Sitting of 14 February 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
CABINET OFFICE
The Minister was asked—
CABINET OFFICE

  Correspondence
  Mr. Harry Barnes: If she will make it her policy that all Government Departments and agencies make use of constituents' postcodes in correspondence with hon. Members and others. [148766]
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): It is general practice for constituents' full addresses, including the postal code, to be included in ministerial replies to Members of Parliament. It is not, however, in the guide to Departments issued by the Cabinet Office for replies to MPs' letters.
  Mr. Barnes: It is not my experience that the postcode is included. If a constituent writes to me from the S45 postcode area, complaining about the loss of 700 jobs at Biwater in Clay Cross, I forward that to the Department of Trade and Industry, seeking a response. Normally, however, the reply from a Department gives the full name and address but not the postcode details. It is administratively convenient to give the postcode details. I hope that that will be put in place. I would much sooner have the jobs, but will settle, on this occasion, for the postcode details.
  Mr. Stringer: I take my hon. Friend's point. When we re-issue the guide to Ministers replying to letters sent to Members of Parliament, we shall include the point that postal codes should be included.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman examine not only the postcode issue but an extraordinary development that has taken place since the last election? MPs' letters are often replied to at their constituency office. I regard in my work as a Member of Parliament as separate from my work as a Conservative based in the constituency office. To an extraordinary extent, more and more letters are returned to the constituency office, not to the House of Commons. I regard the roles as a little different.
  Mr. Stringer: I shall certainly look into the point that the right hon. Lady raises. My expectation is that letters are returned to the Member of Parliament at the address that was on the original letter. However, if that is not the case, I shall look into the matter and ensure that it is considered when the next guide is issued.

  Commonwealth Games
  Mr. John Grogan: If she will make a statement on preparations for the Commonwealth games. [148768]
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): I am pleased to say that Manchester 2002 is on target with plans and preparations to host the biggest sporting and cultural celebration ever held in the United Kingdom.
  The sports programme has been finalised, and will be the largest ever for a Commonwealth games, with 14 individual and three team sports. Six new venues are being provided for the games, with improvements made to others. The £32 million aquatic centre was opened in October last year, the Bolton arena is nearing completion and is expected to open later this month, and work on the City of Manchester stadium is on target, with completion scheduled for December 2001. Some £18 million of commercial income has been announced and a further sponsorship announcement is expected later this month.
  Mr. Grogan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. As a proud Yorkshireman, it is rare for me to wish any event in Manchester well. On this occasion, however, will my right hon. Friend do everything possible to ensure that the games, which will occur in jubilee year, are promoted not just in the north-west but throughout the United Kingdom, so that they will be as inspirational for our sportsmen, sportswomen and youngsters as the Sydney Olympics were in Australia?
  Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is an international event—a window of opportunity for the United Kingdom—based in the city of Manchester. I am delighted to say that, across the country, Members of Parliament on both sides of the House are fully behind this project.
  The national spirit of friendship festival will organise a programme of events in celebration, engaging skills, clubs and communities across the country in the year of Her Majesty's golden jubilee. Sport England is organising youth regional games alongside the Commonwealth games, with events in which up to 250,000 young people can compete. So we are well on schedule for the biggest sporting and cultural event ever held in Britain.
  Mr. Graham Brady: The Minister will be aware that there is concern that the high-speed rail link to the games may not be completed in time. Along with Members on both sides of the House, I hope that it will be. What steps have been taken to ensure that the rail link is completed on schedule?
  Mr. McCartney: I think that the hon. Gentleman may be mixing up the transport infrastructure for the Commonwealth games with the proposal for the extension throughout Manchester of the metro system. The metro system is not part of the transport infrastructure for the games, and never has been. [Interruption.] I am trying to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. In terms of getting to the games and getting around the city of Manchester, discussions are taking place with all the transport partnerships, including the buses and trains. There will be a separate, clear transport infrastructure strategy to ensure

  299
  that not only is there access to the games from outside Manchester and the north-west but that people in Manchester have fast and easy access to and from all the venues. In addition, we hope to have a ticketing arrangement that includes transport costs. That will make it easier for people to buy a ticket, get on a tram or bus and go to and from the games.

  Drug Arrest Referral Schemes
  Mr. Michael Clapham: If she will make a statement on the effectiveness of drug arrest referral schemes. [148769]
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): There is clear evidence that arrest referral schemes work. For example, in Barnsley, the custody sergeant's promotion of the scheme has helped to accelerate take-up, and drug users not previously in touch with services are being reached. There has been a steady increase in the number of people seen for initial assessment, and a high rate of those attending for drug treatment. Areas where referrals have been working longer show significant reductions in the amount spent on illegal drugs, and drug-related crime has been reduced by as much as 80 per cent.
  Mr. Clapham: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. I thank her for her recent visit to Barnsley, when she was able to hold discussions with the chief executive of Barnsley metropolitan borough council, the co-ordinator of the community partnership and the vice-chair of DAT—the Drug Action Team—Barnsley's drug strategy. From those talks, she will be aware that the drugs referral system is vital in getting young offenders who are on drugs into treatment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a need to strengthen the community support services after treatment? Will she look into how resources might be focused on improving that service to complement the referral system?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I certainly recognise what my hon. Friend says—helping young people stay off drugs and giving them support once they have finished treatment is crucial. The best approach to ensuring that that care is provided is to make certain that the partnership that developed during the arrest referral continues afterwards. I hope that system is working in Barnsley; as my hon. Friend pointed out, I heard about it while I was there.
  We are also working to encourage young people to stay away from drugs—not just helping with treatment and post-treatment care. I am pleased to announce that an additional £152 million is going into drug education for young people, particularly to identify the most vulnerable and those most at risk so that they can be given special help.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: How soon does the Minister expect that drug arrest referral schemes will have an effect on reducing drug-related crime nationally? Does she agree that, unless the early release of 3,000 drug dealers is halted forthwith, Government targets will be seriously jeopardised?
  Marjorie Mowlam: As I have just said, where the schemes are working, there is already a real decrease in
  300
  crime. Arrest referral schemes are being rolled out across the country at present and, by the end of this year-definitely by next year—we hope that most areas will have them. The schemes bring results.
  Mrs. Winterton: What about early release?
  Marjorie Mowlam: That is a matter for the Home Office. It is important that when people are in prison we give them help to ensure that they come off drugs. Whatever the reason for them being in prison—whether they are dealers or people caught using drugs—the best course is to get them off drugs so that when they get out, they do not continue with the same behaviour.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern that those who enter drug treatment programmes through the judicial system might displace those who do not do so? If that is true, it could send out dangerous signals.
  Marjorie Mowlam: Let me assure my hon. Friend that that is not the case. In areas where demand is high or fluctuating, adequate treatment—whether inside or outside the judicial system—is not always available. The national treatment agency that will be set up with £145 million will provide the additional treatment needed. That is being rolled out at present. Local drug teams are putting in their requests, so where there are problems—I readily acknowledge the problems—they will be dealt with.

  Rural Development
  Mr. Andrew George: What recent discussions she has had with her colleagues in other Departments on the co-ordination of rural development. [148770]
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): I chair the ministerial rural affairs group, which provides a forum for discussions with colleagues on rural development and other issues.
  Mr. George: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, but what has happened since the establishment of the Cabinet Committee on rural affairs? How often has it met? Does it recognise that there is an urgent crisis in rural areas? What action is it taking with other Departments to address the fact that small family farms are going out of business in their droves? After all, they are the bedrock of rural life in this country and they deserve better treatment. How is the Cabinet Committee addressing that issue?
  Marjorie Mowlam: The ministerial rural affairs group is co-ordinating rural policy and rural proofing to ensure that Departments consider the impact of their policies on rural areas, that the policies work as effectively as possible to support rural life, and that a joined-up approach is taken to tackle the problems faced by rural communities. The hon. Gentleman refers specifically to small farms. We have put £1.6 billion into the English

  301
  rural development programme, which will provide vital support to help farmers to play a role in diversifying their production in the economy.
  Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the initiatives on farms from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and on village post offices from the Department of Trade and Industry have played an important part in assisting rural regeneration, local authorities are the principal agents of joined-up government in rural areas? Will she evaluate whether this year's well above inflation settlements for local authorities have gone a long way to improve the co-ordination of service; in rural areas?
  Marjorie Mowlam: The additional funding for local authorities will help co-ordination and delivery in rural and urban areas and is a welcome development, so efforts are already being made in relation to rural areas. We have put an extra £239 million into transport, with an extra £15 million in parish funds for community-based solutions. Alongside the £37 million in extra funding for market town regeneration, that shows that we are making noticeable progress. It should be compared with the Tory party's record in government, when 30,000 post offices were closed, one in four parishes were without a bus service and 30 village schools close d each year. I hope that the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) bears that in mind before he asks his question.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Is it not a fact that the only real rural co-ordination going on at the moment is the massive co-ordination for the even more massive march that will be held on 18 March to protest about the way in which the Government keep attacking the rural way of life and neglect totally the problems of the countryside?
  Marjorie Mowlam: If the hon. Gentleman's party had not neglected rural areas when in power, the anger would not be so great. We inherited one in four parishes with no transport; 3,000 schools closing; a transport system that was not working; and village schools that were closing. In comparison, we have put money into transport and given a 50 per cent. rate relief to village shops, pubs and garages—which are crucial to communities—and £40 million extra to support small schools, and there is an affordable house scheme. We are concerned about rural areas and we are making a difference. Yes, people are unhappy because we are having to make a lot of progress very quickly, given what we inherited from the Conservative party.
  Mr. Jim Dobbin: My constituency has rural areas to the north and west. What is the Government's commitment to rural Britain after years of neglect?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I have talked about rate relief for village shops and the money for transport and schools, but, at the same time, we are encouraging housebuilding on brownfield sites, which is terribly important if we are to have a sustainable policy to keep the green belt alive. We have saved a lot of green belt with our emphasis on
  302
  building on brownfield sites. We have an area of greenbelt land the size of Bristol. All that we need to do is compare that with what the Opposition did when in government.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Has the rural affairs committee focused in its discussions on the issue of farm incomes? I am sure that the Minister will agree that many rural areas have been very hard hit by the fall in farm incomes by three quarters, so will the Government claim the agrimonetary compensation that will be available before 30 April—yes or no?
  Marjorie Mowlam: It is common practice not to discuss the detail of a Cabinet Committee's discussions, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we cover the whole waterfront in terms of rural policy. Since 1997, we have provided an extra £1 billion to help the farming industry through difficult times and, now, an additional £1.6 billion for the English rural development programme will provide vital support to help farming play a greater role in the diverse economies in rural areas.
  On Europe, I assure the Minister—[Interruption.]—the Leader of the Opposition—[Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does it matter?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I do not think that it does.
  I assure the hon. Gentleman that, in relation to Europe, we are working hard to maximise the benefits for industry, including agriculture, in this country. That cannot be said of the Conservative party.
  Mr. Lansley: The Minister must know from her discussions across the waterfront that farmers have been hard hit. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made it clear that this is the worst agricultural recession for many years, and farm incomes are at their lowest in real terms since the 1930s. If ever there were a moment to use the resources that can be claimed from the European Community, it is now and £200 million is available before 30 April. Farmers know that the Conservatives, should we form a Government before 30 April—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, and farmers know that the Conservatives will make that £200 million available. Will the Government do that£yes or no?
  Marjorie Mowlam: Farmers know that we have been helpful since 1997 and should compare our record with what happened before. In Europe, we are doing all that we can to help farmers to obtain the benefits that Europe offers. The Conservatives promise that the agrimonetary payments will be claimed but, if I were a farmer, I would consider how many agrimonetary payments they obtained when they were in government. The answer is none.

  Drug Use
  Mr. David Taylor: What new initiatives and resources are planned in the campaign against drug usage by younger adolescents. [148771]
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): As the Government announced this morning, we are putting £152 million over three years into

  303
  co-ordinating and targeting local services to help young people, including those most vulnerable from drug misuse.
  The Government's anti-drugs strategy has set challenging targets to halve the numbers of young people using illegal drugs by 2008. We are ensuring that young people receive the help and advice that they need to resist drug misuse, and we shall increase drug education and prevention spending from £63 million this year to £120 million in 2003–04.
  In Leicestershire, the county council education department's drug policy is due to be published in the spring of this year, with training planned to support its implementation.
  Mr. Taylor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I commend to him the work in Leicestershire schools of the life education centres, whose drug prevention education helps many thousands of children make healthy choices? Will he discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment ways of sustaining and developing the LECs, particularly in the use of digital technology, to make their programmes more effective with pupils, teachers and parents?
  Mr. McCartney: Yes. I am also prepared to come to Leicestershire to hold discussions with my hon. Friend and his colleagues there about how we can build on the work that is already being done in the county to prevent addiction but, when it does, to provide proper treatment. We shall also help to relieve communities in Leicestershire from the stress that drug dealers cause in some of them.
  Mr. John Bercow: Is it—[Interruption.] It is always a pleasure to brighten up the lives of miserable Labour Members who are about to lose their seats.
  Is it the right hon. Gentleman's policy that young offenders who abuse drugs should be eligible for drug referral schemes? If so, what assessment has he made of attendance at, and participation in, such schemes? Does he believe that it is necessary to have a mixture of a carrot-and-stick approach to ensure compliance? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down; there are too many private conversations.
  Mr. McCartney: The issue is not about saving seats; it is about saving lives. Perhaps I can draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to that. The schemes are working effectively. They encourage young people who have a drug abuse problem to take responsibility for seeking out a partnership with the local authority to receive available treatment and to address the issues that arise from the criminal activity related to their misuse of drugs.
  The pilot project has had two results: first, there has been a dramatic decrease in criminal activity—up to £300 a week less has been stolen to feed the drug habit; and secondly, a large proportion of the people in the schemes are successfully participating in the treatment programmes and are about to go on to receive education, training and housing. However, it is a hell of a job to get those young people to work in a sustained way in the
  304
  community. It is difficult to get them to give up drugs, sustain the lack of drug activity and to go on to a healthy life style, but we must ensure that we get on with encouraging that. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is what we are doing.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I invite my right hon. Friend to visit Halifax to meet some of the dedicated workers who are employed in drug referral and prevention strategies? Will he join me in condemning the proposals by Tory-controlled Calderdale council to cut staff in that vital service?
  Mr. McCartney: First, I would be more than happy to visit my hon. Friend's constituency. Secondly, a year or so ago I went to her local authority to discuss drug issues on estates. I would be staggered if any local authority decided to reduce funding in such a vital service when the Government have put in place a £1 billion investment programme to prevent drug abuse, provide treatment, encourage community safety and reduce the availability of drugs in communities. There is no reason why her local authority should not be involved in a strategy to ensure that the system in her community works effectively to get young people off drugs and into a more proactive life style.

