ferrers, E.

Prior, L.

Fookes, B.

Rawlings, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Renton, L.

Freeman, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Geddes, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Seccombe, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Selsdon, L.

Glentoran, L.

Sharples, B.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hanham, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Tebbit, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hogg, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L

Howe, E.

Tugendhat, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Vivian, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Waddington, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ahmed, L.

Burlison, L.

Alli,L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Andrews, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Crawley, B.

Bach, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Barnett, L.

David, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Bath and Wells, Bp.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Berkeley, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Desai, L.

Billingham, B.

Dixon, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Blease, L.

Elder, L.

Borrie, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Brennan, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Brett, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Filkin, L.

Brookman, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

146

Gale, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Gilbert, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Mitchell, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Molloy, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Grenfell, L.

Nicol, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Orme, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Parekh, L.

Harrison, L.

Patel, L.

Hayman, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hoyle, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Serota, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Simon, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Smith of Leigh, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L

Islwyn, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean. B

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Thornton, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Laird, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Varley, L.

Lipsey. L.

Walker of Doncaster, L

Lockwood, B.

Walpole, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Warner, L.

McCarthy, L.

Weidenfeld, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Whitaker, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Whitty, L.

[Teller]

Wilkins, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.45 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]
Clause 23 [Vacancies for medical practitioners]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 19, line 29, after "consultation" insert ", including consultation with the local medical committee for its area."'
The noble Earl said: My Lords, under Clause 23 decisions to determine the existence and filling of vacancies for GPs will be devolved from the medical practices committee to each health authority. Amendment No. 19 is extremely important to GPs in that it requires a health authority to consult the local medical committee for its area when decisions are taken on recruiting additional or replacement GPs in that locality. I believe that LMCs have the requisite local understanding to promote the delivery of high standards through their professional contacts with all GPs. Potentially, decisions on whether to replace a GP could be made in accordance with local rather than national priorities.
As the House debated earlier, each health authority will determine for itself the appropriate number of GPs and practices in its area. No doubt financial resources will feature largely when decisions are taken on whether to recruit additional or replacement GPs in

147
a health authority area. As I indicated earlier, health authorities may be tempted not to fill posts and thereby save resources. I believe that health authorities should be obliged to consult their local medical committees at various stages of the decision-making process in the same way that the MPC is currently required to consult, for example on whether there should be an additional or replacement GP in the locality, what conditions should be imposed on the vacancy—perhaps the size of the list—and whether the additional GP should be a member of a partnership or sole practitioner. The criteria for choosing a practice to which a vacancy is to be allocated, or the GP to fill a vacancy, should also be subject to the same consultation as nominating or approving a GP.
Consultation with the LMC is necessary to ensure fairness to GPs in practising their livelihood in the area. It is necessary to provide a check and balance on rash and uninformed decision-making and to ensure a fair distribution of GPs locally which results in an equitable service provision to patients. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I rise very briefly to support the amendment. I believe Amendment No. 19 to be very important, particularly in view of the fact that the Minister was unhappy with Amendment No. I moved earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, which we also supported. I ask the Minister to consider the situation carefully. This amendment is very similar to one tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. At that time the Minister said:
"I accept the principle behind my noble friend's remarks on local medical committees. It is not a matter for the Bill, but I assure him that the regulations will require health authorities to consult with local medical committees before making any determination on whether there is or will be a vacancy for a general practitioner in their area".—[Official Report, 20/3/01; col. 1416.]
The essence of the matter is to put as much flesh as possible on the bones to assure those concerned with the appointment of general practitioners that there will be local input and that, even if this matter does not culminate in primary legislation, the regulations themselves will have very strong force.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is right to say that in Committee I said that I fully accepted the principle behind the amendment but did not consider that it was a matter for the Bill because we will commit ourselves, and I do so again, to ensuring that regulations will require health authorities to consult with local medical committees prior to making any determination on whether there is or will be a vacancy for a general practitioner in its area.
The current regulations require health authorities to consult the local medical committee before any reference is made to the Medical Practice Committee concerning declarations of vacancies. Our intention is to change the regulations and to place a requirement on health authorities to consult the LMC before making vacancy decisions.
148
It is also our intention to enhance the consultation process by regulations requiring health authorities to consult with local primary care trusts and all neighbouring health authorities. The additional requirement will ensure that health authorities take account of the needs of neighbouring health authorities and that in the future, because one may not have taken account of it, pockets of recruitment difficulties do not arise. Having said that, I hope that I have provided the reassurances required.
Earl Howe: My Lords, that is a very helpful reply. My only hope is that practice and custom will take root. The Minister's reassurance that it is the Government's intention to require that health authorities should consult with local medical committees before determining the vacancy for a GP in the area is good news. Again I come back to my previous point that, given the transient nature of Ministers and government, it would be much more satisfactory to me to have the requirement placed on the face of the Bill. Nevertheless, what the Minister has said is helpful. I thank him for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [Remuneration of general medical practitioners]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 19, line 41, leave out from "services)" to end of line 2 on page 20 and insert "in subsection (4), for the words "not, except in special circumstances," there is substituted "have regard to the quality and outcome of the services provided and shall not ordinarily""
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 20 raises an issue which we debated in Committee about the payment system for general medical services. In Committee the Minister said that he agreed with the thrust of the amendment, the effect of which is to ensure that the payment system for General Medical Services' practitioners appropriately rewards quality and service outcome. I was pleased to hear that is precisely the emphasis that the Government want to see in the revised national GP contract currently under negotiation.
Nevertheless, as the clause reads now it would be possible for the Government to pay GPs in any way they wanted. There is almost no case at all for failing to recognise explicitly in legislation what both the Government and we wish to see, which is that GPs should be paid in a way that has regard to quality and outcome. Indeed, that is a stated aim of the NHS Plan. It should be made easier for GPs to reduce their list size. That would not be so straightforward for them if their remuneration was based on capitation. GPs who through no fault of their own have a low list size, such as those working in rural areas, should not be penalised unfairly.
What the Government seek to do in Clause 25 is to delete Section 29(4) of the 1977 Act so that no restrictions apply to how remuneration is paid and by what criteria. That effectively means that the Government would be able to pay GPs in any way they wished—for example, by a fixed salary; by the number

149
of patients on their list; the number of smear tests they carry out or the number of other targets reached; or however else they decide. That undoubtedly gives them flexibility, but there is no guarantee that remuneration will reflect the quality and outcomes of services that GPs provide to patients.
The Minister's reasons for rejecting the amendment were that it would constrain the current negotiations between the Government and the BMA. I am at a loss to follow that argument. If it is agreed that the thrust of the amendment is sound, why not accept it? The only reason I can think of—I stand to be corrected and hope I will be—is that the wording of the clause as it stands suits the Government very well because they must perceive it as leaving them with room to manoeuvre even after the negotiations with the BMA have been concluded. I wonder whether at the present time that is the right message to send out to doctors. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I rise to ask a couple of questions. I am, in spirit, in favour of the amendment. The climate of the negotiations with the BMA, and in particular with its GP committees, has changed considerably since we last debated the Bill. In Committee the Minister said:
"There is the prospect of significant progress on the way in which GPs work for the NHS. Initial discussions have begun with the BMA to scope the work. Those discussions have been constructive and there has been an encouraging start in addressing a major challenge for both parties".—[Official Report, 22/03/01; col. 1540.]
In a sense, one could say, "Oh yes, well that is a very nice scenario. There is a great green field of opportunity there. This is going to be very much an even-handed discussion between the Government and the medical profession" and so on. However, if one looks at the way in which the Bill operates—the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has put the matter entirely correctly in the way that it impacts on the 1977 Act—the reality is that the cards are then all placed in the hands of the Government. The Government are negotiating by legislation. A better way would be for a genuinely consensual outcome to the matter rather than giving the Government all the cards. There appears to be an underlying agenda for the Government to have a completely free hand to determine, if they so choose, the outcome. That would be extremely unfortunate.
Morale in the medical profession is clearly not as good as it should be. Over the past few weeks, indeed since our Committee stage discussions, we have seen some activity bubbling up from under the surface. The opening up of the provisions of the 1977 Act is making those of us who in normal times would have been content with the matter rather more suspicious than we otherwise would be.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am intrigued by the suggestion that the Government hold all the cards in their negotiations with the BMA. I shall certainly take that thought back to the department's negotiators. I am sure that they will be delighted to hear that. Particularly at the present time it is useful for me to re-state our intention of working with the
150
professions and their representatives to revise the national GP contract to provide a greater emphasis on quality of work and improve patients' outcomes inherent in the PMS approach to the delivery of primary care.
I am aware that the BMA is to ballot its members asking if they are prepared to resign from the NHS in one year's time if a new GP contract and GPC negotiation rights for all family doctors cannot be agreed in the next 12 months. Obviously I am concerned about that development. But the Government are aware of the pressures under which GPs work and have acknowledged that matter on a number of recent occasions. We have launched the PM's commitment to GPs to reduce the bureaucratic burden on them, and our intention in relation to the contract is to develop proposals for a new GP contract. That was set out in the NHS Plan. Work has begun on that internally within the Department of Health. Our aim is to share our early thoughts with the GPC as soon as possible. The GPC's aims and objectives in this respect seem to be very close to those of the Government.
The clause supports the revision of the GP contract in that it removes an unnecessary statutory impediment to progress. However, I am reluctant to go further and accept the noble Earl's amendment because that takes us forward another step. In essence, it would impose a legal constraint around the process of discussion and negotiation. I do not believe that that would be helpful to the current process of negotiation and discussion with the representatives of the profession.
We all accept the principle of linking GPs' pay more closely to improved quality and outcomes. I believe that we shall have the support of the profession in that. We look forward to our discussions with the profession, but I do not believe that imposing legal constraints in the manner suggested would be helpful in that regard.
7 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, although the Minister made some helpful comments, I am disappointed with his reply. The BMA will be particularly disappointed. The noble Lord said that the amendment would have the effect of placing a legal constraint around the process of negotiation. But if it is what everyone wants, I do not see what the argument is. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was right to say that what we appear to have is negotiation by legislation. I am disappointed by that. It seems extraordinary to me that the Government should resist the amendment when the Minister and I both agree that GPs ought to be rewarded for good practice. What we propose would provide an incentive to them to improve the quality of their services to patients. The doctors themselves are happy with that. Nevertheless, it is not an issue I propose to press to a Division today. I may wish to revisit it at Third Reading. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 [Out of hours medical services]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 20, line 43, leave out from "provider"" to end of line 45 and insert "means a person or persons who provide deputies to doctors and includes a body which—
(a) consists only of—

(i) doctors whose names are included in the list, the supplementary list or the services list of a Health Authority, and who arrange to act as deputies to each other, or

(ii) pilot doctors and doctors whose names are included in the list of a Health Authority who co-operate in such a way that one doctor will cover for another to secure the performance of personal medical services or, as the case may be, the provision of general medical services for their patients; and