  Regulation
  Miss Anne McIntosh: If she will make a statement on her role in achieving better regulation by Government Departments. [148772]
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): My right hon. Friend the Minister chairs the panel for regulatory accountability. Yesterday, the Regulatory Reform Bill completed its Report stage in the other place.
  Miss McIntosh: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the Government continue to gold-plate European Union directives, the most recent of which were on HACCP—hazard analysis and critical control points—and on meat hygiene inspection? Members of Unison have been consulted and are up in arms at the prescriptive nature of the conditions that will be imposed on United Kingdom producers but that would not have to be met by our EU competitors.
  Mr. Stringer: Most of the complaints that I receive about gold-plating come from the time when the Conservative party was in government. The Cabinet Office, under my noble Friend Lord Falconer, has issued new guidelines on the transposition of European legislation.
  Mr. Huw Edwards: Would my hon. Friend consider better regulation of the steel industry by Departments in view of Corus's decision not to allow the workers to buy out Llanwem steel works because it would produce competition? According to Sir Brian Moffatt, it is better to get rid of manufacturing at Llanwern and Ebbw Vale than allow competition. Does he agree that no one should treat, or be allowed to treat, their work force in that way?
  Mr. Stringer: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the possible loss of jobs in the steel industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is still in discussions about those jobs.

  Health Information
  Mr. David Amess: If she will make a statement on her Department's role in co-ordinating the information relating to health in the Government's annual report. [148776]
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam)rose—
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney)rose—
  Marjorie Mowlam: The Government's annual report was produced by the strategic communications unit in the Prime Minister's office. Chapters on each section were written in collaboration with advisers from No. 10 and the relevant Departments. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot hear the right hon. Lady.
  Marjorie Mowlam: Shall I read the answer again?
  Mr. Speaker: Yes.
  Marjorie Mowlam: The Government's annual report was produced by the strategic communications unit in the Prime Minister's office. Chapters o r each section were written in collaboration with advisers from No. 10 and the relevant Departments.
  Mr. Amess: What a shambles of Government.
  Rather than co-ordinate the misinformation on the health service, as contained in page 3 of the annual report, will the right hon. Lady consider co-ordinating exactly when the general public will receive appointments with consultants to diagnose their various problems? Will she consider co-ordination to ascertain where this rotten Government intend to find the staff to run the national health service?
  Marjorie Mowlam: In terms of staff, the hon. Gentleman well knows that we are already recruiting more nurses and training more doctors. The situation is improving day by day. If he listened to the facts, he would not have to ask the question.

The Prime Minister was asked—
PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Ken Purchase: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 14 February.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
  Mr. Purchase: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Age Concern, which today has published its manifesto for older people? Will he note that, on page 6, it makes a splendid case for increasing and improving the state pension, as the best way of avoiding the indignity of means-testing our oldest and poorest people? Will he give a commitment that the Labour Government will always protect the value of the state pension, rather than let it be whittled away in the disgraceful manner that the Tories allowed?
  The Prime Minister: Certainly. There is the £200 winter allowance that has been given to pensioners, there are free television licences for pensioners over 75, and there are free eye tests. This year, there are the increases of £5 and £8, which are meant to be increased even further next year. These increases are greater than those that would be linked to earnings. These are substantial sums for British pensioners, and deservedly so. We shall have spent more money on pensions during this Parliament than if the pension had been linked to earnings. Pensioners can know with absolute certainty that the money comes to them under the Labour Government and would be taken from them under the Conservatives.
  Mr. William Hague: Today, people have travelled from throughout the country to lobby the House in opposition to the Prime Minister's policy of abolishing community health councils. When I last asked him about the matter, he said that he would consult on the proposals and listen to the representations made. How many representations has he received in favour of his policy?
  The Prime Minister: We have made it clear that we are consulting on the community health councils. Our proposals involve replacing the councils not with nothing, but with patients forums in each hospital and each local general practitioner's premises. There is widespread concern about whether CHCs have performed properly the function of looking after patients' interests. However, we continue to listen to the representations made, and we shall announce our final proposals in due course.
  Mr. Hague: As the Prime Minister was happy to quote Age Concern a moment ago, has he listened to Help the Aged, which says that the Government's policy
  "is likely to lead to confusion and lack of clout in addressing the…representation of patients"?
  The Prime Minister's policy is opposed by Age Concern, Help the Aged, Mencap, the British Medical Association, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the General Medical Council, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the National Childbirth Trust and Action for Victims of Medical Accidents. He has not had the decency to admit that nobody is in favour of his proposals. Will he reverse his policy or will he maintain that he knows better than all those organisations?
  The Prime Minister: I said that we would listen carefully to people and, indeed, we shall. I do not think

  307
  that the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait much longer for the answer. As he is quoting those organisations on our health proposals, he should also quote them in support of the massive extra investment that the Government are making in the national health service—the extra nurses, doctors and hospitals—and on the contrast between the investment going into the health service under this Government and the cuts that there would be under the right hon. Gentleman's.
  Mr. Hague: It is no good the Prime Minister wriggling off the point because he does not know the answers to the questions. What about the following representation, with which he should be familiar? It says:
  "there has been no consultation".
  It also says that abolition is a
  "cynical attempt to silence any negative publicity".
  What better way, the organisation asks,
  "to deflect attention from…shortcomings"
  of the Government? That was said by South Durham and Wealden community health council, Sedgefield district. Does it not tell us something when the people who know the Prime Minister best say that he does not listen, that his policy is utterly cynical and that he is interested only in publicity? Have they not got it in one?
  The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman's comments may look a little foolish when the results of the consultation are announced, if I may respectfully say so. As this is about the only health service subject that he dare raise—he knows that he has nothing to say about anything else—it is correct that there have been many representations on community health councils, and it is for that reason that we said we would listen to them.
  If we are to have a balanced debate on the health service, however, let us also debate the amount of investment and change going on. The fact is, we are prepared to put that extra investment in to the NHS, far more than the right hon. Gentleman ever did. Perhaps, in the interests of an exchange of views, the right hon. Gentleman can say whether it is still the case that he will take £750 million out of the NHS for private medical insurance.
  Helen Jackson: Does the Prime Minister remember the snarl-ups that we used have in the Chamber on the minimum wage and the bogus arguments threatening a cataclysmic loss of jobs? Is he aware that, at that time, one in every five workers in South Yorkshire were earning less than £3.50 an hour? They are now between £30 and £40 a week better off; and unemployment has halved. Is my right hon. Friend surprised that the Opposition have changed their mind about that policy?
  The Prime Minister: I am proud that the Government introduced a statutory minimum wage which has helped hundreds of thousands of low-paid workers in this country out of poverty. Some said that it would increase unemployment. In fact, today we have the lowest unemployment in the country for over 25 years; we have the lowest inflation in Europe; national debt is down;
  308
  interest rates—and therefore mortgages—are half what they were in the Conservative years. We can, and do, have both economic efficiency and social justice.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: On 13 December last year, the Deputy Prime Minister advised the House that he anticipated that rail services would be back to normal by Easter, having earlier said that they would be back to normal by January. Given the recent reports that the Office of the Rail Regulator now estimates that rail services will not, in any way, be back in efficient running order before the summer, does the Prime Minister still confirm the earlier statement of the Deputy Prime Minister?
  The Prime Minister: It is our understanding that rail services will be back to normal by Easter, but of course that depends on Railtrack and the companies carrying out the work that they have agreed, which is precisely why we will carry on putting pressure on them to do so. There is no doubt that for many passengers still, particularly on the inter-city lines, the situation is simply unacceptable. The only way that we will cure the problem long term is to make sure that we have proper strategic control of our rail industry, given tip under privatisation by the Conservatives, and that we put the urgently needed investment into our railways.
  Mr. Kennedy: We want safe, reliable, affordable rail services. In that case, should not the Government's strategic approach be, first, to reduce the ridiculous number of train operators, and secondly, to turn Railtrack into a non-profit-making organisation? If the Government did that, they would demonstrate that they put passenger safety before Railtrack's commercial profits.
  The Prime Minister: There is, as we know, a strong case for better securing passenger safety. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by a not-for-profit organisation, but it is vital that we get strategic control, which is what the Strategic Rail Authority will do. Secondly, and perhaps above all, we need to make good the investment in our railways.
  The country has a simple choice: either we invest in the basic public services and the infrastructure, or we go back to the cuts and privatisation that we had for 18 years before. We have set out clear plans for investment, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman supports. I know that in time—and it will tale time—they will deliver a better rail infrastructure. There is no point in believing that we can get decent public services unless we are prepared to pay for them.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Can my right hon. Friend be persuaded that winter fuel payments for pensioners and free TV licences for those aged 75 and over are complicated when pensioners want simplicity, and patronising when pensioners want respect, and that they should be abolished—in which case he agrees with what the leader of the Conservative party was saying at the beginning of last week? Or does my right hon. Friend believe that many pensioners are happy to receive winter fuel payments and free TV licences, and that they should

  309
  be maintained—in which he agrees with what the leader of the Conservative party was saying at the end of the week?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend, as ever, makes his point extremely well. The complications involved in trying to organise the system along the lines suggested by the Conservative party would be appalling in terms of bureaucracy, red tape acid so on. The basic point is that the £200 winter allowance is popular and it is right. The free TV licences for those over 75 are popular and right. The rise in the basic state pension coming in this April is, again, the right thing to do. We will carry on standing up for the proper interests of British pensioners.
  Mr. James Gray: This time last week, the Prime Minister promised that if he were re-elected, he would hold a referendum on the question of scrapping the pound. That comment was well noted in Wiltshire, where people do riot like it at all. Does the Prime Minister remember promising his friends in the Liberal Democrat party that he would hold a referendum on proportional representation? Will that be within two years?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the manifesto for all that. On the euro and the good people of Wiltshire, whom I think the hon. Gentleman represents, I believe that what they will like most is the fact that interest rates came down last week. They will like the fact that job numbers are up, living standards are up, and from this March and April, there will be a family tax cut for millions of families which would be taken away by the Conservative party.
  Mr. Joe Ashton: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great satisfaction that there is in the north Nottinghamshire and South Yorkshire coalfield areas at the announcement of the £60 million subsidy for six pits, which is gratefully received? Is he t ware that, for years, I and many of my colleagues marched under banners calling for "coal not dole", as the Conservatives butchered 270,000 jobs in the industry, in which there are now 20,000 jobs left? The Conservatives got their answer when they were butchered at the last election. Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of us all?
  The Prime Minister: There is now huge investment—hundreds of millions of pounds—going into coalfield communities, not only to preserve those jobs in Britain's mining industry, but to provide hope for areas that have lost their mining industry. I think that that is right and necessary, because it gives us the chance to regenerate these areas. It is one reason why unemployment is so low in this country today.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Is the Prime Minister aware that during the past fortnight in east Kent, more than 100 people have been waiting on trolleys in our three casualty departments? They include a woman of 97 who had to wait for two nights. Is he aware that 80 consultants from the three Kent sites last night voted unanimously for a motion saying that lack of capacity is compromising their ability to deliver health care? Is he
  310
  still committed to an ill-conceived £100 million reorganisation that will not add a single bed and which was opposed by the local community health council?
  The Prime Minister: Of course it is entirely unacceptable if people are waiting that long on trolleys. The hon. Gentleman and his consultants rightly say that the issue is one of increasing capacity. That is precisely why we have increased capacity and are increasing it year on year. Let me remind him and Opposition Members that they cut 40,000 to 60,000 beds in the national health service. When we came to office, they had cut the number of nursing places and the number of training places for midwives, and they were cutting capital investment in the health service. In all those areas, we are putting the investment in. It will take time, but the one group that has no cause to criticise is the Conservative party.

  Wimbledon
  Mr. Roger Casale: What plans he has to visit Wimbledon.
  The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to do so.
  Mr. Casale: When my right hon. Friend does come to Wimbledon, he will discover that low interest rates are one of the achievements that my constituents most identify with a Labour Government. Home owners are now paying less than £700 a month for an average mortgage, compared with more than £760 a month in 1992 under the Tories. Will he assure the House and my constituents that he will continue with his Government's policies to set a course for economic stability? Nobody in Wimbledon wants to go back to the high and fluctuating interest rates, negative equity and house repossessions that were the legacy of Tory boom and bust. [Interruption.]
  The Prime Minister: Conservative Members seem to think that my hon. Friend's constituents will not be interested in economic stability or low interest rates. I think they will find that they are rather wrong. Of course, the importance of low mortgage rates is that there is nothing better for hard-working families who are pressed to make ends meet than being able to rely on low rates and thus on lower mortgage payments. On average, they are running about £1,000 a year less under this Government than they were when the Conservative party was in government. People remember the days of interest rates at 15 per cent., negative equity, repossession and boom and bust, and they never want to go back to them.

  Engagements
  Mr. Ben Chapman: May I welcome the employment figures published today? They show that unemployment in Wirral, South, for example, has fallen by a third generally since the last election, and by 80 per cent. among long-term unemployed young people. My right hon. Friend will appreciate, however, that structural change is occurring, not least in manufacturing, and that the picture will vary from area to area. Excellent though the figures are, does he agree that the Government will be judged not only by these excellent headline items, but by the way in which they handle the

  311
  process and help the areas, individuals and communities that are affected by economic and industrial change? [Interruption.]
  The Prime Minister: A moment ago, the Opposition were not interested in listening to what was said about interest rates; now they are not interested in jobs either. Today's figures show that unemployment is now at a record low for almost 25 years. Many people remember when 3 million were unemployed. The figures indicate, along with the fact that there are still 1 million vacancies in the economy, that we are finally providing the ability not only to have economic stability, but to put on top of that a productive job-creating base for the economy. That is immensely important.
  I hope that the whole House recognises that when there are more jobs in the economy, more wealth is created for this country and we can make the investments in our public services that people so desperately need. There is a pretty obvious answer to why the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) never asks me any questions about the economy.
  Mr. William Hague: Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman for some figures. The Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), stated in a written answer on 23 January that the cost of asylum support was £664 million. Does the Prime Minister stand by her answer?
  The Prime Minister: Yes.
  Mr. Hague: Even by the Government's standards, their reputation for honest answers has sunk to a new low. The real cost to the taxpayer was sent from the Home Office to No. 10 Downing street in the same week as the parliamentary answer was given. Total asylum support costs £835 million. The covering memo from the Home Office states:
  "this report is for internal information…lines to take for public use will be provided separately".
  Will the Prime Minister stop using the
  "lines to take for public use",
  give the real internal information, and provide a straight answer to the people of this country?
  The Prime Minister: That is quite wrong. The budget is as I set it out a moment ago, and accords with the figure that the right hon. Gentleman first put to me. He describes the costs that depend on, and fluctuate because of, the number of asylum seekers. They will go up and down. However, as a result of our measures, approximately three times as many asylum seekers are being removed now as five years ago. From next year, somewhere in the region of 30,000 will be removed. That will reduce those costs considerably.
  Mr. Hague: Once again, the Government have been caught out on their statistics. We know that the budget was £660 million. The right hon. Gentleman and the Minister were asked about the cost. The Prime Minister talks about the number of removals; will he confirm that, of the 69,000 asylum claims that were rejected last year, only 9,000 claimants left the country? Taken together,
  312
  do not the figures demonstrate the collapse of the Government's asylum policy? They have made this country a soft touch and turned us into the asylum capital of Europe. Everyone knows the Government's true record: a record number of applications, a record number of people avoiding deportation, and a record amount of deception and failure.
  The Prime Minister: Perhaps I can give the right hon. Gentleman the facts The figure of 9,000 is correct. As I said earlier, that is three times the number of people who were removed five years ago under the Conservative Government. However, the overall number of people removed is some 46 000.
  Which policies will reduce the number of those entering the country an end to cash benefits, penalties on lorry firms that bring in illegal immigrants, or a boost to the number of people who work in the immigration and nationality department? We have introduced all those measures; the right hon. Gentleman has opposed every one. Let me explain, so that the public understand, that he goes around the country telling people that asylum is a terrible problem while obstructing in the House of Commons every move that allows us to deal with it.
  The right hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that Britain has the highest number of asylum seekers per capita. In the past six months, Britain's numbers have remained constant, while Sweden has experienced a 53 per cent. increase, Denmark a 44 per cent. rise, France a 13 per cent. increase, and Belgium a rise of 16 per cent.
  We say that our measures are best for dealing with asylum seekers; the right hon. Gentleman says that he would set up detention centres for all asylum seekers, genuine or not. Conservative Members nod their heads. We have proposed one detention centre at Aldington; they have opposed its establishment. They oppose one detention centre while saying that they will create 50. That says all that needs to be said about the right hon. Gentleman's policy.
  Hon. Members: More!
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Jim Cousins.
  Mr. Jim Cousins: On Monday, the Prime Minister rightly set out the need to improve educational opportunity. Nowhere is that need greater than in the north-east of England, as he well knows. Will he promise the people of the north-east of England an early opportunity to decide for themselves whether they, like the Scots, want a political voice to tackle their deep-seated problems for themselves, rather than just being the victims of them?
  The Prime Minister: As I have said before, that is a matter for local people to decide. I understand the case for a regional assembly. The advent of the regional development agencies has been immensely important in the north-east and other areas. In our region, they have safeguarded some 11,000 jobs and brought in a great deal of inward investment. That is why I believe that it is so

  313
  important that we keep the regional development agencies and build them up, rather than abolishing them as the Conservative party has suggested.
  Sir Richard Body: Will the Prime Minister help the lobby outside by telling us how many representative bodies have called on him to bring to an end community health councils?
  The Prime Minister: As I said in answer to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) earlier, we will have to wait for the outcome of the consultation that will be announced soon. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the size the investment in the national health service is a better testimony to our commitment to the national health service than the cuts proposed by the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the warmth with which Polish people and people of Polish descent in this country welcome the setting up by the Government of a commission to examine the substantial contribution of Polish people—some of whom did not survive—in fighting alongside the allies in the second world war? Is he also aware of their hope that the Government will not be diverted from the path to enlargement of the European Union by the xenophobia shown by the Opposition?
  The Prime Minister: We have been advocates for the enlargement process right from the beginning. The vision of a unified Europe, east and west, is a vision of peace and prosperity for all the people in Europe for the future. That is why this country will continue to advocate enlargement, and why we will not allow any obstruction to get in the way of that enlargement process moving forward.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the Prime Minister believe that physiotherapy provided to an elderly person who has suffered a stroke should be provided free in their own home or in a residential or charitable nursing home? Does he also believe that elderly people who are not in hospital but in their own home or in a residential home and require incontinence pads should be entitled to receive them free under the national health service? If he does, will he ensure that the Secretary of State for Health issues a proper definition of personal social care as soon as possible?
  The Prime Minister: It is important that the definition is right. Nursing care, in future, will be free. We had to take a decision— [interruption.] Opposition Members may grumble, but none of those provisions were free under the previous Government. Let me just point that out to them: we are introducing free nursing care. We have
  314
  chosen not to introduce free personal care because it would cost about £1 billion, and we believe that that money would be better spent elsewhere.
  I must also point out to the hon. Gentleman that, in addition to the investment in free nursing care, we are also investing a large sum of money in trying to provide for people to be looked after in their own homes. The number of at-home care packages has been increased by many tens of thousands. Those, of course, are funded by the state. I agree that it is important to have a precise definition, and we shall have one, but I believe that the balance that we have struck between nursing care and free personal care is the right one.
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister give his personal attention to resolving issues concerning state aid that are currently holding back a number of important public-private sector investments in the Merseyside objective 1 area? Does he agree that speedy resolution of that issue is essential to enable the Government's policy of supporting private investment as part of regeneration to be maximised throughout the country?
  The Prime Minister: I entirely agree about the importance of proceeding as quickly as possible with the public-private partnerships that will yield such benefit in terms of investment and jobs in regions such as the north-west, particularly those undergoing structural economic change. I can offer my hon. Friend this assurance: we will do all we can to make progress quickly.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: In July, in the House, the Prime Minister promised Labour Members a free vote on the report "Shifting the Balance". On Monday—not that the Prime Minister troubled himself to vote—they were denied a free vote.
  If the Prime Minister does not allow Labour Members a free vote on "Shifting the Balance" before the general election, what possible construction can the country put on the Government's behaviour—except the construction put on the Government's response to the Liaison Committee's first report by Peter Riddell of The Times, who said that the behaviour of the right hon. Gentleman's Government was arrogant, contemptible and mendacious?
  The Prime Minister: I understand that the debate took place on a Tory Opposition day, so it is hardly surprising that we should oppose what the Opposition wanted. Let me offer the hon. Gentleman some advice, however. Next time he asks a question at Prime Minister's Question Time—perhaps a question on the economy—he should recall the words of Lord Strathclyde, which I think bear repeating. Just a couple of days ago, Lord Strathclyde said:
  "I think there's always a danger of political parties peaking too soon, and I think William Hague and the shadow cabinet have very cleverly avoided that."

Speaker's Statement
Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make about the conduct of Question Time. I wish to ensure that the four hours each week that the House devotes to Question Time are used to best effect.
The primary purpose of Question Time is to hold the Executive to account. "Erskine May" says that a question must either seek information or press for action, and that it must relate to matters for which Ministers are officially responsible. Questions are out of order if they relate to Opposition party policies rather than Government responsibilities. Moreover, a question should not be, in effect, a short speech. [Interruption.] Order. There is more.
Answers should be confined to points contained in the question—[Interruption.] Order. I must deal with criticisms from both sides of the House. As I was saying, answers should be confined to points contained in questions, giving only such explanation as renders an answer intelligible. A certain latitude is permitted to Ministers, but it does not extend to Ministers discussing Opposition policies at length, or to their putting a series of questions to Opposition spokesmen. It is those long-established rules that maintain the difference between Question Time and ordinary debates in the House.
Of course I recognise that, over many years, Question Time has developed as a lively occasion on which political points are scored. That applies particularly to Prime Minister's Question Time. As I said last week, although the same constraints apply, I think it right to allow the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition a greater degree of latitude.
I emphasise that I do not wish to interrupt the flow of questions and answers, but I believe that the House would work better, and would enhance its reputation, if Members followed the basic principles that apply to Question Time. In particular, it is crucial for questions and answers to be short and to the point; that will allow more Members to make a contribution.
Members on both sides of the House have got into bad habits at Question Time, and we must all co-operate to put matters right. I look to Ministers, and to other Members, to respect the rules and practice of the House. I also expect Members to allow me to preside over the House without sedentary comments or noises designed to influence the conduct of the Chair.

Points of Order
3.35 pm
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some hon. Members have been very concerned that the Opposition's policies have been mentioned at Question Time. We are therefore grateful to you for saying today that they should not be dealt with at Question Time. It is after all, merely cruelty to examine those policies, which are so transparently poor that, on that basis, the country will never elect the Opposition to government.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a very basic point of order which affects the welfare of many hon. Members. May I advise you that every lavatory in Portcullis House is out of order? As that problem is in addition to problems with the escalators and with the lifts, could you please investigate the matter? I believe that, after forking out £250 million of taxpayers' money for that place, we deserve better value for money.
Mr. Speaker: Order. There was a burst water main in Bridge street.
Mr. Denis MacShane: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We shall study your ruling with great care. I was not quite clear which were your own words as Speaker, which we must follow, and which were words quoted directly from "Erskine May". I think that my constituents sent me to this place not only to test and question the Executive, but, in part, to test and question the ability of the alternative Executive, who are sitting on the other side of the, Chamber. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is a serious part of my job as a Member of Parliament. I should be grateful if, in due course, you could give some reflection to that duty that I have as an hon. Member, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the best thing the hon. Gentleman could do, if lie has not already done so, is to read "Erskine May". It would make good reading for him.
Mr. John Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be familiar with the paragraph 1(iii) of the ministerial code, which states:
"It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity."
This time last week, the Prime Minister told the House that there were 500,000 extra students in further and higher education since the Government came to office. However, that figure is contradicted by all the information that is available in the Government's own statistics, and it is certainly wildly inaccurate. Has the Prime Minister come to you, Mr. Speaker, or made any other attempt to correct that inaccurate information? If he has not done so, how can I press hire to ensure that his own ministerial code is brought into force?
Mr. Speaker: No approach from the Prime Minister has been made to me. However, the hon. Gentleman is able to use the Order Paper, and I suggest that he does so.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I enthusiastically welcome your statement, as far as it goes? However, if your wishes are not carried out, could you reflect on whether it is sensible to have open questions to a Prime Minister? Considering the amount of prime ministerial time that is taken up in preparing for questions that may be asked on any subject, is there not an argument for having specific questions to the Prime Minister?
To cater for the needs of the Leader of the Opposition, is there not an argument for reflecting also on whether, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to pursue a subject at length. which he is entitled to do, greater use should be made of the private notice question? A long time ago, when I was first elected to the House, Hugh Gaitskell would use the private notice question if he wished to pursue a particular point with Harold Macmillan, which made possible a sequence of questioning that really did hold the Executive to account. One could ask whether it is possible for those ridiculous open questions to be effective in holding any Executive to account.
Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I first answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)? It is open to the hon. Gentleman to make approaches to the Procedure Committee and the Modernisation Committee. Perhaps I could suggest that he does that.
Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you bear it in mind that if we were restricted to the sort of questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has suggested, it would make Question Time far lest, topical? If an issue arose that an hon. Member on either side wished to raise—particularly at Prime Minister's Question Time—it would be virtually impossible to raise it, as you would rule it out of order. Open questions came about to give Members of this House, both Opposition and Government, much more flexibility. I hope that there will not be a decision to change that; it would be a retrograde step and against the interests of Back Benchers.
Mr. Speaker: Once again, I would say that these are matters for the Modernisation Committee and the Procedure Committee. The hon. Gentleman has a view contrary to that of his hon. Friend. He could make that view known.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 18 April 2000, the previous Speaker announced to the House that she had had long discussions with the head of the civil service and the Cabinet Secretary about letters from Ministers taking a long time to get to Members. I wrote to the Department of Health on 29 September for some information that it would have been fairly easy to provide quickly. The Department acknowledged, in the first paragraph of the reply, the name of my constituent, and went on to say:
"You and your constituent will be please d to learn that the British Medical Association currently runs a mentoring scheme for overseas doctors. They can be contacted at

British Medical Association

BMA House

318

Tavistock Square

London".
The phone number was then given. The letter continued:
"I hope this information is of use to you and your constituent."
I sent the letter to the Department of Health on 29 September; I got that reply on 12 February. It was not a difficult issue, and I would have thought that the reply could have come a lot more quickly. Do you think that Members of Parliament are getting the right service at the moment?
Mr. Peter Luff: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If I answer the first point, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will not have to raise a point of order. I cannot comment on the particular case that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) raises, but I would expect Ministers to act promptly on correspondence from all Back Benchers on both sides of the House. I am a Member of Parliament myself and I expect prompt and full replies. I hope that that is taken on board.
Mr. Luff: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have had similar problems with the Department of Health on many occasions; without doubt, it is the worst Department in Whitehall for responding to letters in good time. A reply to my parliamentary question last year said that the Department's target for replying to hon. Members' letters was 20 working days. I cannot immediately recall a letter to which I have had a reply within 20 working days. I have been pursuing the case of my constituent Kevin O'Donnell for two and a half years, and the average length of time for a reply to a letter is six to nine months. Can I urge you to see whether there is something you can do to encourage the Department of Health, in particular, to reply to letters more punctually?
Mr. Speaker: I replied to the hon. Member for West Derbyshire on that point, and I hope that my comment is taken on board.
Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I add to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)? It was the practice of the House to have closed questions to the Prime Minister in the age of Mr. Macmillan. He stood up and simply referred the question to the appropriate Minister, and Prime Minister's Question Time more or less collapsed. That is the reason why the open question came in.
Can I refer you to another point that has struck me over many years? It may be useful for you to draw attention to it, Mr. Speaker. The only second person singular in the House is yourself, and far too many right hon. and hon. Members from both sides use the word "you" across the Floor of the House, when they should be referring to "right hon. and hon. Members". It might be appropriate to add that to your earlier statement, so that all right hon. and hon. Members know what they should do.
Mr. Speaker: I have noticed that practice. Most hon. Members, with the exception of those who have come in