(b) keeps separate accounts in relation to such arrangements"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 21 is a technical amendment. I assure the Minister that it is designed to be helpful to the Government and I hope that it will be taken in that spirit.
Clause 26(3) defines a "service provider" as a GP principal acting as a deputy for one of his or her patients or a non-principal providing locum cover. I am advised that that is wrong. My amendment defines "service provider" as a co-operative or commercial deputising service. The wording of the amendment is taken from paragraph 22(1) of Schedule 1 of the General Medical Service Regulations. As far as I am aware, the wording in those regulations has proved reasonably satisfactory. For that reason, I hope that the Government will feel disposed to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising this matter. It was my understanding that discussions took place some months ago between the GPC and officials of the department and that agreement was reached that this issue would best be addressed in regulations. That is our intent. I certainly accept the principle behind the suggested amendment and am sympathetic to its aim. I certainly acknowledge that the existing draft of the clause leaves the definition open. However, I believe that the detail of the definition should be dealt with in regulations and I therefore think that it would be inappropriate to accept the amendment.
My reason for saying that is related to handling rather than to any substantive difference. Including a definition on the face of the Bill does not seem the best way to future-proof the legislation because experience shows that out of hours services have been and are characterised by, innovation and variety in their delivery. We are reluctant to be too prescriptive on the face of the Bill. Our preferred approach is therefore to consider a definition on the lines suggested as part of regulations, which will set out the service providers of
152
a specified description who will require approval. I can assure the noble Earl that we shall consult the GPC on those draft regulations.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have to accept the validity of what the Minister has said. No doubt the BMA will take note. I understand the necessity for retaining flexibility in the legislation and future-proofing it. I look forward to reading the regulations when they are published. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 [Medical, dental, ophthalmic and pharmaceutical etc. lists]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 25, line 40, at end insert—
"() In sections 29B, 36, 39, 42, and 43, the expression "grounds of unsuitability" means, in relation to each such person. grounds as would enable the Health Authority (or on appeal the FHSAA) to be satisfied that it is necessary for the protection of members of the public, or is otherwise in the public interest, or is in the interest of such person, that such person is unsuitable for inclusion in the respective list; and elsewhere in this Act the word "unsuitability" shall be construed accordingly."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I return us to an issue that first arose in Committee in another place. As I mentioned in our Committee stage, the Minister in another place said that,
"when we discuss clause 26 we shall propose to adopt the wording of the amendment as the basis for a Government amendment to be tabled on Report, which will set out the circumstances in which a health authority may suspend a practitioner".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 25,1/01; col. 153.]
It did not seem to me that that undertaking had been fulfilled in the changes that the Government made to the Bill at Report stage in another place. However, when I introduced a similar amendment in Committee, the Minister referred to that government amendment and made it clear that he favoured maintaining a distinction between grounds for suspension and grounds for removal. I take note of those points, but to suggest that the government amendment had delivered the commitment made in another place is wrong. That amendment related only to GP suspensions. My amendment is more comprehensive in that it also covers the definition of "unsuitability" referred to in earlier provisions, such as the inclusion or non-inclusion of a GP on a medical list, and removals from the list.
I have proposed the amendment on the advice of the BMA, which believes that it is essential that the term "unsuitability" be defined in relation to all its uses. The wording of the amendment reflects that contained in new Section 41A of the Medical Act 1983, which governs the work of the GMC's interim orders committee for the protection of the public, in the public interest or in the interest of the GP deemed to be unsuitable. That definition of "unsuitability" would help to ensure that health authorities do not remove or suspend a GP or refuse to include a GP on a medical list for spurious reasons. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, although a health authority is accountable for the availability and

153
quality of family health services, it has very limited powers at the moment to refuse a practitioner entry on to its list. More importantly, it has even less power to remove such a practitioner once he is on the list. We are seeking to address the imbalance between accountability and the ability to act decisively to safeguard the quality of family health services authorities.
Our view remains that "unsuitability" is properly capable of a wide interpretation and should be left so. That approach is precedented in other legislation, such as employment rights legislation, and any definition that was set out on the face of the Bill might constrain health authorities' considerations inappropriately. The approach that we have favoured and shall adopt is to set out in regulations the criteria which health authorities must consider without preventing them applying other criteria that they regard and can demonstrate as relevant.
The structure being promulgated by this Bill is not dissimilar to the model used within the GMC's disciplinary process. We are seeking to put in place the ability to react quickly to a situation by issuing a suspension against a practitioner. In such cases we define the health authority's power to act in the same way as the GMC limits its interim orders committee. The suspension is permissible only on the grounds of protecting the public or otherwise in the public interest. The correlation of those words with those put forward in the amendment is no coincidence and reflects our commitment made in another place to align the two suspension regimes in this way.
Once suspension has been considered then, for example, the GMC professional conduct committee considers farther action against the practitioner under the broad heading of "serious professional misconduct". Within our model, after the suspension had been considered, the health authority would judge under the similarly broad heading of "unsuitability". This, we believe, is a balanced and appropriate mechanism, but the amendment seeks to fetter the health authority's ability to act to safeguard the quality of the services it provides to the public by linking them to a definition that is directly comparable to that applied to an interim GMC committee. I do not believe that limiting the action taken by a health authority in this way is appropriate.
In Committee, the noble Earl was concerned that there were different levels of unsuitability: at one level, someone who is dangerous to patients or themselves; and, at the other, someone who does not reach the standards that the health authority might like. I recognise the logic of that statement, but I believe that refusing admission to, or removing a practitioner from, a list is not concerned only with whether a health authority can establish that the practitioner is an immediate danger to patients. I believe that it needs to go wider. It is right and proper that the health authority should also consider whether there is anything in the practitioner's record or behaviour that
154
would cast doubt on his fitness to work within and on behalf of a publicly funded health service.
There are those who argue that seeking to consider, for example, all criminal convictions is an unwarranted intrusion into private life. I disagree with that. To characterise lesser offences and instances of misconduct as being entirely within the private sphere of individual practitioners is to presuppose that such instances can never have any bearing on the efficacy of the doctor/patient relationship.
I acknowledge that there is a risk that a health authority could impose unreasonable conditions on a practitioner when considering suitability and that such an action would not be acceptable. Clearly, we return here to the tension between local decision making and the need for a level and fair playing field. Our guidance to health authorities will spell out the need for their decisions to be proportionate. Furthermore, regulations will provide that health authorities must consider certain issues when reaching a decision. I can assure the House that one of those will he the relevance of the facts to the provision by the individual practitioner of family health services and the likely risk to patients.
I hope that the noble Earl will recognise the similarity between our thinking and that set out in his amendment. However, I think that it would be inappropriate to draft the legislation in such a way that it would prevent the health authority from considering other relevant issues.
As I have indicated, in addition to the regulatory framework and associated guidance under which the health authority will operate we have provided for an independent appeal body, the FHSAA. It will act as an effective check against bad decision making. Appeals to the authority will not be restricted to points of law, but will allow the FHSAA to consider the decision anew. In time, it will also provide a body of case law to which health authorities will need to have regard. We see that as a significant safeguard.
As regards the delivery of a commitment made to the noble Earl's right honourable friend, that commitment was to adopt the wording of the opposition amendment as the basis of a government amendment specifying grounds for suspension. We believe that we have delivered that.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I shall not be unduly difficult over this matter. However, I beg to differ with the Minister that the commitment has been delivered. Nevertheless, I believe that he has replied thoughtfully and in detail to the points that I made, both today and in Committee. I am grateful to him for that.
Clearly, there is a great deal for me to digest. I should like to read Hansard carefully, but I understand the thrust of the points that the Minister has made. In large part, I am reassured by what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Clause 31 [Declaration of financial interests, gifts, etc.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 28, line 13, at end insert "and personal medical services under section 28C arrangements"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 23 and, with the leave of the House, I shall speak also to the amendments in the next grouping, Amendments Nos. 24, 26 and 27, because many of the issues run into each other. I hope that this will not inconvenience noble Lords.
These amendments seek an unequivocal commitment from the Government that consultation and negotiation with the BMA's General Practitioners Committee over PMS regulations should take place on the same basis as they do currently for general medical services issues. I believe that it is essential for GPs in personal medical services schemes to have confidence in the system. They should enjoy the same protection at national level as is provided for colleagues providing general medical services.
The amendments provide for the GPC and other bodies representing relevant health professionals to be consulted when regulations are made relating to national issues. They have been prepared to meet two concerns expressed by the Minister at an earlier stage. The first concern was that the general practitioners committee should not be consulted on regulations which relate to locally negotiated criteria. Amendment No. 23 relates to the regulations as regards the declaration of financial interests, gifts and so forth. The second amendment covers regulations that apply to the preparation of services lists.
The second concern expressed by the Minister was that PMS pilots do not include only GPs. However, I have to say to the Minister that his honourable colleague's portrayal of PMS as locally negotiated, at col. 191 of the Commons Committee stage, appeared to be seriously misleading. The national framework for PMS contracts is set by nationally determined implementation directions and a core contractual framework. Additionally, the NHS Plan states that, from 2004 onwards, there will be an overarching national framework for both PMS and GMS contracts. Thus there is a strong national context for PMS contracts on which national consultation and negotiation with the BMA's GP committee should be required.
Clause 34 provides for new arrangements extending the health authority list system to GPs providing personal medical services. I understand that the BMA supports these provisions which mirror the arrangements to be put in place for GPs providing general medical services. However, there is a serious omission in Clause 34. For GPs providing general medical services, the Secretary of State, before making regulations, is required to,
"consult such organisations as he thinks fit appearing to him to represent medical practitioners providing general medical services".
156
In practice, this means the BMA's general practitioners committee. There is no equivalent provision in Clause 34 to require the Secretary of State to consult with the BMA's GP committee before making regulations relating to GPs providing personal medical services.
The GP committee's sole negotiating rights on behalf of GPs are not conditional on contractual status. I believe, therefore, that it is untenable to argue that a credible distinction can be made between the two in terms of national bargaining arrangements. Changes to either PMS or GMS at national level will have a direct bearing on the other contractual option. Personally, I am fully persuaded that the existing consultation arrangements with the BMA's GP committee on general medical services issues must apply equally to PMS issues. This is a matter of fundamental importance to the BMA. The BMA views GMS and PMS as two sides of the same coin. What happens on one side has an obvious—usually direct—bearing on the other. This interdependence will increase in the future given the Government's intention that PMS and GMS contracts should converge by 2004.
The Department of Health's recognition of the BMA as having sole bargaining rights predates GPs working in personal medical services schemes. For many GPs, not having similar rights to national consultation will cause alarm and may well influence their personal stance towards PMS. At a time when constructive and co-operative dialogue is undoubtedly in the interests of all, it is essential to minimise the sense of suspicion—and even threat—with which some regard the introduction of PMS. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I rise, very briefly, to support the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in this group of amendments. The Minister dealt with some aspects of this issue in Committee but a fundamental question remained. Having read Hansard again, it still remains.
The main question is: why does the department believe that it is appropriate to deal differently as between GMS and PMS? After all, in the NHS Plan the Government referred to creating a single contractual framework covering both GMS and PMS. On reading Hansard we find that in Committee the Minister talked about the fact that the Secretary of State has to approve a PMS scheme and significant variations to the PMS contract, and that in the last resort the Secretary of State has the right to terminate a PMS scheme. All of that seems to be a very good reason for accepting these amendments. If the Secretary of State has such powers in relation to PMS schemes, all the more reason for the statutory right of consultation to be enshrined in the primary legislation.
There are some unanswered questions. I look forward to hearing whether the Minister has a better answer than he had on the previous occasion.
Lord Rea: My Lords, in speaking to the amendment, I should declare an interest. I am a former general

157
practitioner providing not PMS but general medical services, and so, in a sense, it is not my former interest that I shall support.
My noble friend made the point in Committee that PMS pilots and/or schemes which are more than just pilots do not simply include general practitioners; nursing and paramedical personnel are also involved. In answer to that, I should point out that this group of amendments does not in any way stop those health professionals seeking to be represented by their own professional bodies. It refers only to general practitioners who have agreed to provide personal medical services.
To augment some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in order to be able to provide personal medical services you already have to be on a medical list providing general medical services; you are very much the same animal except that the contract is slightly different. However, the basic protection needed is exactly the same for a doctor providing either kind of service.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned, a single contractual framework is the aim, so it is hard to understand how the Government sustain different consultation arrangements with the profession over PMS and GMS when it is so clearly the case that changes to PMS arrangements will impact directly on GMS arrangements and vice versa. These amendments are reasonable and I hope that my noble friend will be able to agree to them.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the simple answer is that there are differences between the two contracting systems. The approach that we have taken rests very much on that principle.
Perhaps I may deal first with Amendment No. 23. It relates to Clause 31, which provides for the declaration of financial interests and gifts by the four family health services contractor professions delivering Part II services under the 1977 Act. The part of Clause 31 to which the noble Earl refers provides for amending the part of the 1977 Act which deals specifically and solely with GMS practitioners.
In effect, Clause 31(2) provides a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult the general practitioners committee before making regulations which apply to GMS doctors about the declaration of financial interests and gifts. Personal medical services are covered by Part I of the 1977 Act. They are subject to different contractual arrangements, including different financial arrangements between the health authority and the particular service provider. The noble Earl's amendment would extend the requirement to consult before making the GMS regulations to organisations which represent PMS doctors. This is surely inappropriate because the regulations made by virtue of Clause 31 will have absolutely no legal impact on PMS doctors.
There are powers in Clause 34 for the Secretary of State to make regulations which will require PMS doctors to declare financial interests and gifts. I can
158
assure your Lordships that for consistency—as far as different contractual arrangements allow—we intend to mirror within PMS and PDS the rules which will be applied in GMS and GDS for declaring gifts and financial interests.
For PMS we shall need to cover providers (the PMS contractor) as well as the PMS doctors (the GPs who perform PMS and whose names will be held on the health authority's list). The declaration of financial interests or gifts by PMS providers will be covered by regulations under Part I or Part II of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997, as appropriate. The 1997 Act does not include a statutory requirement to consult before making regulations, but I can assure the House that before making regulations concerning the financial interests of PMS providers or performers we shall consult interested parties.
Amendments Nos. 24, 26 and 27, which the noble Earl has now grouped with Amendment No. 23, would require in some measure consultation with national organisations representing medical or dent al practitioners working in personal medical or dental services about arrangements for the provision of these services under either piloted or permanent arrangements.
I should stress that, crucial to all PMS and PDS schemes, is the scope and flexibility to negotiate individual local contracts tailored specifically to meet local needs. I should also stress that medical and dental practitioners enter into these contracts voluntarily. On this local level, GP and dental practitioner interests are surely more appropriately represented by the relevant local medical or local dental committees, which are able to focus on particular local issues which more directly affect the local contract development and negotiation.
So far as concerns the impact this will have on the development of LMC and LDC schemes, it is worth recognising that it was the Government's amendments to the Health Act 1999 that ensured that LMCs and LDCs could be recognised as representing those doctors and dentists in PMS or PDS who wished for such representation. This movement to a local level of representation is surely consistent with the desire of many noble Lords to see devolution of power from the centre to a more local level.
The standard national contract between the Secretary of State and general medical practitioners is concerned with the provision of general medical services and remuneration for all those practitioners providing such services. We know—indeed, it has been implied in previous debates—that that contract can prove very blunt in addressing the needs of many communities. That is why we are committed to modernising it.
PMS and PDS contracts are different. The health authority or PCT, whichever is the commissioner, and the PMS or PDS providers individually tailor them. They deal with the particular range of services to be delivered locally and focus on, among other things, the particular negotiated payment or payments for the delivery of these particular services. There is here a

159
significant emphasis on the need for a more flexible and wider approach to consultation that embraces and reflects the range of stakeholders over the whole local health economy to be consulted over proposals to provide PMS. That is not the case when a doctor applies to provide GMS.
The noble Earl has referred to the point, as did the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that PMS is also different from GMS in that GPs are not the only key stakeholders. A PMS provider may be an organisation such as a primary care trust or an NHS trust, or indeed a group of nurses. For that reason we have to involve all organisations representing key professional groups, whether providing or performing PMS and whether under piloting or future permanent arrangements, in ensuring the successful development of PMS. That is why we have set up the PMS implementation group. The GPC has membership of the group, and rightly so; but its membership is set alongside the other key stakeholders.
It would not be right for us to agree a framework in which the GPC could determine nationally the contract that someone could enter into at a local level through its formal negotiating rights. The proper locus for BMA representation of its members in PMS is locally through the LMC. It is also worth pointing out that it is a voluntary option for PMS GPs. Each is free to opt to be represented by the LMC. Surely that is right and it is consistent with the position of PMS as a local voluntary option.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, felt that the arrangements would prejudice the future of PMS. All I can say is that the evidence is that PMS has been outstandingly successful. I believe that a thousand new pilot schemes will be joining in the third wave. I do not believe that the arrangements that we are setting up will inhibit that process. I believe that the ability of the LMC to act on behalf of PMS GPs at local level provides the required degree of protection for individual GPs.
7.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am disappointed by that answer. The Minister was right to say that there are differences between the two contracting systems. However, the principle that the GPC should be consulted regardless of the nature of the contractual relationship is a matter of fundamental equity.
As the Minister said, PMS involves GPs providing their services under Part 1 of the regulations; and those arrangements have flexibilities which allow GPs to become salaried doctors, paid by a local health authority or primary care trust in England. It is also possible to retain independent contractor status under PMS, and most doctors have chosen to do so. The crucial difference is that PMS doctors have individual local contracts even though there is, as I emphasised earlier, a strong national framework for those local contracts.
Again, the Minister is right to say that this is a voluntary option. No one is forcing a doctor to undertake PMS status. But given that the aim of the
160
NHS Plan is to create a single contractual framework—pragraph 8.9 of the NHS Plan refers to "a single contractual framework" covering both GMS and PMS—I fail to see how the Government can sustain different consultation arrangements with the profession over PMS and GMS when it is clearly the case that changes to PMS arrangements will impact directly on GMS arrangements, and vice versa.
Nevertheless, I am once again grateful to the Minister for the clarification that he was able to offer of the Government's perspective on these issues. He went further than he did in Committee and I shall read his response carefully. I reserve the right to return to this matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 [PMS and PDS lists]:
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 40, line 34, at end insert—
"() In this section "perform" includes "provide"."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I return in this amendment to a technical issue that I raised in Committee on behalf of the BMA. The issue is indeed technical, but the BMA continues to feel strongly about it.
The clause refers to health authorities preparing lists of,
"medical practitioners who perform personal medical services".
The BMA's contention is that the term "perform" is too narrow and that there ought to be a specific reference to the "providing" of services, which is genuinely distinct. The distinction is recognised in the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997. Part I of the Act consistently uses the word "provide" where reference is made to a pilot scheme agreement.
I drew the Minister's attention particularly to Section 11(1), where the distinction between "provide" and "perform" is clearly drawn. A provider is defined as a PMS contract holder; a performer is a,
"medical practitioner who performs personal medical services",
and who may or may not be the contract holder.
In Committee, the Minister suggested that the amendment was unnecessary and pointed out that the term "providers" included NHS trusts and PCTs. He also said that there are adequate mechanisms in place to regulate the performance of the providers.
The Minister's answer has not satisfied the BMA, which believes that the Minister has failed to address himself to the points that I made in Committee and again today. I hope that he will have had an opportunity to reflect further on those points since we last debated them and that he will now be able to give me a more encouraging answer. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have, as the noble Earl requested, reflected on my response to the points he raised in Committee. However, reconsideration has not persuaded me to revise my approach. Perhaps I may spell out why that is.

161
The NHS Plan that we published set out our proposals for new mechanisms as part of a package of measures designed to protect patients and help doctors to deliver consistently high quality services. The arrangements are not just about GMS GPs or even other family health service providers. At present, health authority lists regulate only the work of principal FAS practitioners. Our proposals in the Bill are to extend health authority lists to cover practitioners or others who assist in the provision of Part 2 family health services. Clause 32 provides for that. We also propose in Clause 34 to extend health authority lists to cover those practitioners who work under Part 1 arrangements; that is, practitioners working in PMS and PDS.
As we know, the legal framework for PMS differs from that for GMS. Whereas in GMS there is a distinction between the principal GP and those doctors who assist him to deliver GMS, there is no such distinction in PMS. All doctors who work in PMS are performers. Therefore, we need only one list to regulate those doctors who perform personal medical services.
The provisions of the current clause apply to PMS performers—those doctors who deliver personal medical services to their patients. As the noble Earl suggested, the amendment would extend the services list to include PMS providers. Providers are the persons who contract with a health authority or a primary care trust to provide personal medical services. In the main, they are GP practices but they need not be. PMS may be provided by a primary care trust but only, I stress, in contract with its health authority and not with itself. It may be provided by a community trust or by a nurse-led provider organisation. Some of these are NHS bodies. We think it would be inappropriate for such organisations as NHS trusts and PCTs to be required to be included on health authority service lists.
As the noble Earl said, we need to regulate and performance manage PMS providers. But surely we already have such mechanisms and the ability to regulate providers and their performance to an extent which would, I suggest, meet the intention of the noble Earl and make this amendment unnecessary. For a start, the Secretary of State has to approve a pilot scheme. This can only follow a transparent local consultation exercise, which will test whether the potential provider and proposals for delivering the services command local support.
Similarly, the Secretary of State has to approve significant variations to the PMS contract. He also has the ability to initiate variations to the terms of a contract. Additionally, the commissioner has a role as regards its overall contract negotiation and performance management and functions. In the final resort, the Secretary of State has the right to terminate a pilot scheme. I can tell noble Lords that we intend to put in place similar arrangements and provisions for PMS/PDS under permanence.
Additionally, there would be an unintentional but unfortunate outcome if the amendment were to be adopted. Subsection (1) of Section 28DA of the 1977
162
Act limits the persons to be included in the services list to medical and dental practitioners. As a result of the interaction between that subsection and Section 28DA, PMS and PDS providers would be restricted to only practitioners. That, of course, cuts directly across the intentions and provisions in the primary care Act, which would be extremely regrettable.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that very full reply. Perhaps some of us on these Benches suffer from finding this an extremely technical subject; indeed, it is very obstruse. Once again, I shall have to take the matter away and consider most carefully what the Minister said. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord for taking such trouble in answering the points that I made. I am still troubled because of the BMA's insistence that there is a real point at issue here. In the past, I have found the BMA a pretty reliable barometer of legal points. Nevertheless, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]
Clause 35 [The Family Health Services Appeal Authority]
[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
Clause 36 [Pilot schemes]:
[Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.]
7.45 p.m.
Clause 39 [Reviews of pilot schemes]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 49, line 14, at end insert—
"(5) The review referred to in this section must include a review of—

(a) the impact of the pilot scheme on patient services;

(b) the cost effectiveness to the NHS of the pilot scheme; and

(c) the impact of the pilot scheme on retail competition.