319
following by-elections, have been Members for four years now. They should know the conventions and rules of the House.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Oh for the golden days—but they never happened. You will find if you scan the Hansard record of Parliament in 1964, Mr. Speaker, that on occasions so few people wanted to participate in Prime Minister's questions that my late hon. Friend Eric Heffer asked two in questions in 15 minutes.
I am trying to convey the fact that it is a different world now, with different attractions. Parliament is on television, and on C-SPAN in America—and one of the reasons for that is the to and fro of Prime Minister's Question Time. It would be a sad day if we were not allowed to put our points across. I am also extremely pleased that you said that we should not talk about Opposition policies at length.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me answer the hon. Gentleman. I must say that I do miss the times when I used to sit with him below the Gangway and he told me those stories.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned a golden age, but I am unashamedly of the Jurassic age. The wider and more sensitive issue is the extent to which Prime Ministers, whoever they are, think that Question Time allows them to interfere in every
320
Department of Cabinet government. Like other hon. Members, I gave evidence to the Procedure Committee on this matter, which is part of the deeper question about the role of a Prime Minister and a Cabinet in a parliamentary democracy. That question should be addressed.
Fiona Mactaggart rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This will be the last point of order.
Fiona Mactaggart: Further to those points of order, Mr. Speaker. Your statement did not mention the behaviour of the hon. Members who are listening to the questions and answers. I have been concerned about the lack of listening in the Chamber, and I know that it distresses my constituents. Could you use your office to encourage hon. Members to listen more carefully to each other, so that we call hold people to account instead of merely listening to people shout at each other?
Mr. Speaker: I agree with the hon. Lady and I hope that hon. Members will listen to me. That would help.

BD PRESENTED
  ADOPTION OF SEWERS
  Mr. Andy King, supported by Mr. Stephen Hepburn, Mr. Martin Bell? Mr. Steve McCabe, Mr. Bill Olner, Mr. Peter Bradley, Mr. David Stewart, Mr. Tony Clarke and Mr. Tom Brake, presented a Bill to require sewerage undertakers to adopt all remaining unadopted sewers; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 March, and to be printed [Bill 47].

Consumer Accountability and New Mutuals
3.47 pm
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to emend the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 to allow for the creation of community mutuals; and to improve accountability of key services to consumers.
Community mutuals offer a marriage between low-risk community ownership of key services and a competitive, efficient operation and culture. They offer an approach that pulls together the best aspects of both public and private ownership. In short, the new mutuals could be powerful efficient enterprises, accountable to the communities and consumers who only on their services. They offer, for example, a different option for the future of the water utilities and for Railtrack, currently in the private sector. Equally, they offer new options for services now in the public sector, such as care services, housing and so on.
The privatised water companies have been successful in many ways, but they have not succeeded in winning the trust of the many consumers genuinely concerned that shareholders' interests be placed ahead of their own. There is on-going concern about the commitment of water companies to the investment necessary to enhance water quality and modernise the water deli very infrastructure.
There has also been considerable concern at the performance of Railtrack since the privatisation of the rail network, and especially since the Hatfield crash. Railtrack has refused to say whether the cost of the repair work since Hatfield meant that it would cut its annual dividend for the year to April. Indeed, its dividend payment to shareholders was in fact increased t y 5 per cent. for the first half of the year. That insistence on financing dividends, when moneys could he used to increase investment levels and help improve services to rail consumers instead, has inevitably increased concern about the sense of priorities among the members of the Railtrack board.
At the same time, equity investors, notably in the water industry, have seen the end of substantial growth in returns because of the entirely welcome and overdue intervention by the regulator. The need to increase returns has driven the search for non-core to business, which many companies have entered into, in an attempt to increase their profits and shareholder returns That additional risk has often been reflected in the cost of capital available to the utilities, reducing their future profitability.
In addition, many utilities feel increasingly pressured and constrained. The pressures of me regulatory system mean that their core monopoly earnings will be highly controlled. Moreover, there is little new equity coming into the water utility sector, with new capital programmes in general having to be financed by debt.
Community mutuals offer a vehicle to deliver significant private capital into key services while increasing the accountability of those services to their consumers in a cost-effective and efficient way. How will they work? Several water companies are already at different public stages of considering how they could vest the core monopoly assets of their business—those
322
controlled by the regulator, having identifiable income streams and providing essential services to local communities—into the ownership of those same communities via a mutual. Glas Cymru, which was recently allowed by the regulator to take over Hyder's core water business, will be 100 per cent. debt funded, rather than equity funded, because all risky speculative ventures have been stripped from the core business. The lower risk profile will provide high levels of capital efficiency and long-term security, both of which will feed back and benefit customers of the core services.
According to the Financial Times, Glas Cymru is reducing the cost of its capital by almost 25 per cent. by moving to debt finance. The money saved will be reinvested elsewhere within the business to improve the core service further. In addition, the day-to-day operation of that core business can be contracted out in a competitive market to outsource suppliers, who are incentivised to deliver operational and service efficiencies, the benefits of which can also be passed back to the consumer.
A community mutual would own the service. All customers of that service would be entitled to one nominal share in the business and to a vote in electing a board of non-executive directors. In turn, their role would be to provide a strategic direction for the business, to maximise the benefit to the community. Professional executives, who would be responsible for the day-to-day running of the business, would be subject to the control of the elected board, and would be committed to providing only the core monopoly service, while outsourcing any operation that could be provided competitively.
The responsibility of the management of the mutual to achieve success in running the business is no less hard-edged than in any other corporate model. The management would be incentivised by rewards based on achieving targets. Management and the board would be accountable to their consumers for their performance, with those consumers ultimately having the ability to determine who should run the organisation.
As well as offering the powerful attraction of the community owning, and indeed running, the key services on which they rely more efficiently and effectively than at present, community mutuals have other benefits. The ability to become a member, to receive information, to attend and speak at meetings, to vote and to participate in democratic structures, all provide opportunities for individuals in a community to participate and have a role as citizens within that community. As membership is open to any person who is in receipt of the services, there is no financial barrier excluding those who could not afford membership, so those running a community mutual are truly accountable to the entire community that they serve. Hard decisions will inevitably still need to be made by the mutual, but they will be based on the interests of those whose lives will be immediately affected.
Investor-owned services listed on the stock exchange have, on occasion, been criticised for short-term thinking. The focus on the best interests of the company—effectively share price and profitability—and on executive reward schemes based on share options, encourages decision making that brings tangible, quick results. Investment for the long term is clearly necessary and takes place, but commercial expediency determines spending priorities.

323
The boards and executives of new mutual organisations are free from that disadvantage. They can and must make decisions based on what is in the best interests of the business in serving its community. Clearly, that includes the long-term interests of current members of the community as well as those of future generations.
The most obvious long-term needs that ought to inform day-to-day commercial decisions are environmental issues. Unless there is a specific statutory requirement or an unarguable commercial reason compelling a company to choose a less environmentally damaging but more expensive option, commercial companies' legal duty, whatever they might want to do, is to put the needs of the shareholders first. That will inevitably drive directors to choose the cheaper option, even if it is more environmentally damaging. In a new mutual, carrying on business for the benefit of the community, the directors would be at liberty, and may be legally obliged, to choose the less harmful, albeit the more expensive option.
The opportunities for my constituents as consumers to have a direct influence on the policy and direction of organisations delivering key services such as water, rail, care of the elderly and leisure are negligible and, in truth, would remain limited if the services were, or continued to be, administered by the public sector.
The Government's efforts to modernise local councils, the Strategic Rail Authority and the new water regulator are making important differences in improving the responsiveness of these services to public concern. Community mutuals offer another option—another weapon in the armoury, which is not appropriate in every circumstance—to increase the accountability of key services to their consumers.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gareth R. Thomas, Mr. Andrew Love, Dr. Doug Naysmith, Mr. Paul Clark, Mr. Phil Hope, Mr. David Taylor, Mr. David Drew, Mr. Mike Gapes, Angela Smith, Mr. Adrian Bailey and Mr. Alun Michael.

Consumer Accountability and New Mutuals
  CONSUMER ACCOUNTABILITY AND NEW MUTUALS
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 to allow for the creation of community mutuals; and to improve accountability of key services to consumers: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 July, and to be printed [Bill 48].

Health and Social Care Bill (Programme)(No.2)
3.57 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Health and Social Care Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 10th January:

Health and Social Care Bill (Programme)(No.2)

  Consideration and Third Reading
  1. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.
  2. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock.
  3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.
  4. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

  Consideration of Lords Amendments and further messages from the Lords
  5. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any programme motion to supplement this order or to vary it in relation to—

  (a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments; or

  (b) proceedings on any further messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

  The motion proposes that the remaining stages of the Bill should be completed this afternoon. I pay tribute to members of the Standing Committee for what were uniformly constructive and often enjoyable debates. The Bill came under close scrutiny and the Committee stage was, as it should be, a valuable exercise.
  There were 14 Committee sittings in total. In only two of the seven afternoon sittings did we fully utilise the time available. Indeed, something like five hours and 38 minutes of scheduled time for the Committee was not utilised. None the loss, I think that we gave the Bill good scrutiny.
  There was agreement in the Programming Sub-Committee, and the Government showed flexibility in extending time to discuss additional amendments on primary care although, in the event, the extra time that was allocated was not fully necessary.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Minister has shown his customary courtesy in praising the members of the Committee. Will he go further and praise the Select Committee on Health, which opposes the community health council abolition proposed in the Bill?
  Mr. Denham: I am not aware that the Health Select Committee has formed an opinion on a specific proposal in the Bill. However, the proposals for a better and more powerful system of patient representation and health service scrutiny we re discussed in some detail in Committee.
  It is worth noting that the Committee did not utilise all the time that was available and scheduled for discussion of the issue of scrutiny of the NHS, even though it was arguably the most publicly contentious part of the Bill.

  325
  However, we gave it a good degree of scrutiny and, depending on the interest in the House, I imagine that that subject will attract a great deal of attention later when Opposition amendments are debated along with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). I look forward to that.
  In Committee, the Government tabled a number of amendments. Some were technical and some reflected direct responses to comments that had been made by Members of the House as well as professional and lobby groups. Today's debate and the amendments tabled by Members on both sides of the House will allow us to revisit—albeit in a new form—the major issues on which the Committee spent the most time.
  The Government's amendments are for the most part technical and consequential; other amendments pick up on and, I hope, accurately reflect concerns expressed by hon. Members in Committee. We are not introducing by way of Government amendment any major new issues of principle so, in my judgment, one day should give us ample time to debate the remaining stages of the Bill.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: It may well be that the Government are not introducing issues of principle, but the Opposition most certainly are doing so. For example, amendment No. 6, which deals with the abolition of CHCs, is a matter of major importance. That will inevitably mean that many Members will want to speak. The effect of the timetable motion will make that extremely difficult.
  Mr. Denham: In Committee, when those matters were discussed in some detail, we did hot take all the time allocated for their scrutiny. I see no reason why we should not hold a perfectly adequate debate later today, which will enable us to examine the issues that hon. Members want to raise.
  Mr. Philip Hammond: As the Minister has twice asserted that the Committee did not use all the available allocated time, will he make it clear to the House—for the avoidance of doubt—that the timetable contained fixed milestones, Because of those fixed milestones, it was not necessarily open to the Committee to debate issues that needed further consideration. The total amount of unused time is not an indication that all matters were fully debated.
  Mr. Denham: No, but in this case there could have been more discussion of the particular topic that has been mentioned today. The Government flowed flexibility by agreeing to additional time—not all of which proved necessary—to deal with the amendments that we tabled on primary care.
  With those comments and in the hope that we can move on to Report at the earliest opportunity, I commend the motion to the House.
  4.2 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: I oppose the motion on grounds of both principle and practicality. Throughout the appalling number of recent debates on such programme motions, we have made no secret of our belief that a contempt for parliamentary process is being systematically operated by a Government who want to
  326
  avoid scrutiny wherever possible. In recent years, there has been an unhealthy strengthening of the Executive—this is the latest and greatest manifestation of that trend. It diminishes the authority of Parliament itself; it diminishes the voice of each us to represent the needs, wishes and interests of our constituents on a range of issues.
  Increasingly, with automatic timetabling, there is an abuse of process and a contempt for scrutiny, coupled with Ministers playing fast and loose with a strict interpretation of the honest truth. For example, it is unusual for us to talk in the House about discussions between the usual channels, but I must refer to the comments made last night during the debate on the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill by the Minister for Public Health. Replying to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), she said:
  "I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government offered more time for debate in Committee, and if the Opposition had wanted to, they could have taken up that offer."—[Official Report, 13 February 2001; Vol. 363, c. 189.]
  I am told that that is not true; no such offer was made through the usual channels. Having said that it was, the Minister needs to come back to the House and explain exactly what she meant by her words. Our use of the English dictionary would not show that an offer for more time was made in a way that we would normally understand.
  Mr. John Bercow: I am somewhat surprised, as well as perturbed, by what my hon. Friend says about the Minister for Public Health. Is he aware that that statement by the hon. Lady is in stark contrast to, and incompatible with, what she previously told the House? Previously, she said that she had held no discussions with representatives of the Government Whips Office about the timetabling.
  Dr. Fox: My hon. Friend makes a valuable and serious point. Those two statements seem mutually exclusive, and I am sure that he will carry out further investigations because the House will want to know the exact truth. We cannot have Ministers saying that discussions have taken place through the usual channels, which is how we maintain civilised relations and order in the House, when it appears that they have not taken place. That can only undermine confidence in those discussions.
  The Government's ethos is one of intensely disliking scrutiny, and they do all that they can to avoid it. The Prime Minister's demeanour at Question Time shows that he regards Prime Minister's questions themselves as impertinent. That is shown in his answers as well as his body language. So that the Government are not scrutinised properly, they ensure that those Labour Members with strong views are not represented in Committee, which causes a further diminution of scrutiny.
  During a point of order this afternoon, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) made it clear that some Government Back Benchers have not the faintest idea that one of their jobs is to scrutinise the Executive on behalf of their constituents, rather than simply being Lobby fodder and the Whips' poodles, which they are so often in the House.
  The timetable motion is another example of the Government playing fast and loose with the House. They have tabled more than 120 amendments to the Bill since