(6) The relevant authority shall publish a report detailing the conclusions of each review under this section."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, when we reached the end of the Committee proceedings I was conscious that we had done less than full justice to some of the more detailed aspects of the provisions for LIPS pilots, which, although a relatively uncontentious element in the Bill, nevertheless points the NHS towards some uncharted waters. This amendment relates to an important aspect of those pilot schemes; namely, the need to review the way that they have operated in practice and to draw the appropriate lessons therefrom.
Clause 39 provides for a mandatory review of each pilot scheme within three years of its commencement date. That is a welcome provision. But the clause is largely silent about what form the review should take. It seems to me that the clause leaves it open to the Secretary of State to adopt a fairly narrow approach and assess a pilot scheme purely in terms of its effectiveness in delivering a dispensing service to

163
patients. Of course, that would be an important aspect of any review, as would an assessment of how cost effective the pilot scheme had been for the NHS. However, there are surely wider dimensions that should also be taken into account. One of these is the effect that a pilot scheme may have had on retail competition.
However much we may welcome the idea of these pilot schemes in principle, the fact remains that they could interfere quite seriously in certain circumstances with commercial freedoms. For example, they could easily impair the commercial viability of village pharmacies. The closure of a village pharmacy as a result of the removal of a slice of its turnover by an LPS pilot would no doubt be felt acutely by the local community. Similarly, the whole concept of allowing exclusive arrangements to be established with a particular provider and the designation of priority neighbourhoods under Clause 38 means that, inevitably, other legitimate businesses will be debarred from setting up shop in that area for as long as the designation lasts.
The fact that there may be benefits flowing from an LPS pilot should not obscure the fact that it also has the potential to distort markets and inhibit normal business freedoms. My amendment is intended purely to probe the Minister's thinking. I am sure that he will tell me that the amendment is defective. I readily acknowledge that it really should contain the words "in particular" or "inter alia", if it is not to be read as excluding all other sorts of consideration from the scope of a review, apart from the three headings that are already listed. My main wish is to hear from the Minister that the review process will be a thorough and comprehensive one. It needs to look not simply at the NHS and at cost effectiveness in a narrow sense; it needs also to look at all the identifiable consequences of a pilot scheme.
It is also important that the conclusions of each and every review should be placed in the public domain. We have seen with NHS Direct what can happen when a pilot scheme is rolled out nationwide before its strengths and weaknesses have been properly evaluated. Lessons could, and should, have been learnt from the initial wave of NHS Direct. We are now living with the consequences of implementation being hurried.
Clause 39 specifies who must be allowed to feed in their views to the review process, but the list is a short one. It does not include any person outside the narrow loop of the health authority and the service provider. For example, there is no mention of patients, of businesses or of ordinary members of the public. It would be helpful to have some reassurance from the Minister that there is no intention to exclude the views of interested parties from the evidence that is collated. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for allowing us to debate a little more fully tonight the parts of the Bill that relate to local pharmaceutical services. I believe
164
that they are most important parts of the Bill, and that the potential of community pharmacists to offer more services to the public is at least near to being realised. Over the past 20 years, community pharmacists as a profession have argued long and hard that there is more that they could do to serve the public. It seems to me that that message is hitting home.
The noble Earl mentioned NHS Direct. There are currently pilot schemes in place through which people can be referred to a community pharmacist in cases where that advice would be appropriate. I believe that those pilots have shown encouraging results and will be applied nationally within a fairly short period of time. They will send a powerful message to the public about the role and value of the advice and services which pharmacists can provide. Local pharmaceutical services underpin all of that. They enable local contracts to be developed, which will act as an incentive for community pharmacies to offer a greater quality and range of services which undoubtedly will be in the interests of the public.
I very much agree with the noble Earl that thoroughly reviewing and evaluating pilot schemes is of great importance. I assure him that we intend to put in place an overall evaluation programme, blending both national and local elements, to ensure that we learn as much as we can about how LPS can best be used to improve services for local people. Reviews of individual schemes will form a key part of that overall programme as well as providing an opportunity to take stock of each scheme.
Naturally I fully accept that those reviews will need to be thorough. However, although I agree with the noble Earl about the importance of thoroughness, I am not convinced that primary legislation is the best place for a list of the topics to be covered. The words we already have in the clause are taken directly from the existing provision for personal medical and dental services in the 1997 Act. They deliberately provide flexibility so that the procedure can be determined in the light of experience rather than having to operate within a predetermined format.
I do not need to point out to the noble Earl the risk of including too much detail in primary legislation. As ever, once you start to list things, you leave out other important issues which ought to be considered. The amendment mentions the impact on patient services, for example, but not the impact on patient health. It mentions cost-effectiveness for the National Health Service, but not accessibility for patients, although, of course, I understand that it is a probing amendment.
I turn to the issue of the impact of LPS on the retail market and on the businesses of community pharmacists. The noble Earl mentioned rural pharmacists in particular. I expect that patient services reviews of LPS schemes will have to take into account the retail market, to the extent that it is relevant to the provision of health and healthcare—through the availability of over-the-counter medicines, for example.
However, I do not think that it would be appropriate for reviews of individual pilot schemes to attempt a detailed analysis of changes in retail

165
competition more generally. The Secretary of State's prime concern must surely be with the services available for NHS patients, but clearly if the retail environment has an impact on that it will have to be considered.
Of course I recognise the commercial environment in which community pharmacists have to operate. In the NHS pharmacy plan we have sought to steer a careful balance between seeking to ensure that the integrity of community pharmacies is maintained—for the very reasons the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has suggested—and introducing innovation. The retail environment is tough and competitive for retail pharmacies. That is not a matter for government, but it is my firm belief that those community pharmacists who respond positively to the enormous opportunities available to increase their services have nothing to fear either from the pharmacy plan or from the LPS pilots. Having said that, I hope that the noble Earl will accept that we are committed to a proper evaluation of the pilots and that we take on board the points he has made.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. I agree with him that pharmacists are an under-utilised resource in primary care. The development that the Government propose is thoroughly welcome.
As regards the reviews of the pilot schemes, I applaud the fact that the review process will be thorough. As the Minister indicated, it will also be a cumulative process in the sense that lessons will be learned from each review and applied more widely. I regret that the Minister could not have said a little more about the transparency of the review process although I dare say that that omission was not deliberate. I understand that the review process cannot be defined in any detail in advance. There will be an element of "suck it and see".
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl for not addressing the issue of publication. I do not think that it is appropriate to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s at this stage. We shall want to disseminate the lessons learned from pilots. We shall want to share good practice and learn from what works and what does not. However, it would be premature at this stage to decide whether we should publish in full the detail of every individual review, some of which, as the noble Earl implied, may be commercially sensitive or relate to individual pharmacies. However, as the noble Earl said, this is a continuing process and we are committed to ensuring that lessons are learned as quickly as possible in order to inform other LPS pilots.
Earl Howe: My Lords, that is a helpful intervention for which I am grateful. It is useful to be given those reassurances. I recognise the deficiencies in any list system. The Minister is right to say that the amendment is probing only. However, I am glad that there is no intention on the Government's part to establish narrow terms of reference for each review
166
that might exclude certain kinds of consideration a priori. That does not appear to be the case in any way. This has been a helpful albeit short debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 [NHS contracts]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 33:
Leave out Clause 41.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have tabled this amendment once again as a means of probing the Minister on a number of issues relating to LPS pilots. My first question is a simple one and relates to the total sum available to implement LPS pilots. How will that sum be distributed? What order of money will it comprise? Can the resources provided from the central health service budget be augmented in any way at local level? If so, what discretion will health authorities have to do that?
In the Explanatory Notes to Clause 41 there is the interesting statement in paragraph 201 that,
"NHS contracts are not normally enforceable in the Courts".
I am sure that there is a good reason for that and it is obviously something that has persisted for many years. Nevertheless, it raises all kinds of questions when one looks at the matter from the point of view of, let us say, a company that wishes to enter a pilot scheme. A company entering a pilot scheme will usually find that it needs to invest substantial capital in terms of premises, facilities and people to deliver the pharmaceutical services that the NHS requires. However, in order to do that it will have to go through a number of hoops, or at least that is certainly one of the options. The hoop that I am particularly thinking of is that of turning itself into a health service body for the purposes of the scheme. As the Explanatory Notes explain, the contract that it enters will not be a legally binding contract in the normally accepted sense of the term. It will be an arrangement with the Secretary of State as defined in the 1990 legislation.
If I were standing in the shoes of a pharmacist contemplating making such an arrangement, I would stop to reflect. If I am aware that the contract on offer cannot be legally enforced, and if, furthermore, as we see from Clause 40, it is a contract that can be brought to an end at the behest of the Secretary of State acting alone, I should seriously question the wisdom of going any further. The Minister does not need reminding that one of the main hurdles which had to be jumped with regard to the PFI was the need to give the private sector the confidence that any contract into which it entered with an NHS trust could be treated as a contract with the Secretary of State; and that the Secretary of State would be strictly bound by law by that contract. In the absence of such an assurance, the PFI would not have got off the ground.
I cannot help being worried that LPS pilots may stumble at that same hurdle. What confidence can a pharmacist have when investing his capital that the Secretary of State will not revoke the contract at some unspecified date in the future, leaving him high and dry? Without cancellation penalties built into the

167
contract, the whole arrangement looks extremely one sided in terms of risk taking. All the risk lies with the private sector operator. But even cancellation penalties would be of little use because, as the Explanatory Notes make clear, the provisions of the contract cannot be enforced in the courts.
Can the Minister shed some light on these issues? We all want LPS pilots to be given the fairest possible wind. But can the noble Lord say what reassurance a private sector provider of pharmaceutical services will ultimately have that the arrangement he enters into will not be revoked prematurely, and will have what he would regard as a first-class covenant at the other end of it? I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I hope that I can reassure the noble Earl. Perhaps I may refer, first, to the global sum. The details have not been fully worked out so I cannot give the noble Earl details. However, we would expect that moneys from the global sum would be used for the funding of local pharmaceutical services. That is entirely appropriate because, under LPS schemes agreed, where there will be dispensing, it is entirely appropriate that the remuneration of community pharmacists should come from that sum. Equally, I fully accept that there may well be LPS schemes where services are being developed and some of the funding will come out of health authorities' own budgets. I cannot go into further details but we expect to see some flexibility here.
The noble Earl raised the concept of the NHS contract. I think that he should turn to his noble friend behind him, who was largely responsible for this concept. It is a technical term covering arrangements between health service bodies. It was originally designed for contracts between health authorities and NHS trusts within the internal market, although since then the use of NHS contracts has been extended to other circumstances, including personal medical service pilots. The contracts which NHS bodies make with other people, and the employment contracts of their staff, are legal contracts in the normal way.
Having given that background in reassuring the noble Earl, I must stress that the LPS is an entirely voluntary system. The clause sets out a system which is entirely voluntary. Nothing in the Bill requires participants in local pharmaceutical services pilot schemes to apply to become health service bodies. It gives them that option. The effect of becoming a Health service body is that providers will be able to base their arrangements with health authorities on an NHS contract rather than on an ordinary legal contract. That means that in—it is to be hoped they will be rare—cases of dispute the issues will be put for resolution to the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales rather than being fought out in the courts. This should be a help to some of the small community pharmacists to whom the noble Earl referred in our previous debate. It could avoid costly
168
and time-consuming legal proceedings although the outcome of the dispute resolution process will be enforceable by the courts.
I fully accept that this option may not appeal to all potential participants in pilot schemes. That is why it is voluntary. But others may prefer the less legalistic option offered by an NHS contract. It is perhaps worth bearing in mind that pharmacists at present do not have a legal contract with the NHS. Instead, they sign up to a statutory scheme of terms of service and remuneration. The use of NHS contracts is already common for personal medical services and there does not seem any reason why we should deny participants in LPS the same choice. Of course, because the option is voluntary, it seems to me that it provides the safeguards the noble Earl requires.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, as my name has been blackened as the architect of NHS contracts, which I freely admit, it is as well to put it in the context of designing the reforms of the early 1990s. At that stage, we contemplated only arrangements between different parts of the NHS. By making them have no legal effect, we avoided significant costs, time, and the unnecessary diversion of energy in resorting to legal process for what were to be wholly internal matters.
I think that that underlines the point raised by the noble Earl. That concept was designed for wholly intra-NHS arrangements. It was not contemplated that it would be used outside that area. I share the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Howe that those from the commercial sector will not wish to enter into contracts which are not real contracts, and put themselves at the mercy of the Secretary of State rather than the due legal process.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that helpful explanation. All I say is that this option is voluntary. If commercial organisations do not wish to take advantage of it they are completely free not to do so. But some community pharmacists may wish to do so. I think that we should give them the option.
Earl Howe: My Lords, it has been a useful exchange. I am grateful to my noble friend for her contribution.
The Minister is right that the option is voluntary. However, I do not believe that we should do anything to put people off. There are advantages to the private sector operator of becoming a health service body. I should have thought that there were also advantages for the NHS in having private sector operators opt for that route. It would be unfortunate if this feature of the scheme discouraged them.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to respond. It is not intended in any way to inhibit LPS schemes. If a commercial operator wishes to go down the route of a normal legal contract, he will be able to do so. But we are offering greater flexibility. I can envisage

169
circumstances in which the local small rural community pharmacist might think that the NHS contract would be a better option for him or her.
Earl Howe: My Lords, again, I am grateful to the Minister. He did not comment on the provisions relating to termination of contract. I find it somewhat unsettling that the Secretary of State acting alone could bring contracts to an end. I hope that there might be provision, at least in legally enforceable contracts, for a cancellation penalty or perhaps even a guaranteed return ticket for the operators, enabling them to provide Part 2 services under the 1977 Act once the pilot is at an end. I should like some reassurance that they will not be left stranded.
Those matters will need to be worked out. I am sure that there is still some work to do in that regard. I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Racial Harassment
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Prashar Baroness Prashar rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to Racial Harassment: Action on the Ground, a report by Gerard Lemos for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and to the proposals for improving services for tackling racist incidents and harassment in the United Kingdom.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this excellent report, Racial Harassment: Action on the Ground, is about tackling intolerance and its manifestations in the form of racial attacks and racial harassment. As we all know, racial crimes are on the increase. The research conducted by Lemos and Crane and supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation is timely and its aims were simple but large. The research gathered all the available guidance issued over the past two decades and looked at whether the action recommended was being implemented and whether it was working. The report also makes some practical and thoughtful proposals.
The research looked at five main topics: multi-agency working, reporting and monitoring, support for victims and witnesses, action against perpetrators and training of the staff involved.
The report concluded that, while compliance has greatly improved since the publication of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report, it is still far from universal. In too many areas, local agencies are merely developing strategies, planning, co-ordinating and liasing without a similar commitment to acting, supporting and enforcing. Since much of the guidance on tackling racial harassment has been around for more than a decade, plans and strategies ought by now
170
to have been made and acted upon. However, the report found a lack of urgency and patchy implementation.
The report also found that in some areas, including some big cities with problems, multi-agency working had still not been established or that it was still struggling to be effective. There are major gaps that need to be filled.
Despite the increase in the reporting of racist crimes, many incidents still go unreported. Victims generally receive minimal support and only in the immediate aftermath of an attack. Little support is available over an extended period. Much of what is described as counselling is in fact advice. No action is taken against most perpetrators and many front-line staff, by their own admission, lack the confidence, knowledge and skills to deal with the problem.
The authors of the report recommend that policy-makers and regulators of the police, local government and social landlords need actively to think about developing their guidance and inspection regimes for tackling racial harassment as part of other emerging policy strands, such as neighbourhood renewal and other crime reduction initiatives, and that the regulatory bodies should set new standards and codes of practice for dealing with racial harassment and ensure that the agencies that they regulate are given clear guidance and performance indicators. The report found that much of what currently exists is simply too old or out of date.
Much more importantly, the report concludes that even if everything that has been recommended was implemented—and it certainly should be—still more needs to be done. The authors highlight three priority areas for action.
First, the report draws attention to the fact that the Macpherson report called for victims of racist attacks, their relatives and witnesses to be able to report incidents 24 hours a day in places other than police stations. On the ground, that is leading to the establishment of what has come to be known as third-party reporting centres, so that incidents can be reported at places such as mosques and community centres. That approach is welcome, not least because it involves a range of local organisations and agencies in the fight against racial crimes. However, many of those interviewed for the research questioned whether that was enough to ensure that victims and witnesses felt confident and safe.
The report recommends the alternative of establishing a national helpline, akin to Childline or the Samaritans and run by an independent agency, to which people could report racist incidents that they and others had experienced. The agency could put victims in touch with relevant agencies in their area, as well as triggering a response from the enforcement agencies. That would also ensure a more rapid, consistent and effective response and allow the Government and others to monitor the true extent of the problem and the effectiveness of the responses.
We know that the real consequences of racial crime are long-term exclusion, fear and isolation, as well as short-term terror. With the exceptions of agencies such as the Monitoring Group in west London and the Alert project in east London, advice services provided by volunteers are currently the best that is available in most areas. In many areas, even that is not available. It is hard to believe that those services effectively and thoroughly address the possible long-term harmful consequences of racial attacks.
With that in mind, the report's second proposal is for a national network of support centres for victims of racial attacks, perhaps connected together like citizens advice bureaux and operating under a single name with common approaches and standards. The report suggests that such centres would work closely with victim support, but their support for victims of racial attacks would be more in-depth, specialist and long term.
As a society, we are becoming good at the rhetoric of not tolerating intolerance, but not so good at inculcating tolerance. If we are serious about creating an inclusive society, we need to make a serious impact on changing the behaviour of perpetrators. That means a much closer understanding of their motives, anxieties and fears. The report rightly appeals for more imaginative, open-minded and courageous responses to work with the perpetrators of crime. The research also revealed some impressive problem-solving approaches to policing in areas such as Nottinghamshire, the evolving approaches to restorative justice in Thames Valley and good practice in some probation areas.
If our long-term goal is an open and tolerant society in which difference is welcomed, such approaches hold more promise than just punishment and coercion. The report therefore urges more research into the motives and behaviour of perpetrators, the effectiveness of current enforcement strategies and the need to go beyond compliance—which is important—to innovation.
Much of the discussion of issues such as institutional racism has been clouded by a dispute not just about what is going on, but about what we as a society are trying to achieve. The report reveals that objectives are often far from clear and are frequently matters of dispute. Some organisations, such as campaigning and specialist groups, see racial harassment and racist attacks as evidence of continuing unchallenged discrimination in our society. Their objective, therefore, is to expose and challenge discrimination. They talk of the need to send out anti-racist messages. Social landlords and police services, on the other hand, tend to see their objectives in terms of enforcement—identifying and deterring perpetrators or imposing sanctions. But exclusive focus on enforcement is not the whole answer; it is only part of the answer. We need much more.
We need a different set of objectives, as proposed by this report. Rightly, the first objective must be to make people—that is, the victims and potential victims of
172
these crimes—feel safe. The second objective must be to seek to change, and not only to punish and challenge, attitudes and behaviour of perpetrators of racial attacks. That does not mean excusing unacceptable intolerance and racist behaviour, but stopping unacceptable behaviour.
The overarching objective, to use Isaiah Berlin's formulation, then becomes giving people freedom from racist attacks in order that they may have freedom for secure, active and fulfilling participation in all aspects of our civil society.
Against the background of recent events, the recommendations of this report are even more urgent. There is a need to move from simply compliance to more constructive and imaginative initiatives towards the perpetrators. Therefore, I strongly urge the Government to consider seriously the innovative proposals in the report and to take action.
8.22 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, in the past few weeks the media have exercised our minds on the issue of race. They have begged the question: where are we in the struggle to promote good community relations in our country?
Those of us who have been engaged actively on the ground are often at a loss to answer the questions put to us. What have we achieved? Are race relations better today than they were in the 1950s and 1960s? What impact do people of colour have on the UK? Has their presence really put the identity of the white British in jeopardy? Do the British, who have fought two world wars, feel so threatened by colonisation in reverse? We are talking of only between 4 million and 5 million people of colour.
On current analysis, people of colour are in the main under-represented in the higher echelons of British society. They still suffer in education and in the jobs market; and their potential is under-valued and under-utilised; and they are over-represented in the penal institutions. Their main aims are the same as those of other British people. Therefore, are they really a threat?
It is with those thoughts rumbling in my head that I welcomed the report by Gerard Lemos, Racial Harassment: Action on die Ground. The bringing together of the many initiatives that have been put in place and the careful analysis of their impact is worthy of appreciation. As a worker in the field for many years, I add my congratulations and, I hope, those of the House to Gerard Lemos and his team. I congratulate especially the institutions, both public and private, which have been able to share their ideas for tackling the crime of racial harassment.
Racial harassment is a unique phenomenon. It has its origins in the Aryan myth of white superiority over any other group. It is not teasing; it is not joking; it is not leg-pulling. It is a barbaric act. It has its foundation in hate and has led to murder, to fear of entrapment and to untold crises in all areas of our green and pleasant land. It is not a pastime of hooligans on estates where there are other social needs.