  327
  the end of its consideration in Committee, and most of them were tabled at the last possible moment. They first appeared at 10.15 the night before last, and the explanatory notes were not available until last night. What are we to conclude from that?
  Mr. Hogg: Is not the inevitable consequence of the timetable motion that many of those amendments will not be debated in the House? If they are debated at all, it will be in the other place. If amendments are made there, they will return to the House, probably on a timetable and so will never be debated in the House.
  Dr. Fox: It is the ultimate irony that the Government, who came to office with open contempt for the other place, have now created arrangements whereby the electorate rely even more on the other place to scrutinise legislation, because we in this House are given so little time to do so by a Government who ruthlessly use their large parliamentary majority to restrict the time available. People outside want many issues to be debated today and there are many groups of amendments—for example, on medical, dental and pharmaceutical lists; on local authority overview; on patient information; on representation of patients and the community health councils; on nursing care; and on intervention orders.
  A huge amount needs to be debated, but that will not happen not only because of the number of Members who want to take part, but because the Minister will have to do a great deal of explaining on the 120-odd amendments and new clauses that the Government have tabled to try to clarify their own Bill. What are we to conclude from the fact that they have tabled so many amendments and new clauses?
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend will be only too aware that so many amendments were tabled to the Utilities Bill that, in the end, it was such a mess that half the Bill had to be discarded after a considerable waste of time. Is he aware that we have just five hours in which to discuss all nine groups of amendments that Mr. Speaker has selected? Perhaps the most important group, which concerns our constituents most of all, is that on the representation of patients and community health councils, which contains 22 amendments. My hon. Friend has correctly said that many amendments and new clauses will not even be discussed, but, by my simple calculation, we shall have less than a minute to discuss each amendment or new clause that is debated. Does he agree that that amount of time is inadequate?
  Dr. Fox: My hon. Friend makes several important points, the first of which is that the problem is not confined to the Bill; it has occurred on numerous occasions. Secondly, good legislation requires a lot of scrutiny. No matter how recently hon. Members were elected, they will all know of legislation that would have been better if we had spent more time scrutinising it in greater detail. It is distressing that those of us who are elected to represent our constituents increasingly have to rely on an unelected Chamber to scrutinise legislation appropriately. That cannot be the correct constitutional balance. Major issues have been raised by the fact that the Government have sought to gag the elected House in a
  328
  way that they are, thankfully, incapable of doing with the unelected House. There is a gross imbalance in the way that we consider legislation.
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: The Committee is one of the most important stages in the scrutiny of a Bill. Unlike me, the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Committee that considered this Bill, but how many Committee sittings did he actually attend?
  Dr. Fox: I am afraid that, in addition to selling out on community health councils, the hon. Gentleman appears increasingly to be selling out to his Whips. The issue is how well the Bill was scrutinised in Committee and how much time was given to that. I have every confidence that my Front-Bench colleagues scrutinised the Bill in Committee better than I would have done. They did a magnificent job. The hon. Gentleman knows that there are major issues to be debated, so I am sorry that he has tried to sidetrack the House in a manner that is frivolous and unworthy of him.
  The Government have clearly not thought through the issues. What are we to make of the fact that they have tabled so many new clauses and amendments? Does that mean that they had rot thought about possible problems before they introduced the Bill? That is probably part of the answer because we all know that, for all their talk of consultation, very lit le consultation took place with the groups that will be affected by the Bill. The Government probably did not think about the problems in advance.
  Have so many new clauses and amendments been tabled because the Bill has been so poorly drafted? Where does the blame for that lie? Do Ministers and the Government take responsibility for any of their actions? Did Ministers miss things when they first read the Bill and did they fail to understand their own legislation? Does the number of consequential amendments that have been tabled suggest that Ministers did not understand the Bill's proposals, speedily drafted as it was? I suspect that all those issues contributed to the mess that we have to put right in a short time today.
  Mr. Bercow: The point made by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) was pitiful. It was unworthy of his status as Chairman of the Select Committee on Health. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Secretary of State for Health did not sit and did not seek to sit either on the Standing Committee for this Bill or on that for the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill? We do not particularly criticise him for that: he is very important, very senior, very respected and very busy and has a very full diary. However, my hon. Friend contributed intelligently to the Committee, and he was aided and abetted by my hon. Friends the Members for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). It ill behoves the hon. Member for Wakefield to make such a cheap, invalid and thoroughly bogus criticism.
  Dr. Fox: Yes, and I have no intention of continuing the debate on this point. We all understand that the Secretary of State is far too important to take part in the scrutiny of his or any other legislation. He is above the normal tasks that the House carries out, and it is far more important these days for Secret tries of State simply to make sure

  329
  that they are fully available for the photo-opportunities, headlines and soundbites that an the Government's hallmark.
  I wonder whether the Bill has been made up as it went along. The strong impression that was given to us in Committee was that Ministers math up their answers as they went along. In the debate on what was clause 59 and is now clause 62, the Government presented information to the Committee as they went along and no notice of it was given in advance. It related to whole new structures for which no explanatory notes were given to members of the Committee. We were working entirely in the dark during our consideration of some q if the Government's most major reforms. Ministers simply seemed to change tack according to the questions that were asked and as notes were passed from civil servants. That is an extraordinarily unsatisfactory way to consider legislation. However, I am afraid that it is not unusual.
  This is a hugely centralising and authoritarian Bill. It will give the Secretary of State enormous powers to hire and fire NHS staff. He can fire certain staff at will and replace them with any staff that he wants, but he had the nerve to say on Second Reading that this was a devolving Bill. It could not be more different from a devolving Bill; it is the diametric opposite.
  When we considered the community health councils, the Government came up with all thy nonsense about how they had consulted. However, there was no consultation before the Bill's publication, and the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State had to eat if Lot humble pie—I am sure that would have been too indigestible for them—at least their words.
  A centralising measure on patient information was also introduced. It will allow the Secretary of State to control information in a hitherto unprecedented way. Almost every group with an interest in health care which wrote to Committee members and wanted to have their voices heard opposed that measure, bin debate on it was curtailed, as it will be today.
  Ministers never consider the effect of restricting the length of time between Committee and Report, and between the tabling of amendments and new clauses and their consideration on the Floor of the House. It is not only Members of Parliament who do not have time to research their implications and to get proper legal advice on their impact; outside bodies that have a great interest in the Bill also do not have the time to work out what they entail. They are unable to determine what effect amendments and new clauses might have or to pass information and advice on to Members of the House and Committee members, so that we know how they want us to proceed.
  The Government have no time for us, the House, the process of Parliament, the due process of scrutiny or the outside bodies that want to make representations. All those are cavalierly swept away so that the Government can stick to their timetable and complete their legislation, irrespective of its quality. We are being driven entirely by the Government's desire to clear the decks for a general election. The quality of legislate ln is not the main consideration.
  In all probability, we will have an hour on Third Reading, which is ridiculous. Any hon. Member who scans Hansard will see that it is traditional for Third Reading to be a shorter part of the scrutiny process.
  330
  We should devote more time to other aspects of scrutiny. Third Reading deals with the Bill's generalities, but we will fail properly to scrutinise its detail, which will ultimately decide whether we produce satisfactory legislation. All in all, it is an extremely unsatisfactory process from a very unsatisfactory Government who are, for internal reasons, happy to give us unsatisfactory law.
  4.17 pm
  Dr. Peter Brand: Liberal Democrats do not usually approve of wasting time on programme motions, but it is important to make a few points now.
  The Committee stage was useful because it became clear that some of the Bill needs to be rewritten. So many issues were raised that Ministers agreed that they needed to be addressed. However, instead of a proper rethink and rewrite, the Bill has become more complicated in terms of drafting and the extra bodies that are being introduced. Not only do we have a problem of too little time between Committee and Report, but the Government have been unwise to introduce some of the measures.
  In Committee, the Minister told us that the working party, which has been beavering away on patient confidentiality for, I think, two years, will be reporting in the autumn; yet we are being invited today to pass legislation to cover that issue. We were also told that a proper complaints and advocacy procedure for patients is about to be announced, yet we are being asked to approve legislation today that is intimately involved with that procedure. In addition, the Prime Minister told the House today that the Government are still consulting on the future of community health councils. That is a short consultation, because we are legislating on that matter today.
  I do not like to waste time—it would be better to use it to discuss the amendments—but the Government are unwise to legislate now on at least those three issues. The Bill started as a curate's egg, but has turned out to be a dog's breakfast.
  4.20 pm
  Sir George Young: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) in opposing the motion. I am not fundamentally opposed to all programme motions. I know that some of my hon. Friends are against them all, and I respect that view. I do not share that view, and there have been occasions when I have put my name to programme motions. I did so because I felt that that was in the best interests of a structured debate, sometimes with benefits to the Opposition. However, I am in favour of programme motions only when they do justice to the issues under discussion and give the House an adequate opportunity to scrutinise them. That is not the position this afternoon.
  There are three reasons—the Minister did not deal with them—why the motion is particularly inappropriate. One reason relates to community health councils. Much concern was expressed on Second Reading about CHCs. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) initiated a debate in Westminster Hall. There were meetings in Committee Rooms that were well attended by hon. Members from both sides of the House.
  For whatever reason—I make no complaint about the Committee of Selection—no Labour Members were notable critics of the Government's policies on CHCs.

  331
  Their only opportunity to voice their concern will be this afternoon. I am sure that, as we speak, Labour Members are in the Central Lobby, from where I have just returned after a constructive dialogue with the Winchester CHC, being briefed about the damage that the Government propose to do to CHCs. I would be amazed if many Labour Members did not wish to speak later on behalf of their CHCs and register their concern at what is about to happen.
  Dr. Fox: Given the Prime Minister's indication at Question Time that the Government may be intending to make a partial U-turn, does my right hon. Friend agree that in the light of the discussions in defence of the Government's original proposals in Committee, in which the Minister of State participated, it would be unacceptable to have any new Government ideas being put briefly to the House this evening? We would be unable fully to scrutinise what the Government intend to do. That opportunity should be available to us in Committee.
  Sir George Young: If the Government are about to make a major change in their policy on CHCs, that could not be accommodated within the programme motion, which was tabled before such a U-turn was contemplated. That would be an injustice to the House.
  The second reason—
  Ms Linda Perham: The right hon. Gentleman commented on Labour Members speaking on behalf of community health councils. Does he remember that on Second Reading I spoke on behalf of Redbridge CHC and my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) spoke on behalf of the CHC in her constituency? We put forward our views on Second Reading.
  Sir George Young: We were sorry not to see the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) in Committee, where their concerns were not done justice by the Labour Members who served on it.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) has made a challenging and important point. Does my right hon. Friend agree that although she and the hon. Member for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) bravely and eloquently criticised the Government's policy on CHCs on Second Reading, that does not remove or diminish their responsibility, if the Government have not responded to that concern, to repeat their criticism in even more forceful terms?
  Sir George Young: The House awaits the hon. Lady's speech with bated breath.
  My second reason for thinking that the Government are wrong was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring, and it is the number of Government amendments. There are 15 pages of Government amendments to an 80-page Bill, yet they seriously expect us to consider these matters in the time that remains available, which is about four and a half hours. It is impossible for us to consult the bodies that are interested
  332
  in the Bill during that time, given the range of amendments that have been tabled. Thirdly, a 9 pm cut-off does not allow adequate time to conclude our consideration, given the important issues that the Bill tackles. For example there is the establishment of care trusts, with all the implications for social services.
  My interest in speaking on the motion is that the final group of amendments on Report are in my name. I am concerned that, given the time frame, we may not reach that group.
  Mr. Hogg: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will remind the House that there is no reason why we should finish at 10 pm. Last night, we continued until 12 midnight on a Government Bill. The Government were content to allow the House to debate the complications of the Capital Allowances Bill between 10 pm and 12 midnight. Why should we not do the same with today's Bill?
  Sir George Young: I am sure that the Minister will deal with that when he replies. My right hon. and learned Friend said that there is no reason why we should not go beyond 10 o'clock but, as he knows, that is what the programme motion says. If it is carried, we will have to stop at 10 o'clock. Health councils, patient information—dealt with in clause 61I, which was previously clause 59—the new regime for prescribing, important changes for residential and nursing homes and the new changes to capital limits are important issues in the Bill to which the House will not be able to do justice by 9 o'clock.
  That is symptomatic of the mismanagement of the Government's legislative programme. They are simply trying to get too many Bills through in too short a time. The House cannot do justice to the sheer volume of legislation with which it is confronted. Within their programme, the Government have mismanaged matters because this Bill comes after the Hunting Bill. It is clear that the Hunting Bill will not reach the statute book, but it is conceivable that this Bill could. If the Government had put it ahead of the Hunting Bill, we would not be facing this programme motion and we would have had more time to discuss the Bill.
  I want to register my protest against the programme motion. I shall follow my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring into the Lobby with enthusiasm.
  4.26 pm
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I, too, want to speak briefly against the programme motion. I am not opposed to modernisation or the timetabling of Bills, and I have supported programme motions when I felt that sufficient time and consultation had been allowed. However, it is clear that we do not have enough time to scrutinise the details of this Bill before 9 o'clock.
  I was concerned or Monday when I saw that so many Government amendments had been tabled. I was interested in the details of the Opposition's amendments and to see what important issues they brought out. I am also concerned that no Member from Wales served on the Standing Committee. That issue needs to be addressed by the usual channels, whoever they are, because no Welsh Member, whether from the Government or the Opposition, was on the Committee.