173
It exists in the most salubrious areas of our country. Ask the comedian, Lenny Henry, and his wife what it is like to live in a salubrious area and to go to bed at night with the feeling that one is under siege from persons one has never met. One is unaware why one has offended. It is a frightening and intolerable experience. Excrement is thrown at the door; fire bombs are regularly posted through the letter box; there are abusive letters full of hate; and threats of being beaten up and families being blown up—murdered in their beds because of the colour of their skin. I learned a long time ago that the English feel that their home is their castle. People of colour live "in the castle of their skin".
To be on bad terms with one's neighbour is not a pleasant experience, but to be hated by otherwise very nice people because one is black defies common understanding. Such acts in this country are not only vexatious incidents; they are degrading. They create ghettos and breed the disease that only unreasonable hate can foster. Everyone is affected by it, no matter who they are or where they live.
That is why I urge the House to give thought in the usual way to this report and to encourage action on its findings and recommendations. It is not enough to say, "I am not a racist myself". That can oppose real action. But a subtle, more ingrained resistance is required in recognising the need for reform. In order to correct race hate, we must all admit that it exists. Too often, we try to fortify ourselves against such an admission.
Racism is a complex issue, and racial harassment is an overt form of its manifestation. For reasons that defy human dignity, people of colour have been harassed through being denied the necessary access to improve their status. The UK must be congratulated on the strenuous efforts that it has made to overcome the barriers of racial prejudice. We must now deal with those who, by exhibiting race hate through racial harassment, seek to undermine the good work that is being done. For that reason, I recommend and support the eight policy implications listed in the report. I urge noble Lords to support all its recommendations.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, it is characteristic of the commitment to equality shown by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, that she has initiated a debate in such powerful terms on a subject of such pressing public importance. We are grateful to her for giving us the opportunity to find out the Government's response to the Lemos report and to its practical proposals for tackling racist incidents and harassment.
As we have heard, those incidents threaten the life, limb and basic security of ethnic and religious minorities everywhere and the reputation of this country as a civilised, liberal society. They are not confined to black and Asian communities, who in particular feel the rub; for example, it is all too common for Jewish students to be harassed and for synagogues to require protection against anti-Semitic threats of violence.
174
I shall concentrate on an aspect of the problem with which the Lemos report does not deal but which is highly topical. It concerns the responsibility of politicians. The importance of the link between politics and race relations is demonstrated by the findings of the Metropolitan Police, reported in last Sunday's Observer, that provocative speeches on immigration and asylum can trigger an increase in hate crimes and racial harassment.
In 1993, together with my noble friend Lord Tope, I was given the difficult task of co-chairing an inquiry into the conduct of the Tower Hamlets Liberal Democrats in publishing allegedly racist election literature. We were greatly assisted by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, who was appointed, I hasten to emphasise, not as a Liberal Democrat bill by the Commission for Racial Equality as an independent member of the inquiry.
Our report was published in December 1993. It is all too relevant today, as we approach another general election. We took pains in our report to set out principles that had guided our inquiry but which had not previously been much written about or thought about by politicians.
We observed that the right to free and unfettered political speech and debate is fundamental to a liberal open society. The electorate are entitled to the free flow of information and to robust and uninhibited opinions about parties' policies and about political controversies of all kinds. In the course of effective political campaigning, there are bound to be statements and leaflets that offend or anger those with opposing political views. No one and no issue can be immune from public debate.
However, if the right to freedom of political speech and public debate is essential, it is not an absolute right without limits. There are other fundamental democratic values that we especially cherish. They include an unequivocal commitment to the principles of racial and religious toleration, accompanied by cultural diversity, in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance and respect.
We observed that, because of the vital importance of those principles, political activity must not be allowed to be abused in the competition for the popular vote. Such activity must seek to avoid stirring up prejudice and discrimination, whether blatantly or covertly.
We noted that good intentions are of crucial importance but that they are not enough; there is also a need for sound judgment. Political campaigners have to be sensitive to the likely effects of what they say and do in the pursuit of political goals, and they should acknowledge and learn from mistakes involving carelessness or a lack of sensitivity. On an issue as central as this to democratic values, the outcome of what is done as well as the motive and intent are what really matter.
We also reported that to make such a statement is not to seek to impose some form of rigid self censorship or "political correctness" on politicians. It is merely to recognise that which should be self-evident; namely, that free speech is not be misused in

175
the name of political freedom, and that race, religion and cultural differences should never be used as political weapons. Noble Lords will know that there are many ways in which politicians can covertly pander to racial prejudice in a way that helps only the BNP and leads to racist prejudice, harassment and violent crime.
In our conclusions we expressed the hope that all three main political parties would endorse those basic principles and introduce effective measures to combat the use of race as a political weapon. That is why the Commission for Racial Equality decided to try to accomplish what we sought to do, and it has attempted to do so ever since. We on these Benches believe—I am sure that this view is shared across the House—that by sticking to a few basic principles, political campaigns can be conducted fairly and without racial hatred and prejudice.
I am sorry to say that when our report was published, the present Home Secretary immediately went on television to denounce it as a "whitewash" without even having read it. That was completely inaccurate and is the kind of politics that we need to avoid when we compete for the popular vote.
I hope that all three political parties will not only say the right thing but do the right thing as we approach the coming election. We recall Sir Edward Heath's principled example as leader of the Conservative Party when he disowned Enoch Powell after his "rivers of blood" speech. That fine example needs to be followed today by everyone who believes in a genuinely liberal and inclusive society and who wishes to combat the insidious social evil of racial violence, which currently disfigures our country.
8.34 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, on putting this Question and on the positive way in which she introduced this important report.
My noble friend Lady Howells graphically described the impact of racial harassment on the person who is the target. We are speaking of the child who is attacked at school, the mother who dare not shop alone, the student who has to telephone his family when he goes out at night, the shopkeeper whose shop is routinely pillaged and the family who live in isolation under threats and petty assaults from their neighbours. Indeed, the effects of this kind of persecution, day in and day out—whether from chance encounters or close neighbours—are felt by tens of thousands of families.
Nearly 48,000 such incidents were reported nationally to the police last year—well over 100 every day. That is bad enough, but the British Crime Survey, which is generally taken as a more accurate record because it deals with under-reporting, gave an estimate of 280,000 incidents in 1999, which is more than six times as many.
There are significantly more incidents in poorer areas and a significantly greater percentage in rural areas. For instance, in Northumbria one in 12—nearly
176
8 per cent—of people from ethnic minorities experiences racist incidents. In Devon and Cornwall, the figure is more than 6 per cent. For conurbations, the corresponding figure is less than 2 per cent in the Metropolitan Police area and in Greater Manchester. In areas with a very high ethnic minority population, the figure is lower: less than 1.5 per cent in West Yorkshire and just over 1.5 per cent in the West Midlands.
It seems that the countryside is not a repository of tolerance, respect for difference or even respect for life for all who live there. I should add that the figures for Scotland are too scanty to analyse and that figures about the experience of Roma and gypsy people are not identifiable although, as the Council of Europe's Commission against Racism and Intolerance says, the extent of harassment of Roma asylum seekers in the UK is a cause for concern. Better information needs to be collected. There is no doubt about the widespread extent of racial harassment.
In respect of the legal framework—in the Crime and Disorder Act—the Government have responded well by recognising racial harassment as a serious additional element in offences. The adoption of the definition in the Lawrence inquiry report—it defines a racist incident as one that is so perceived by the victim—has been helpful as a trigger for police investigations. It is, of course, unhelpful to assume that the subjective definition is meant to characterise an incident if investigation shows that it was not racist; and, if newspaper reports are to be relied on, it is unfortunate if a judge perpetuates that misunderstanding. But legal powers, as the report says, are not enough on their own to change attitudes.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, pointed out, the report emphasises that not enough is known about those who are responsible for racial harassment. For that reason the Runnymede Trust, of which I am a trustee, is developing a new research project on the motivation of perpetrators and on effective ways in which to deal with them. I hope that more work will be done.
I strongly agree with the endorsement by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, of the report's call for a national helpline that is locally available. Is it not odd that we have a national childline for children to complain of abuse and refuges from domestic violence but nothing for the very widespread dangers of racial harassment? Less than one-third of the areas surveyed in the report had a 24-hour helpline even to give advice. I mention my own council, Camden, whose racial harassment task group has such a helpline, offering nine languages to the caller. I ask the Minister what national arrangements of that sort can be put in place?
Perhaps he can also say something about further action for Internet Watch in relation to complaints about racial harassment on the Internet? And what is the Community Legal Service able to offer? I tried to call it up on the Internet and I could not see racial harassment on the list of crimes to ask advice about.

177
Can my noble friend assure me that the Community Legal Service will specify race crimes in its advice service?
The UK makes a regular report to the Committee of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The committee commented on the latest UK report in August of last year, expressing concern over racial harassment and saying that there should be an interdepartmental strategy to combat racial discrimination. It said, as it has before, that the UK has not yet given full effect to all the convention provisions and that UK citizens still do not have the right to refer racist incidents to the committee. One demonstration of the Government's intentions to combat racial harassment would be the extension of this ordinary right to its citizens, to give confidence that all should be able to enjoy the very ordinary kinds of safety that we expect: freedom from fear in going about the business of day-to-day living—going to school, to shop, to work, to worship, to go out in the evening, to stay in in the evening without turning our homes into fortresses.
If we get the system right, people will feel safe in the knowledge that their reporting will be taken seriously, action will follow, and the community will support them. I think that these conclusions of the Lemos report are the irreducible minimum at which we should aim.
Finally, this is not a problem for minorities but for us all. It is not really satisfactory to be a citizen in a country which cannot take effective national action against the intimidation of people because of their race. I look forward to hearing what the Government are doing and enabling others to do to respond to the Lemos report.
8.43 p.m.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for instigating this debate. It is both necessary and timely. My participation stems from my involvement in policing. For a number of years now, police forces have been inspected by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary on police community and race relations. As the chair of a police authority and also as a deputy chair of the Association of Police Authorities—the APA—I felt it would be of some interest to your Lordships if I were able to tell the House what we are doing both locally in our force areas and nationally to develop policies on diversity and race relations issues.
The Macpherson report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence was a watershed for those of us who are closely involved with policing and everyone in our society. In order to respond effectively to its findings, some three years ago the APA set up a diversity group which leads on the development of policies to tackle race relations issues, including racial harassment, and disseminates that work to all police authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The recommendations of the report also led to the development of a national code of practice on the reporting and recording of racist incidents. The APA
178
contributed to that work, and I am pleased to tell your Lordships that all police authorities have been encouraged to engage with local partner agencies to tackle issues such as helplines and third-party recordings because it is critical that all of us—in the police, in local authorities and in the voluntary and private sectors—work together in partnership to tackle that issue which blights so many lives.
For the past two years, all police authorities have had as one of their key priorities,
"improving trust and confidence amongst minority ethnic communities in the police".
We are monitoring closely the performance of our forces in making progress through a range of best-value indicators, including levels of confidence among minority communities in the service. There is also a specific best-value indicator which measures the extent to which our forces investigate racist incidents, and the number of race crimes detected.
However, our new duties under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 must give renewed impetus to our efforts. Codes of practice to underpin those duties are being developed by the APA in conjunction with the Commission for Racial Equality and will be disseminated to all police authorities when completed.
In my own force area, we have a full-time diversity development adviser and a specific group comprising representatives of all the minority communities in our county. It provides a co-ordinated approach to tackling the issues arising out of a number of local and national reports and inquiries into how the police service deals with minority groups, both internally and externally. Its philosophy is worth mentioning:
"The philosophy of the Group is one that promotes the acceptance and understanding of all individuals, both colleague and customer, within a framework of quality service delivery. No individual or group should ever receive less favourable treatment, service, or consideration due to their minority status
Those are fine words but it is up to members of the police authority to ensure that they are not only written on paper but are actively and enthusiastically pursued. It was not always the case in North Yorkshire, but we are learning.
The Lemos report took its evidence from areas where the highest numbers of black and minority ethnic communities lived. But I contend that it is also in the rural areas where few visibly ethnic people choose to reside that harassment can take place. Because rural areas, by their very nature, tend to be isolated, the incidence of racial harassment can sometimes be overlooked or not taken seriously as numbers tend to be small. But it is a problem which we must also address urgently. I know that my force is doing just that.
Last year, there were a total of 127 incidents in North Yorkshire—77 per cent of all diversity measured incidents. The force is now compiling a survey document to be sent to all victims of racial incidents in order to monitor the levels of service which they have received from the police. The results will enable it to understand the concerns expressed and act appropriately on them.

179
The police authority which I chair, along with every other in the country, is presently undertaking a campaign to raise public awareness on police powers to stop and search. The Macpherson report found that the way that those powers are exercised hasd a profound influence on how the police are regarded by minority groups. The APA has produced a great deal of promotional material for us all to use and in North Yorkshire we are distributing it widely among our communities. Look out for it. I can commend it to your Lordships.
We have also been asked by the Home Secretary to seek views on whether the existing requirement for the police to record all stops and searches should be extended to all stops which the police carry out. Questionnaires have been sent out to minority group representatives, young people, community and police groups and community safety partnerships, all of whom are consulting their local communities. We are to hold two conferences in York on 26th May where the issue will be debated fully, and we shall inform the Home Secretary of our findings.
Those are but a few examples of what we are doing in only one agency of those identified by the Gerard Lemos report. Nevertheless, I hope that it has been a helpful insight into the clear commitment of both police authorities and forces of the work we are undertaking to tackle racial harassment. We must not rest until we stamp out the scourge of racism in our society.
8.50 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, not only for initiating this debate but also for her excellent presentation of the main contents of the report, which set the debate in context.
For 13 years I was Bishop of Stepney. With others, I tried to tackle the harassment described in the report. I witnessed many nightmare events: people terrified in their homes; people abused and harassed in the streets; and the aggressive marches of the British movement. In the past few days I have been angered to see the exchanges in the media and in the political game in relation to the real events of people's lives. I am surprised that none of our leading politicians has taken the opportunity to talk about racial harassment and what it does to people. That cheapens the whole event.
I say in support of something that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, that I have learnt that almost nobody takes any notice of what is happening in Parliament except in relation to race. If something is said by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister or someone in high office, the matter seems to be put on a red electric track, providing ammunition on the streets for those carrying out harassment. As the good things that they say strengthen those who resist racism, it is clear that what every politician says on this really matters.
I want to give a piece of good news which supports what the noble Baroness has just said in relation to the efforts made by the police. In the past I have worked a
180
lot with the police. I was Bishop of Stepney when the Liberal Democrats were engaged in Tower Hamlets. Today in the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, I felt encouraged by the large gathering of people invited there to learn about the steps being taken by the Met following the Macpherson report. The Met's racial and violent crime task force, under the inspiring leadership of DAC John Grieve, provides us with a great example in such matters, as that body expresses the policy to tackle institutional racism.
I notice that the police have no trouble talking about institutional racism, whereas many people find it a difficult concept. In the Church, we are aware of our institutional racism. We do not say that we are not all racists and we do not say that many of us are racists, but we know that our systems and organisations work in a way that prevents black people or those who have come from other societies rising to the top of the Church hierarchy. That needs constant attention. Today's presentation in the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre concentrated on the impact on recruitment of institutional racism, which is a reality in the police. It is important that the confidence of the people who feel in need of police protection is won over.
The phrase "protect and respect" seems to be a good adage. I like the use of the word "diversity" to describe the multi-cultural character of our society but, as the noble Baroness said, it is important that those words are put into practice and are followed through in a detailed way in the organisation and training of the police force.
I also want to mention the third-party reporting proposals in the report and the necessity of partnerships. We have two examples: one in Leytonstone, at the Cornerstone Church, and another at All Saints in Battersea. Twelve more centres are being planned by the Church and other authorities and organisations involved to provide a safe local place where people can talk about what has happened to them and be listened to.
My last point is that this is not just a matter of choice; it is a matter of vocation. If my colleagues were present they would want to say that that is a demand of our faith. Our faith points us to the fact that we should never stereotype people; we should always see them as they are and treat them with the respect and honour demanded for God's children—if I may put it so bluntly. We have the great vision of a single, undivided humanity. We should never give up. We should never give up on it just because it is so difficult and so many centres of power resist it. We should try to reach the ideal—or at least move society and ourselves towards it.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I welcome the report by Gerard Lemos and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for introducing the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, was absolutely right in citing some of the statistics. The British Crime Survey of 1995 talked about an estimated 382,000 racial

181
incidents. That is 3,183 every month or 106 every day, or four or five for every hour of the day and night. That is an unacceptable figure.
My noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill is absolutely right. I stress that politicians have a vital role to play in the way that race matters are handled. Not since the time when Neville Chamberlain waved a signed piece of paper has there been such open warfare as has broken out in one of our political parties about the signatures on the compact of the Commission for Racial Equality. The extent to which emotional language results in attacks on ethnic minority communities cannot be measured.
During the passage through your Lordships' House of the Crime and Disorder Bill I raised the matter of legislation to deal with racially motivated crimes. Then I said that the terms "racial attacks" and "racial harassment.' have no legal significance.
There is a wide variety of incidents—for example, personal abuse, threatening behaviour, graffiti, racially aggravated damage to property, physical attacks and murder—in which the perpetrators are motivated by racial hatred. Not all incidents between people of different races are racially motivated; an example is robbery where the motive is greed, as against attacking an individual because of the colour of his or her skin. The feature that distinguishes racial incidents from ordinary criminal or antisocial behaviour is the element of racial motivation on the part of the perpetrator.
Recent events must be a matter of serious concern to us all. We live in a culturally mature and tolerant society. People, irrespective of the colour of their skin, are entitled to walk in our streets without being abused. Surely what is happening in Oldham or in Leeds or in many of our towns and cities is unacceptable.
The Lemos report identifies examples of innovative practice. It deals with multi-agency working, prevention and publicity, recording and reporting and providing support and action against perpetrators. However, there is some confusion in agencies about how we define racial incidents.
As early as 1985 ACPO defined a racial incident as any incident in which the complaint appears to the reporting or investigating officer to involve an element of racial motivation or any incident which involves any allegation of racial motivation made by any person. That was further amended by the Macpherson report as,
"any incident, which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person".
Why do I mention that? In the recent trial of the two Leeds United footballers Mr Justice Pool criticised the police for adopting that definition. He said that that definition had,
"the potential for causing serious mischief".
Therefore, we have a problem about interpretation and the sooner it is sorted out the better. I would appreciate the Minister's view on that point. Do we need to give legal significance to "racial harassment", "racial attacks" and "racial incidents"? I believe that it
182
is easy to become caught up in trying to produce a perfect definition that will fit all circumstances at all times. The quest for perfection can prove to be a tedious business. I suspect that the definition used by the police is easy to understand and it can embrace all kinds of racial incidents and not just serious physical attacks and other criminal offences.
Moreover, it is an element perceived by the victims who see the hostility inherent in a racial incident as arising not from any avoidable provocation but because of their racial origin. The victims' perception in such cases is not that they have been subject to a crime, but that they have been a victim of racism. This perception may exacerbate the psychological damage that the victim suffers and other members of the ethnic group to which the victim belongs may also perceive themselves to be at risk simply because of their racial origin.
It is for this reason that the law takes into account racial motivation as an aggravating factor in all cases where judgments have to be made about the handling of such incidents.
Looking at some of the recent case studies, I have no doubt that there are difficulties in identifying racial motivation as an aggravating factor. The police are less sure, the CPS less comfortable and the magistrates and judges less confident about pronouncement in court cases. I was pleased that the Home Office provided in Part II of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 guidance on racially aggravated offences.
We need to revisit these areas. We need again to remind police forces about the ACPO policy principle for dealing with racial incidents. It is:
"There should be a presumption towards prosecution in all racially motivated incidents and the effectiveness of police response enhanced by promoting increased prosecutions, where evidence allows, thus demonstrating to perpetrators that their actions will not be tolerated".
In 1998, when I served on the Home Office inter-departmental racial attacks group, it was evident that having a policy was one thing but ensuring that it was implemented on the ground was another. In almost all areas we visited we were told of instances where prosecutions instituted by the police had been dropped by the CPS, despite strong representation from the police that prosecution would be in the public interest. We were also told that CPS lawyers had not brought out racial motivation as an aggravating factor once the cases came to court, resulting in a less severe sentence for the offenders.
I am glad that the situation has changed. The CPS now provides a two-stage test in the decision to prosecute. The evidential test is vital. Moreover, if there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, the public interest must be considered. The more serious the offence, the more likely that a prosecution will be needed in the public interest. The code includes in the list of common public interest factors factors in favour of prosecution. They are that:
"The offence was motivated by any form of discrimination against the victims ethnic or national origin, sex, religious beliefs, political views or sexual preference".