  333
  The Bill will have a huge impact on Wales. Of course, Wales is keeping community health councils—the National Assembly has already consulted on the matter and decided to keep them.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House and, through it, the wider community that a Bill's Report stage is the only occasion when Members as a whole have an opportunity to address its details? As there were no Welsh Members in Committee, that Report stage is the only occasion when Members who represent Welsh constituencies can debate the detail of the Bill. They are being prevented from doing that by the Government.
  Mr. ThomasI agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, which is why I oppose the programme motion.
  As I was about to say, last week Me National Assembly for Wales announced the principles of its national plan for the health service in Wales. That raises many issues which should be debated in the context of the Bill, such as the abolition of health authorities in Wales and the fact that many people in Wales want CHCs to be improved, not abolished. There is a moot question whether the Bill allows Wales to change CHCs in a positive way, not merely retain or abolish them. These is also the question of long-term care for the elderly, which now faces people in Wales as, previously, it faced people in Scotland.
  Dr. Brand: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) is too modest to point out to the hon. Gentleman that he had to make the case for giving powers to the National Assembly for Wales to make its own decisions on matters such as personal care and nursing.
  Mr. Thomas: I am grateful for I hat information. I am sure that many hon. Members do not forget Wales. My point is that we need Members front Wales to ensure that all the issues are put across. I am sure that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) did his best, but it is important that we acknowledge that, on Report, ordinary Back-Bench Members have an opportunity to scrutinise legislation and to support or oppose individual amendments.
  My particular concern is that the worthy and correct debate that we will have on CHCs it England, which may not affect people in Wales as much, will take up so much time—as it should—that we will not have time for the full debate that we need on new clause 3 and the definition of nursing versus personal care. With all due respect to those who have been so concerned about community health councils, to me an even greater issue in the long term is how we look after the increasing elderly population in the United Kingdom. We may run up Against the buffers of 9 pm while we are discussing that.
  Although I feel quite warm towards much of what the Government do in the name of modernisation, I do not believe that modernisation should equate to a lack of time for scrutiny of any aspect of legislation. Because I do not think that we will have sufficient time for scrutiny on Report, I shall oppose the programme motion.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I commend to the Leader of the House the speeches that have been made on the guillotine motion. The motion is in the name of the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Health, neither of whom had the courtesy to move the motion personally, although it touches on the principal reason why we are in this place: the scrutiny of legislation and the holding of Governments to account. The motion needed the authority of a Cabinet member.
  My objection is similar to that of my hon. Friends, but it is wider ranging. Since the Queen's Speech, all Bills have been treated to the guillotine procedure. It is a new procedure, brought in only by a Government majority imposing a new system on the House. My opposition to guillotines goes back a long time. It came about when I first perceived the guillotine as the means by which the Executive could govern the House more totally than it had ever been governed in the past. I used to keep count of the number of guillotines imposed under Mrs. Thatcher—39 or possibly 41; my memory may not be accurate. This Government have been responsible for many more guillotines than were ever envisaged in the 11 years of Mrs. Thatcher.
  Under the new device, everything is to be guillotined. Behind that is a Modernisation Committee assumption, which appeared in the first report of that Committee: the Government are entitled to get their business. That was repeated in the Modernisation Committee report that initiated the train of guillotines. It is an entirely new constitutional proposition that a Government are entitled to get their business. That, effectively, is what the guillotine motion states. Scrutiny is not required-the only condition is that the Government have a majority.
  The use of the guillotine procedure is a celebration of majoritarianism. The due process by which we achieve consent and acquiescence is thrown out of the window. It does not matter what the Opposition say, because the Government majority will prevail. The logical next step in new Labour's thinking is, "Why do we bother listening to what others say? We have the majority." That view was well expressed by the Leader of the House on Monday and by her one machine gunner in support of that proposition, when Chairmen and members of Select Committees presented their views on the report, "Shifting the Balance".
  The Government are increasing their power and their contempt for the House of Commons through motions such as this and the Standing Orders that inform them. It is a denial of the purpose and function of the House of Commons. Ministers who were in opposition for many years know that I say that genuinely. Their views when they were in opposition were an important part of forming public opinion and testing whether the public gave its consent and acquiescence to the measure in question.
  The subject of the Bill, community health, is particularly important to many of us. Earlier, we all watched the Prime Minister dancing, yet again. I never know whether he is making a journey between fantasy, half-remembrance and retrieved memories, or just making it up as he goes along. We half expect an announcement of some concession on community health. Whether that can be incorporated into the Bill when a consultation process is still under way raises another question: what is the purpose of legislating on Wednesday, only for the

  335
  House of Lords to accommodate further changes at a later stage, following the completion of that quiet consultation process?
  Dr. Howard Stoate: The hon. Gentleman rails against the Government for using their democratically elected majority to get their business through the House. Does he also rail against the other place for using its huge undemocratically elected majority to hold up business?
  Mr. Shepherd: A majority ultimately comes into play, but let us be clear that we are discussing the process. That process, which the motion tries to deny, involves the rights of Members—who represent diverse communities—and their only opportunity, if they are not members of a Standing Committee, to discuss the issues that they deem to be important. That is called process, but the new system has effectively eliminated it.
  As a member of the Modernisation Committee, I know that there is great concern about the arrangements, the way in which they are dumped on to the House and the contempt that they bring to it. There is also anxiety that they do not satisfy the one genuine cry of many new Labour Members: "Can we not go home earlier?" I happen to respect that cry. I am not sure why hon. Members should be in the Chamber at midnight when we could start at 9 am, but it was the Government who did not want us to start earlier.
  Dr. Fox: I have a further point in line with what my hon. Friend is saying. The Government might cave in to some extent today on community health councils, but there will be restricted time for consideration of any new proposals. Not only will we have little time at this sitting, if the proposals are amended in the other place our consideration will be guillotined yet again, which will be a double insult to us and to our constituents.
  Mr. Shepherd: That is the essence of the point that I am trying to make. The Government are not interested in the process or in the fact that we may or may not discuss these matters. No Government should consciously impose an absurd guillotine such as that in the motion—and the motion is not isolated; it is part of the Labour Government's consistent policy to relegate the proper processes within which we try to represent our electorate. There is no question about that.
  The Government now try to make us use polite terms such as "programme motion". I notice that that has worked with some hon. Members, even on the Conservative Front Bench. I think that it was an American politician who said that if it squawks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck, then it is a duck. We are considering a guillotine motion. I reiterate that no Government can sustain themselves in the regard of the people when they treat elected representatives in such a manner. That does not apply only to Conservative Members, as the Government are doing the same to their Back Benchers, some of whom, through lack of experience or wide-eyed optimism, hope that all will come right.
  336
  We have a purpose that survives beyond the existence of individual Governments and Parliaments. It is a continuing theme of the British people that they are properly represented and that their elected representatives can speak honourably and openly on the issues of the day.
  4.38 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who spoke with considerable passion. I want to speak not about the constitutional issues, but merely the practical issues raised by the programme motion—or the guillotine, as my hon. Friend called it.
  Mr. Speaker has selected nine groups of amendments and new clauses for debate in only five—or maybe four—short hours. That is half an hour per grouping. We have already established that the group that relates to community health councils, which has the heading "Representation of patients", contains 22 amendments and new clauses.
  Dr. Fox: Twenty-three.
  Mr. Fabricant: It contains 23 amendments and new clauses, as my hon. Friend points out. It includes some Government amendments. which were presumably tabled because Labour Members learned in Committee that the Bill was incomplete, incorrect or flawed.
  Surely the point of scrutiny on the Floor of the House is to enable us, through the democratic process, not only to oppose clauses with which we disagree but to improve the Bill, to ensure that it is not flawed and that drafting errors that may remain after consideration in Committee can be corrected. The Conservative party does not oppose every aspect of the Bill
  The programme motion, which will be accepted because the Government will force it through with their huge majority, does not time the debates on the amendment groupings. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), who represents Plaid Cymru and many Welsh people, said, we may spend time debating representation of patients and community health councils but not even reach the amendments on nursing care and personal care, which are important to many elderly patients. Elderly people now comprise 40 per cent. of the population.
  The programme motion is facile; it is an insult to Parliament and the House of Commons; and, worse, it is an insult to the people; of Britain.
  4.41 pm
  Mr. Tony Baldry: The Government's Achilles heel is arrogance. The speed with which they took the Bill through Committee demonstrates that. Second Reading occurred on 10 January; barely a month later, on 14 February, we have reached Report. Yet the Bill has 70 clauses, six schedules—
  It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the notion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].
  The House divided. Ayes 342, Noes 181.

  Division No. 123]

  [4.42 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cranston, Ross

  Ainger, Nick

  Crausby, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov?try NE)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Allen, Graham

  Cummings, John

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Dalyell, Tam

  Austin, John

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bailey, Adrian

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Barnes, Harry

  Davidson, Ian

  Battle, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Beard, Nigel

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Dobbin, Jim

  Benton, Joe

  Dobson Rt Hon Frank

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Berry, Roger

  Doran, Frank

  Best, Harold

  Dowd, Jim

  Betts, Clive

  Drew, David

  Blackman, Liz

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Edwards, Huw

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Efford, Clive

  Borrow, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Etherington, Bill

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Fisher, Mark

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Flint, Caroline

  Browne, Desmond

  Flynn, Paul

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Burgon, Colin

  Foulkes George

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Fyfe, Maria

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cann, Jamie

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Casale, Roger

  Goggins Paul

  Cawsey, Ian

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chaytor, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clapham, Michael

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Grogan, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gunnell, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hain, Peter

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hanson, David

  Clelland, David

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Coaker, Vernon

  Healey, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hendrick, Mark

  Colman, Tony

  Hepburn Stephen

  Connarty, Michael

  Heppell, John

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hesford, Stephen

  Corbett, Robin

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hill, Keith

  Cousins, Jim

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cox, Tom

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  338

  Hoey, Kate

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hope, Phil

  Martlew, Eric

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Meale, Alan

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Merron, Gillian

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hurst, Alan

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hutton, John

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

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

  Illsley, Eric

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Norris, Dan

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Joyce, Eric

  Pearson, Ian

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pickthall, Colin

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pike, Peter L

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pond, Chris

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Pound, Stephen

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kidney, David

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Primarolo, Dawn

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Purchase, Ken

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Lammy, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Laxton, Bob

  Rammell, Bill

  Lepper, David

  Rapson, Syd

  Levitt, Tom

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Linton, Martin

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lock, David

  Love, Andrew

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rogers, Allan

  McCabe, Steve

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Rooney, Terry

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Rowlands, Ted

  Macdonald, Calum

  Roy, Frank

  McDonnell, John

  Ruane, Chris

  McFall, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  McGrady, Eddie

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McIsaac, Shona

  Salter, Martin

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sawford, Phil

  McNulty, Tony

  Sedgemore, Brian

  MacShane, Denis

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McWalter, Tony

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McWilliam, John

  Singh, Marsha

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  339

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Soley, Clive

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Tynan, Bill

  Spellar, John

  Vaz, Keith

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Watts, David

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  White, Brian

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stringer, Graham

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Wills, Michael

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Woodward, Shaun

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Woolas, Phil

  Timms, Stephen

  Wray, James

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Todd, Mark

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Touhig, Don

  Wyatt, Derek

  Trickett, Jon

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Mr. Greg Pope and

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

  Allan, Richard

  Amess, David

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Baker, Norman

  Duncan, Alan

  Baldry, Tony

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Ballard, Jackie

  Evans. Nigel

  Beggs, Roy

  Faber. David

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Fallon, Michael

  Bercow, John

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Flight, Howard

  Blunt, Crispin

  Forth Rt Hon Eric

  Body, Sir Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Boswell, Tim

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Gale, Roger

  Brady, Graham

  Garnier, Edward

  Brake, Tom

  Gibb, Nick

  Gidley, Sandra

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Brazier, Julian

  Gray, James

  Breed, Colin

  Green, Damian

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Greenway, John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Grieve, Dominic

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Burnett, John

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Burns, Simon

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Burstow, Paul

  Hammond, Philip

  Butterfill, John

  Hancock, Mike

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Cash, William

  Harvey, Nick

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet

  Hayes, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Chidgey, David

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Chope, Christopher

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Collins, Tim

  Horam, John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cotter, Brian

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Cran, James

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  340

  Hunter, Andrew

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Rendel, David

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Keetch, Paul

  Sayeed, Jonathan

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

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Shepherd, Richard

  Key, Robert

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

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

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lansley, Andrew

  Spring, Richard

  Leigh, Edward

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Letwin, Oliver

  Steen, Anthony

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Streeter, Gary

  Lidington, David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Swayne, Desmond

  Livsey, Richard

  Syms, Robert

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Loughton, Tim

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Thompson, William

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Trend, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Tyler, Paul

  Maples, John

  Viggers, Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Walter, Robert

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Webb, Steve

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Whittingdale, John

  Moore, Michael

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wilkinson, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Willetts, David

  Norman, Archie

  Willis, Phil

  Oaten, Mark

  Wilshire, David

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Page, Richard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Pickles, Eric

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Prior, David

  Mr. Peter Luff and

  Randall, John

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Health and Social Care Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 10th January:

  Consideration of Lords Amendments and further messages from the Lords

    Consideration and Third Reading
    1. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.
    2. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock.
    3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.
    4. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reacting.

    Consideration of Lords Amendments and further messages from the Lords
    5. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any programme motion to supplement this order or to vary it in relation to—

    (a) proceedings on Consideration a Lords Amendments; or

    (b) proceedings on any further messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

Orders of the Day
  Health and Social Care Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
New Clause 11

  ENHANCED CRIMINAL RECORD CERTIFICATES
  '.—(1) Section 115 of the Police Act 1997 (enhanced criminal record certificates) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (2)—

  (a) the word "or" after paragraph (a) shall be omitted; and

  (b) at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be inserted "or

  (c) in relation to an individual to whom subsection (6C), (6D) or (6E) applies."