183
I believe that the combination of ACPO's definition, its statement on policy principles for dealing with racial incidents and the code of crown prosecutors provides a correct framework. However, it would be helpful if there were a more rigorous approach in magistrates and higher courts to ensure that Section 82(2)(6) is followed. This makes it clear that the court will state, in open court, that the offence is racially aggravated.
Let me conclude. All members of our society, irrespective of the colour of their skin, should be able to go about their daily activities safely and with dignity. The test of a civilised society is how it handles the issue of public safety. If there is not to be seen to be protection in the machinery which the state has established, that strikes at the very heart of our democratic process.
9.3 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for initiating the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Howells, has the knack of pointing out in a modest and understated way the difficulties faced by the ethnic minorities. To those of us in the white majority, it is certainly humbling.
The seminal document of recent years has been the Macpherson report, published in February 1999. One of its key recommendations was the definition of a "racist incident". I can spare your Lordships much of what I had intended to say because the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, spoke in detail about the comments of the judge in the collapsed trial of the Leeds United footballers. However, I urge the Minister to take note of the judge's remarks. The comments of the judiciary in statements which do not have the force of law is most important. I hope that the Minister will give due attention to reframing the definition of "racist incident".
Perhaps I may speak briefly about anti-social behaviour orders to the extent that they have a bearing on racism. I note that Mr Lemos in the Rowntree report gives them only qualified support,
"on the ground they do not seem to have proved a straightforward tool in combating racial harassment. Their use and effectiveness will need to be monitored and evaluated".
The ASBOs were brought in under the Crime and Disorder Act and as they were designed to be used in instances where anti-social behaviour can be demonstrated but where there is insufficient evidence to warrant a charge of criminal damage. As such, they should therefore be particularly suitable in combating racial incidents. However, I understand that only 150 of the orders have been issued since they came into force, against the 5,000 originally forecast by the Government. The regulations issued by the Home Office have been criticised by local authorities as confusing. Contrary to widespread disinformation, my party is not committed to scrapping ASBOs but rather to making them more effective through being easier to implement.
184
Perhaps I may say something about police training. One of the points made by the Rowntree report was the wide disparity in racism in different parts of the country. This must in part be due to the attitude and effectiveness of the respective police forces in dealing with a multi-ethnic society. In that respect, it was interesting to hear the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris.
I once spoke to a priest who had considerable experience of race relations in west London. He told me that time and time again when there was a racial incident it was those white policemen, as individuals, who had been brought up in London or a major city who were most effective in resolving the situation. That was in contrast to those in the metropolitan force who came from rural or small-town backgrounds. It was not due to any inbuilt racial prejudice on the part of the latter but simply to lack of experience in being exposed to that kind of problem. It is in the forces outside the major cities where training is absolutely essential, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker.
Lemos cited two cases of strongly suspected racial murders in Westbury and Telford, where the cry had gone up immediately to bring in the Metropolitan Police's racist and violent crime task force. In my view, the Rowntree report rightly concluded that that was not the answer. Communities should themselves be responsible for developing their ethnic policies and in that respect the local police force must be in the vanguard.
It is perhaps no coincidence that two forces particularly commended by the Inspectorate of Constabulary for police training in racial matters were the Met and West Midlands. I believe that some rural forces have a good deal to learn from urban forces. I am sure that that experience would be willingly passed on. Incidentally, the Government are to be congratulated on the inclusion of police training in the Criminal Justice and Police Bill which is currently before your Lordships' House.
But all is not gloom. Nothing can be more discouraging to those dedicated people up and down the country who endeavour to find innovative ways to combat racism. The Newham monitoring project makes a point of being publicly accountable, accessible and transparent—much more so, it claims, than some of its better known sister bodies. One commendable initiative has been taken by a group of Sheffield United fans appalled by the number of incidents of racist abuse in and around the stadium. In their part of Sheffield 44 per cent of the population come from ethnic minorities. They have launched a number of football-linked initiatives which support ethnic minority men and women to become coaches supporting local football teams which are predominantly ethnic.
Much remains to be done. This report has provided a great service to the community by focusing with such clarity on many of the problems and, more importantly, Mr Lemos's suggestions for addressing them.
9.9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I, too, join in the general thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for initiating this timely debate and her warning against any form of complacency within British society about tackling racism and the need constantly to review and tackle the problem with new and innovative approaches. In particular, her approach to many of the issues, focusing as she did on the question of what to do with perpetrators, was part of a very profound series of observations. For us in government this is a very real challenge as we seek to change racist behaviour. Her call for imaginative and constructive responses was very good and in some ways—I should be very interested to hear her opinions on this matter—reflects the work undertaken by the South African Government in setting up the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. That has done some very important and profound work in this field and recognises that these issues are not just about compliance but also conflict resolution.
I pay tribute to one quote in the document by Gerard Lemos. The starting point is Stuart Hall's comment reported in the Guardian on 8th July 2000:
"If you're serious about a multi-cultural society, you would address the alienation of white working class people, who have to be won to a new concept of themselves where Britain's not lording it from a gunboat".
That is a very important starting point which challenges all of us in government.
I welcome the opportunity to debate the implications of the research conducted by Lemos and Crane on action that is being taken to tackle racial harassment. From the start, the Government have been very supportive of the research. The Home Office, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales have all been represented on the advisory group. It is a substantial report which I hope noble Lords will take the trouble to read fully. I believe that the report deserves a broader debate than we have had this evening. I am saddened that the Chamber is not better attended than it is, but all of the contributions have been very worthwhile.
I cannot avoid making the observation that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, is on his own tonight. I hope that that is not a comment on the other members of the noble Viscount's party. One would have hoped that they would have been able at least to listen to the debate and take it very seriously. That is particularly so in view of recent events and comments relating to the CRE compact which we all hoped had been enthusiastically endorsed and signed up to by all parties as we approach a likely general election.
Tackling racism, especially that which manifests itself as violence or harassment, is a priority for the Government. That was why we introduced racially aggravated offences in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, set up the Lawrence inquiry and are implementing the recommendations of that report. Much of the work that has been carried out to
186
implement the recommendations is very relevant to the report of the research. I draw to the attention of noble Lords the comments by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the second annual report on progress in implementing the Lawrence inquiry recommendations which was published in February of this year.
One of the issues in the report is the important recording of the ethnicity of victims of racist incidents. The Government recognise, as the report suggests, that we need further information about the nature of racist incidents and offences. In particular, we understand the need to know more about the victims of racist crime. I can tell your Lordships' House that the Government, in conjunction with the police, are actively considering monitoring the ethnicity of victims of racist incidents. That is a very important move.
Under-reporting of incidents is raised in the report. That is recognised by the Government and by the police. It is timely that today there was the MPS conference at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre which looked at many of the issues. There was a clear difference between the kinds of figures emerging from the British Crime Survey, for example, and the official number of racist incidents recorded. It appears that many people simply did not record incidents because they thought the incidents were not serious enough, that racist abuse for example was not a crime and because they thought that nothing would be done about a reported incident.
I observe that between 1993 and 1997 racist incidents recorded by the police increased gradually from about 11,000 to 14,000 incidents. For the year 1998–99, however, 23,049 incidents were recorded. That is a 66 per cent increase on the previous year. For the past year—1999–2000—the figure rose to 47,814 incidents, an increase of 107 per cent on the previous year.
I do not believe that the actual number of racist incidents has dramatically increased in the past two years. It is clear that people now have increasing confidence and the desire to record racist incidents. We should take some comfort in that. They have done so because they have seen that racial harassment is taken seriously, that cases will be investigated and where there is evidence of a racist element to a crime those responsible will be prosecuted for an aggravated offence.
The figures have increased because it is clearer to everyone—police, victims and witnesses—what a racist incident is and because it does not rely solely on the perception of a police officer.
I also believe that the police are now better equipped to understand and to record racist incidents. The adoption of the Lawrence inquiry definition by ACPO, which is that,
"A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person"
is a simplified definition. It is wide-ranging but it has to be. It is not a legalistic test and it is not designed to be. It is used for flagging up the possibility of a racist

187
element to a crime. The police can then investigate any alleged offence applying the criminal tests appropriate to racially aggravated offences.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, drew attention to the recent case before the courts involving the Leeds United footballers. I cannot comment on that matter because it is still a matter for the judiciary. However, I cannot avoid mentioning that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, made an observation on it. I am saddened by what I now see as a shift in Conservative Party policy away from the acceptance of the Macpherson definition. My understanding was that that was widely accepted. Do I now understand that the Conservative Party has decided to shift its policy on that matter? If the noble Viscount is seeking comfort in the comments of the judge, that is clearly a matter for him, but I believe that it would be more helpful to move from where we are with an acceptance, particularly since the police service seem to be entirely happy with the definition that has been adopted.
Third party reporting was mentioned during the debate. By that we have a common understanding that that would mean reporting incidents at places other than a police station—a mosque, perhaps at the local advice agency and certainly at local authorities. Support for that recommendation was clear from the Government's side in the wake of the Lawrence recommendations. Of course we would like people to report incidents to the police, but we recognise that some people are more comfortable reporting an incident in a neutral location. That can help build confidence in reporting, particularly from those in the most vulnerable of groups.
The report recommends a national helpline for victims of racial harassment. The Government recognise the importance of supporting the victims of harassment. That is why we have accepted the simplified definition of racist incidents; that is why we have created specific racially aggravated offences; and why there is specific guidance on investigating racist crime and support for the victims of racist crime.
The Government have not rejected the idea of a helpline, but we believe that we need to give it careful consideration, and particularly to concerns about how such a helpline would operate and how it would integrate with the police operations and other support services which already exist and which are based on a local level. Obviously there needs to be much more careful consideration of that matter. I would suggest that the standing committee dealing with racist incidents is the appropriate place for that issue.
Attention was drawn to the issue of support for victims. Obviously that is a very important aspect of the process which cannot possibly be overlooked. We recognise that the impact of racial harassment, including what may appear to be low level harassment, can be devastating to the victims and their families. Racist attacks also impact on the wider community and trust and understanding between communities can be destroyed by a single racist incident.
188
In developing policy, we support the work of Victim Support, which is now in the process of following through from its good practice guide on supporting victims of racist crime. It aims to improve standards of service throughout its organisation and is part of a wider approach, which also includes training.
The report calls for further research into the benefits to victims of existing support. I can say that the Home Office is planning a survey of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system. While it will not be specifically targeted at victims of racist crime, that will clearly be an important element.
Attention was drawn to action against perpetrators. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced in November last year that, as in the previous year, increasing trust and confidence in policing among ethnic minority communities would be one of just two ministerial priorities for the current year, re-emphasising the Government's commitment to this issue.
Other important issues were raised in the debate. I particularly want to focus on the question of working positively with perpetrators. We believe that to be extremely important and we support fully the intention to move towards more action-based research. The Home Office has now commissioned research to review the evidence base and to review the approach that has been taken, particularly by the probation service.
I know that I have not covered all of the questions that were raised in the debate. Some important questions were raised by my noble friend Lady Whitaker. I shall be happy to respond to those in correspondence. It has been an important debate. The report has immense value because of its practical base and application. I have listened with great interest to all those who participated in the debate. Many speakers have had personal experience of the important race related issues that have arisen in our society over the past two or three decades. I have tried to outline some of the Government's work in this field and some of the activities that we are attempting to promote to tackle racist harassment. We continue to drive that agenda forward to ensure that pernicious racism is not tolerated in this country. We, as politicians, have a particularly important and compelling role to fulfil. The way in which we conduct ourselves in regard to this issue will be watched with great interest by the nation. I thank the noble Baroness for her important intervention on this matter.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he suggested that the Conservative Party is moving away from the findings of Macpherson. I was merely saying that, as a matter of good practice, the Government would be well advised to listen to the observations of the judiciary, who have to carry out the racial policy. That is all.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past nine o' clock.

  Food Imports: Safety Controls
  Food Imports: Safety Controls
  Hospital Cleanliness
  Hospital Cleanliness
  Head Injury Patients: Care
  Head Injury Patients: Care
  MoD Food Waste Disposal Methods
  MoD Food Waste Disposal Methods
  MoD Meat Purchasing Policy
  MoD Meat Purchasing Policy
  Fri-Service Legislation
  Fri-Service Legislation
  Armed Forces Bill and Policing Protocols
  Armed Forces Bill and Policing Protocols
  Former MPs: Websites
  Former MPs: Websites
  IT: Government Projects
  IT: Government Projects
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Transport and Telecommunications Council: Conclusions
  Transport and Telecommunications Council: Conclusions
  Employee Consultation: Proposed Directive
  Employee Consultation: Proposed Directive
  Tourism Summit
  Tourism Summit
  Banks and Small Businesses
  Banks and Small Businesses
  Foot and Mouth Disease and the Tourist Industry
  Foot and Mouth Disease and the Tourist Industry
  Air Passenger Duty
  Air Passenger Duty
  Euro Notes: Exchange
  Euro Notes: Exchange
  New Deal for Disabled People: Role of Rehab UK
  New Deal for Disabled People: Role of Rehab UK
  New Deal Employment Statistics
  New Deal Employment Statistics
  Flags of Foreign States: Protection
  Flags of Foreign States: Protection
  Electoral Registers: New Regulations
  Electoral Registers: New Regulations
  Scottish Intelligence Database
  Scottish Intelligence Database
  Palace of Westminster: Medical Facilities
  Palace of Westminster: Medical Facilities
  EU Pensions Policy
  EU Pensions Policy
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Vaccination of Fell Sheep
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Vaccination of Fell Sheep
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Vaccination of Zoo and Wildlife Park Animals
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Vaccination of Zoo and Wildlife Park Animals
  Veterinary Establishments
  Veterinary Establishments
  Breeding Stock Exports
  Breeding Stock Exports