  (3) After subsection (6B) there shall be inserted—
  "(6C) This subsection applies to an individual included or seeking inclusion in any list prepared for the purposes of Part II of the National Health Service Act 1977 of—

  (a) medical practitioners undertaking to provide general medical services,

  (b) persons undertaking to provide general dental services,

  (c) persons undertaking to provide general ophthalmic services, or

  (d) persons undertaking to provide pharmaceutical services.

  (6D) This subsection applies to an individual who is—

  (a) a director of a body corporate included or seeking inclusion in a list referred to in subsection (6C)(b) or (c),

  (b) a member of a limited liability partnership included or seeking inclusion in a list referred to in subsection (6C)(c),

  (c) a member of the body of persons controlling a body corporate (whether or not a limited liability partnership) included or seeking inclusion in a list referred to in subsection (6C)(d).

  (6E) This subsection applies to an individual included or seeking inclusion in any list prepared by a Health Authority under—

  (a) section 28DA of the National Health Service Act 1977 or section 8ZA of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997 (lists of persons who may perform personal medical services or personal dental services), or

  (b) section 43D of the 1977 Act (supplementary lists), and to an individual included or seeking inclusion in any list corresponding to a list referred to in paragraph (a) prepared by a Health Authority by virtue of regulations made under section 43 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (which provides for the application of enactments in relation to local pharmaceutical services).".'.—[Mr. Denham.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  4.55 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 12—Conditional inclusion in medical, dental, ophthalmic and pharmaceutical lists.
  Government amendments Nos. 40 to 109.
  Amendment No. 32, in clause 28, page 31, line 11, at end insert—
  '(7) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult such organisations as he thinks fit appearing to him to represent medical practitioners providing personal medical services or personal dental services as the case may be.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 110 to 113.
  Amendment No. 31, in clause 34, page 36, line 27, at end insert—
  '(4) If the relevant authority makes a direction to a Health Authority under subsection (3) it shall make directions at the same time requiring the Health Authority to contract with each participant in a pilot scheme brought to an end as a result of a direction under subsection (3) to provide Part II services from the premises from which he was participating in the pilot scheme.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 132, 137 and 139.
  Mr. Denham: I should like to preface consideration of this group of amendments with some introductory remarks that will put them into context. In this group, we are proposing two new clauses and various amendments to clauses 20 to 29. Together, they will substantially update the provisions for managing primary care practitioner lists. The health authority lists of practitioners underpin health authority systems for managing primary care services and for assuring quality.
  The clauses will modernise the system by giving health authorities powers to suspend or remove practitioners from their lists; by extending those arrangements into the new service delivery arrangements, such as personal medical services, under part I of the National Health Service Act 1977; by giving health authorities powers to remove practitioners from their lists on grounds of their unsuitability, as well as in the interests of the efficiency of the service or because of fraud; and by giving practitioners rights of appeal to the Family Health Services Appeal Authority against decisions by their health authority to remove them from its list.
  At the same time, we are reconstituting the appeals authority, so that it will be fully independent of the Secretary of State, and including provisions to ensure that the new system operates quickly to address any risks to patients or to the service and effectively to deliver outcomes that are proportionate and fair to practitioners.
  The legislation is, however, only part of the new arrangements that we are putting in place. We are developing primary care trusts and clinical governance arrangements. In the next year, beginning in April 2001, we are introducing appraisal for all general practitioners. We are also introducing the new National Clinical Assessment Authority.
  We think that only a very small number of practitioners are likely to be removed or suspended under the new arrangements. Suspension or removal may not be the best response. In the first instance, support through clinical governance or reference to the NCAA may be the appropriate response. We need to know, however, that we have effective powers in place if they are necessary.
  This group of amendments includes Government new clauses 11 and 12. Although I accept that there seems to be a long list of amendments in this group, they are designed to give effect to the proposals which I explained in Committee and which I have just outlined. They are
  344
  intended to refine the provisions, to deliver a consistent approach for all the primary care practitioner professions and to achieve the best balance between safeguarding patients and the rights of the practitioner.
  There are so many amendments because the legislation is complex and necessarily deals with each practitioner group separately. There are four separate groups—doctors, dentists, pharmacists and optometrists—and one hybrid group composed of dispensing doctors. Four of those groups—doctors, dentists pharmacists and dispensing doctors—may now operate under part I or part II of the 1977 Act. Consequently, it may be necessary to replicate a simple to technical amendment several times. New clause 11, for example, is accompanied by 17 consequential amendments.
  I propose to concentrate in my opening remarks on the more substantive amendments, beginning with new clause 11 and its consequential amendments. Current legislation does not allow a health authority to have access to the criminal record of a doctor working in general practice. In requiring a doctor to declare his criminal convictions when he applies to join a health authority list, it is our intention that the health authority should take action to verify the information that it is given. To do that, we have to rely on the Home Office's new Criminal Records Bureau, which was established in part V of the Police Act 1997, to provide criminal records checks for employers.
  5 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Denham: I would like to make a little progress, if I may.
  Our policy, supported by those responsible for setting up the Criminal Records Bureau, has been that the health authority should have the fullest possible report from the CRB to ensure maximum protection for the public. The Bill currently provides that health authorities will be able to obtain from the planned Criminal Records Bureau certificates issued under sections 112 and 113 of the 1997 Act to confirm the completeness of any declarations made by a doctor about criminal convictions.
  New clause 11 would also enable health authorities to obtain section 115 certificates. These are enhanced criminal records certificates which provide valuable additional information to health authorities, albeit in a small number of case s. They might well help to keep an unsuitable practitioner off the health authority lists and out of primary care. As such, we do not think we should lose the opportunity to improve the level of protection available to patients.
  Mr. Philip Hammond: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Denham: I shall give way first to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on the ground of seniority and then to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant).
  Mr. Hammond: I do not wish to get in front of my hon. Friend in the queue. By what process did the Government originally conclude that the standard certificates were adequate and subsequently conclude that

  345
  an enhanced certificate would be appropriate? Could not the Government have reached that conclusion in Committee?
  Mr. Denham: That is a somewhat metaphysical question. The consultation document issued last summer indicated the need for the broader range of scrutiny through the Criminal Records Bureau. We are ensuring that legislation reflects that policy intent.
  Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me, finally. Is he aware that the Criminal Records Bureau will be using the police national computer to access the information as to whether someone working in the health service has a criminal record? Is he aware that the Home Office admits that up to 65 per cent. of the records of the Phoenix database—the system used on the police national computer—are either out of date or wholly inaccurate? How will the Minister ensure that a doctor, nurse or someone else in a position of responsibility will not be accused of having a criminal record when they do not have one? More worryingly, w hat provision has he made for those who do have a criminal record that does not show up in the CRB investigation? Also, what fee will be charged for the CRB inquiry? Will it be at enhanced or standard level?
  Mr. Denham: Issues of accuracy are important, but they are for Home Office Ministers. We will work closely with the Home Office and we will need to follow Home Office guidance on the use of the Criminal Records Bureau. A code of practice has been set out by the CRB on the handling of data and information. I assure the House that we will work closely with the Home Office on the issue. Clearly, we wish to avoid circumstances where people are unfairly accused of crimes or are reported for complaints in relation to which they are not guilty.
  I understand that a Home Office decision on the fee is imminent, but there has been no announcement as such. I do not know what the fee will be. Clearly, we will need to discuss this with the professions. The system of remunerating professions varies; there are variations in the systems for paying expenses and so on. The liability for various expenses varies from profession to profession; that is something we will need to discuss with them.
  Mr. Fabricant: The Minister will be aware that there are provisions for the transmission of what the Home Office calls soft data. That is not covered in new clauses 11 or 12. What is the reason for that omission?
  Mr. Denham: I should have to refer back to the drafting to clarify that point, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the new clauses do include what is called section 115 data—the soft intelligence to which he referred. I do not have the text of the new clauses to hand and so cannot point to the exact line as the hon. Gentleman might wish me to, but I assure him that the point is covered by the proposed amendments. Perhaps he was trying that question on, but 1 assure him that I understand what the new clauses are intended to achieve.
  I shall deal now with new clause 12 and amendments Nos. 69, 70, 108, 109, 112 and 11 Clause 27 already introduces proposed new section 4913 to the 1977 Act to allow a health authority in fraud and efficiency cases contingently to remove a person from its lists. The effect
  346
  is that a person's continued presence on the list may be subject to specified conditions. If those conditions are broken, the person may then be removed from the list.
  That provides a half-way house: a person is given the opportunity to provide family health services but under sensible conditions imposed by the health authority to protect the interests of patients and the NHS. Clearly, if it is possible for there to be contingent removal from a list, it is reasonable to be able to impose conditions when a person applies to join one of the lists. New clause 12 therefore provides for a health authority to have conditional inclusion in a list to match the possibility of conditional removal.
  Dr. Peter Brand: It is clearly important to have the maximum patient protection regulations, but I am worried by what the Minister said about such regulations being in the interests of the NHS. I am also concerned that new clause 12 uses the word "efficiency" but does not define it. If the word "efficiency" is not used to mean the interests of patient care, will the Minister help the House by defining it?
  Mr. Denham: The term "efficiency" is not defined in primary legislation, to the best of my knowledge, but it has been used in such legislation for a very long time. It is one of the grounds on which the NHS tribunal is able to remove a practitioner from the NHS. We have sought to include the test of suitability in the new clause, but the amendments as a whole provide a consistent set of criteria needed to meet the tests set by the Bill. The use of the word "efficiency" in new clause 12 merely mirrors a usage that has appeared in legislation since the establishment of the NHS tribunal.
  Amendments Nos. 69, 70, 108, 109, 112 and 113 make similar changes to those outlined in respect of the services lists. The remaining amendments in the group cover technical matters. If hon. Members want to go through them in more detail, I should be happy to do so.
  Mr. John Bercow: The Minister will not be surprised if I return to my normal, and I think justifiable, hobby horse—the means by which regulations will be approved. Will the Minister confirm that, as usual, the Government intend that the regulations will be subject to the negative resolution procedure—that is, that no debate on the regulations and their detail will be permitted?
  Mr. Denham: Normally, instruments subject to the negative resolution procedure may be prayed against, in which case there will be debate in Committee. Some of the most important and sensitive regulations in what used to be clause 59 and is now clause 62, which deals with patient information, will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That has been the case since the Bill was first drafted, and it is a mark of the importance that the House and people outside it attach to those provisions.
  Mr. Hammond: Before I start my speech, I draw the House's attention to my registered interests. They are not directly relevant to the subjects under discussion, but I have declared them at every stage of the proceedings on the Bill.
  Amendment No. 31 deals with clause 34, which introduces local pharmaceutical services, or LPS, pilot schemes and provides for a relevant authority—the

  347
  Secretary of State in England or the National Assembly in Wales—to end a pilot scheme in certain circumstances. The schemes proposed will probably involve providers of part II services who are in place prior to the pilot scheme and, possibly, new entrants, to expand the provision of services in areas where the relevant authority feels that it is not adequate.
  To take part in the schemes, new entrants will have to expend capital, principally in establishing a place of business. In Committee and, indeed, before that, Ministers told us that there will effectively be a two-way ticket for pilot schemes in personal medical services and personal dental services. If a scheme ends, the practitioner will be able to return to providing general medical services or general dental services under the former arrangements. Ministers also indicated in Committee that when LPS pilot schemes end, they intend that those involved in providing services through those schemes should have the opportunity to continue to provide pharmaceutical services under part II of the 1977 Act. The amendment would insert into the Bill the assurance that Ministers have given.
  That assurance is important because if the pilots are essentially to be terminable at the whim of a politician, it is difficult to see how private sector businesses will be encouraged to invest their capital in setting up premises and delivering the services that Ministers want to be provided under those pilots. It is important that people who are contemplating investing in projects to make the pilots work know that if the scheme is terminated at the Secretary of State's whim, they will still be able to continue to provide pharmaceutical services from those premises and that their investment will be protected. That guarantee is essential to ensure full uptake of opportunities under the pilot schemes, which we support. I urge the Minister to consider including that in the Bill to send a reassuring signal, as I am sure he wants to do, to private businesses whose investment he will be seeking to encourage.
  Amendment No. 32 deals with clause 28, which concerns arrangements for personal medical services and personal dental services lists. It is right and proper to include in lists those who are providing those services, which are in addition to the range of primary care services provided. There are indications that the Government are pressuring practitioners to move to PMS and PDS as the preferred modes of delivery. It would be strange if it appeared that providers of those services were being penalised in comparison with providers of general medical, dental, ophthalmic and pharmaceutical services.
  Clause 27, which deals with general services, contains a specific requirement for the Secretary of State to consult with organisations that represent people providing those services. There is no similar provision requiring the Secretary of State to consult with people representing providers of personal medical services and personal dental services.
  5.15 pm
  In Committee, the Government sought to justify the exclusion of any consultation with the representatives of PMS and PDS on the ground that such services were governed by a different, locally negotiated contract. However, the representative bodies concerned—largely the same as those representing providers of general medical services and general dental services—do not entirely agree with the Minister. The introduction of the national core contract in PMS somewhat undermines the Minister's argument that these contracts are wholly different, locally negotiated and not amenable to national level discussions with representative bodies.
  Under clause 27, the Government are proposing to consult with the representative bodies. We think that it is proper and appropriate to include in the Bill a requirement to consult with bodies representing PMS and PDS providers before making any regulations under clause 28. It is not obvious from any debate that has been held so far what objection the Government have to such a provision, especially since, in practical terms, the Government would almost certainly discuss any such regulations with the very same body with which they were discussing clause 27 regulations.
  There are 74 Government amendments and two Government new clauses in this group. I am tempted to say that that must be a record, but my time in the House has taught me that that is a dangerous statement to make—and there are Finance Bills to be taken into account. It is none the less a very large group of amendments.
  The Minister has told us that these are technical amendments. I have teen through them in some detail and I concede that that is right. For the most part, they are technical and, to some extent, repetitious. It is not the substance of the amendments that concerns me but the Government's need to table this vast number of amendments very late on Monday night. I thought that I was cutting it fine tabling the Opposition amendments at 10.5 pm, during the Division. However, I have since discovered that all he Government amendments were tabled after mine, cutting it very fine indeed.
  What that tells us is that when we have rushed legislation, a very short gap between Second Reading and Committee and another very short gap—two or three sitting days—betweel Committee and Report, there is a danger that the drafting of the legislation will be found wanting. Clearly, the Government have found the drafting of the legislation wanting, and so have tabled a vast raft of amendments and new clauses in an attempt to address some of those defects. It would be stretching credulity to imagine that in the frenetic rush between Thursday. when the Committee concluded its proceedings, and 10.15 pm on Monday, when the Government finally tabled their amendments, they had exhaustively examined every aspect of the Bill and discovered every defect, given that the 100-odd defects were not discovered prior to the Bill's consideration in Committee. It is reasonable to assume that more defects will emerge in due course.
  It would be useful to reflect on one of the reasons why we traditionally leave gaps between the different stages of our proceedings in legislation. It is not so that we can diligently spend our evenings reading the small print of Bills, but so that bodies outside may have an opportunity

  349
  to reflect on what the Government propose and suggest to them ways in which the Bill might be improved or tightened up.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in relation to this group of amendments, the Government must be convicted on one of two charges? Either the Minister of State knew perfectly well at, or shortly after, the conclusion of Committee on Thursday night what the content of the new amendments was to be—in which —case it was, at the least, a gross discourtesy not to table them earlier and to give Members and outside organisations an opportunity to study them—or, alternatively, the right hon. Gentleman did not know until some time after 10 pm on Monday what the content was to be—which, if true, is even more disturbing.
  Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is right. The latter prospect alarms me most; it suggests that rafts of further amendments will be tabled in the other place which we shall have an extremely limited opportunity to scrutinise in this place.
  To take up my hon. Friend's fist proposition, I was quite surprised to hear the Minister's comments on new clause 11. If I heard the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he suggested that the need for an enhanced criminal record certificate was identified during the consultation procedure last summer. If that is so, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it begs the question—why did the Government not table the amendment during Committee? Indeed, why did they not draft the original Bill so that it reflected the requirement for an enhanced criminal record certificate? I intervened to ask the Minister whether he could throw any light on the matter, but I am none the wiser.
  Mr. Bercow: The situation becomes curiouser and curiouser. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am a kindly chap and always charitable towards Ministers; far be it from me ever to cast aspersions on the competence—still less on the mindset—of Ministers. However, in the circumstances that my hon. Friend has just pithily described, is he not concerned 'hat the Minister is becoming almost as unfocused as tile right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)?
  Mr. Hammond: I suspect, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you would not want me to pursue the line of argument towards which my hon. Friend tempts me. I am sure that the Minister has heard my hon. Friend's comments and that he will reflect on his own state of mind in his private moments.
  If the Government are telling us that an enhanced criminal record certificate is a vital part of the procedure—the mechanism outlined in the measure—new clause 11 is, of course, essential to life Bill's architecture and we have no argument with the substance of the provision. However, the Minister owes the House an explanation as to why, when the requirement appears to be central to the working of the Bill, the Government failed to identify it at an earlier stage; the provision is not about a missing comma—it is a major requirement that amends another piece of legislation. Had the Government failed to recognise the problem one amend this Bill, an absurd situation would have arisen practitioners would
  350
  have been required to obtain a certificate under the Bill that they were not empowered to do under another piece of legislation—the Police Act 1997.
  Either the Minister must explain why the Government have only so recently identified that error in their thinking, or—to refer to the right hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks—he must explain why the Government neither included the requirement in the original Bill nor tabled it as an amendment in the Standing Committee. Bluntly, the Government ought to tell the House whether they became aware of that shortcoming only after the conclusion of the proceedings of the Standing Committee. I look forward to hearing from the Minister in due course.
  Government new clause 12 provides for conditional inclusion in lists, with an adequate right of appeal against the conditions. Once again, we have no argument with the principle of the proposal. When I first read the new clause, I wondered why it applied only to providers of general medical, dental and ophthalmic services and so on. I initially concluded that the explanation was that the Bill will already write into the National Health Service Act 1977 proposed new sections 43D(3)(d) and 28DA(3)(d), which will, in effect, provide for conditional inclusion in lists. However, 1 continued to read the amendment paper and discovered that the Government will amend those provisions under Government amendments Nos. 69, 108, 112 and 113. I can only describe that as a mess.
  It appears that the Government initially forgot to include part II services in the arrangements for conditional inclusion and now want to correct that under new clause 12, but they then realised that the arrangements that they had included on the conditional inclusion on lists of PMS and PDS providers were faulty and needed to be corrected, which they will do under Government amendments Nos. 69, 108, 109, 112 and 113. Perhaps the Minister will explain exactly what happened.
  Perhaps the Minister will also explain why Government amendments Nos. 69, 108 and 109, under which the arrangements on conditional inclusion in lists for PMS and PDS providers will be amended, and Government amendments Nos. 112 and 113, under which the supplementary list will be similarly amended, do not use words similar to those in new clause 12. Why does the right hon. Gentleman still propose for PMS and PDS providers and for the supplementary lists a different regime from those that proposed in new clause 12?
  In particular, the two provisions diverge on what I shall call a motive test. Under new clause 12, proposed new section 43ZA(2) will provide such a test. It states:
  "The imposition of conditions must be with a view to—
  preventing any prejudice to the efficiency of the services…or preventing any acts or omissions within section 43F…"
  No such motive test has been included in proposed new sections 43D and 28DA of the 1977 Act. I should be grateful to the Minister if he would explain that apparent inconsistency.
  Government amendments Nos. 40 to 109, which could give the House serious indigestion, are largely technical, but I want to make one or two other points on them. Of course, it is disappointing that the Government have had to table them on Report. On Government amendment No. 59, will the Minister tell us why it has been necessary to replace the term "director of" with the phrase
  "member of the body of persons controlling"?

  351
  A perfectly good definition of the word "director" exists in company law, which deals precisely with people who exercise the functions of a director and are part of the body controlling a company but may not be called a director. Why have the Government found that amendment necessary? Does that presage a wider amendment of company law to change the definition of the word "director"?
  I should like the Minister to tell us about amendment No. 75. First, it will introduce a wholly new concept in legislative drafting. Perhaps I have merely missed the concept previously. It refers to "this group of sections". I have seen references to a section, a subsection, a part or, indeed, a whole Bill, but I have not seen a reference to a group of sections. Incidentally, that reference reappears in Government amendment No. 105. Will the Minister tell us where the group of sections is defined? Which sections belong to the group and which do not?
  5.30 pm
  At a substantive level, amendment No. 75 will create a situation in which, for example, the whole business of a chain of retail pharmacists could be placed in jeopardy by the actions or omissions of a director which may have taken place not during his service as a director but formerly. Perhaps he has failed to divulge information to his current employers. I am charitable enough to imagine that it is the Government's intention that the power in the amendment will in fact be used to impose a condition requiring that person to stand down or to cease to have control over, or a hand in, the running of the business. That would be entirely understandable, reasonable and fair. If the Minister could make that explicit when he winds up this short debate, we would feel much more comfortable.
  Unless I missed it amid the routine of dealing with the other amendments, the Minister failed to acknowledge the small part that the Opposition played in amendments Nos. 84 and 85. We achieved a small victory in Committee by extending the period allowed to practitioners for appeal from 21 days to 28 days, bringing it into line with the appeal deadlines for General Medical Council hearings. We are grateful to the Minister for tabling the amendment, but not for his failing to acknowledge its provenance.
  I have one other concern. Amendments Nos. 96 and 99 make changes to the use of the words "practitioner" and "person". They change the word "practitioner" to "person" in a number of places in new section 49K. Superficially, that is an attractive change. A practitioner is a practitioner if he practises, and if he is prevented from practising it is arguable that he ceases to be a practitioner, while remaining a person. However, the word "practitioner" remains in new section 49K(1) at lines 5 and 12 on page 28 of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 also change the references from "practitioner" to "person" in relation to the appeal procedure in new section 49K(4)—at line 32 on page 28, for those who follow such matters avidly. Amendment No. 102, which extends the same subsection, also uses the word "person". The wording appears to me and to my hon. Friends to be inconsistent, but that is possibly the result of shoddy drafting. We have ended up with a single subsection that refers both to "practitioner" and to "person".
  352
  This large group of amendments amply demonstrates the dangers of rushed legislation. It represents a warning to Ministers of the pitfalls of rushed legislation in general and of this Bill in particular. I am sure that the Minister cannot be happy that his officials, having trawled through the Bill, have found in the space of a week about 100 matters that need correction. He will be as alarmed as I am at the prospect that there will be hundreds more to come before the Bill sees the light of day in another place.
  I concede that no issues of great significance are at stake in the substance of the amendments, but I should like to hear the Minister's answers to our specific questions about the Government amendments and new clauses, and to hear something of the story that lies behind the extensive and radical group of amendments that has become necessary.
  Mr. Fabricant: You will be relieved to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that 1 shall not consider the 100 or so amendments in the group, but speak to new clauses 11 and 12.
  Although I welcome the measure in principle, I wonder whether it will work in practice, at least over the next few years. It just so happens that the Select Committee on Home Affairs, on which I have the hour to sit, is investigating the procedures by which the Criminal Records Bureau will be established. We met the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), two days ago, and the Director General of the Data Protection Agency yesterday, and learned some alarming facts, which imply that joined-up government is non-existent in this respect.
  No accurate prediction has been made of the demand that might be placed on the CRB. That creates two problems. First, we do not know precisely how large the computer capacity will have to be, how many terminals will be needed and how many people will have to be available to answer the inquiries. Secondly, it is difficult to assign a cost to the service. That is of particular interest to people who, like me, live in cities where health services are declining. The hospital in Lichfield is under threat, as are the services that it provides. According to the local health authority, that is because there is not enough money.
  When I asked the Minister how much it would cost the health service to make inquiries about those two matters, he could not answer. I do not blame him for that—he was right to say that he did not know because the Home Office had not yet decided what the scale of fees should be. That corresponded with the evidence that the Home Office Minister gave to the Home Affairs Committee two days ago—so there is a little bit of joined—up government. He was asked when he would be able to estimate when the fee scales would be available, but he could not say. That creates a budgeting difficulty for the national health service at a time when services in Lichfield—I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are familiar with Lichfield—and other parts of the United Kingdom are under threat.
  An additional difficulty concerns the accuracy of information held or the Phoenix database, which is maintained by the police national computer and to which the CRB will have access. About 65 per cent. of its records are inaccurate. Either people are detailed as having committed a crime when they have not or—

  353
  equally worrying—people are not listed as having committed a crime when they have been convicted. The Home Office is working closely with the Association of Chief Police Officers, local magistrates courts and the judicial system in general to try to ensure that the records are kept up to date or made more accurate. However, when I asked the Home Office Minister when the Phoenix database would be accurate enough to be of use to the NHS and organisations such as the scouts and the Guides that will have to make use of it, he could not say.
  We have a negative double whanimy—if there is such a thing. The Bill has been brought hastily before the House and we have only three or 'bur hours to discuss huge tranches of amendments. New clause 11 has an interface with section 115 of the Police Act 1997. They relate to the ability to access the CRB, but that will not have accurate information for some lime. We do not know how much time; it seems that the Home Office Minister and the police are unable to say.
  I asked the Minister earlier about provision for the national health service and others concerned with the new clause to access soft data. After a short pause, he said that the matter was covered by section 115 of the Police Act 1997. I am not sure that it is. I fully accept that the right hon. Gentleman is not a Home Office Minister. However, I ask him to consider the matter in more detail, with the necessary reference. I remind him mat soft data, as they are known, are tremendously important, as they concern police intelligence.
  Hamilton, who committed the massacre at Dunblane, had no criminal record. The enhanced criminal record certificate, even if it were up to date, would say that he would be all right to operate as me of the types of practitioner listed in detail in suggested new subsection (6C)(a) to (d) and so forth.
  Intelligence information given by the local police force to the Scouts stopped the scouts from recruiting Hamilton as a Scout leader. That intelligence is known as soft data. I am not sure that there are mechanisms in new clauses 11 and 12 that would give the national health service access to such data.
  On a day when newspapers are, rightly or wrongly, full of condemnation of the sentences that have been handed down by judges to known and convicted paedophiles, it is prescient to remind ourselves that now, much of the information on paedophiles is, before conviction, available only as soft data. The new clause is a worthy provision, but surely the Government would wish it to identify paedophiles and others who might not yet have a criminal conviction. That can be done only through the acquisition of soft data. As I have said, in the absence of a conviction, the enhanced criminal record certificate would produce a negative. The Minister ha: a duty to the House to ensure that we are satisfied that such soft data are made available.
  I shall ask some specific questions. They may be slightly unfair because perhaps they apply more to the Home Office than to the Department of Health, but this is a Department of Health Bill. When does the Minister expect that the information held by the Criminal Records Bureau will be sufficiently accurate to be of real practical use to the NHS? When will the right hon. Gentleman next meet the Minister of State, Home Office to press for the information to be made available to him—assuming that it is accurate? When will he be able to say to the House
  354
  with assurance, "This is how much the provision will cost the NHS"? What estimate has he made of the number of inquiries that the NHS will make to the Criminal Records Bureau under new clauses 11 and 12 in the next three or four years? When will he ascertain from the Home Office precisely what the charges will be for each such inquiry?
  Mr. Denham: I shall reply as briefly as possible. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) deserves due credit for the extension from 21 days to 28. I apologise to him for omitting to say that in my earlier remarks. I am pleased that there is no argument in the House with the principle behind new clauses 11 and 12, and I am sure that means that we will be able to agree on those matters.
  5.45 pm
  To touch briefly on the main questions raised by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, new clause 12 introduces conditional inclusion for part II services. Consequential amendments provide for conditional inclusion in supplementary lists, personal medical services lists and service lists. The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong in his interpretation that the Bill originally provided for conditional inclusion in PMS lists. The new clause and the amendments are therefore necessary.
  Mr. Hammond: Will the Minister therefore tell me why, under clause 26, proposed section 43D(3)(d) states that regulations may, in particular, include provision on
  "requirements with which a person included in a supplementary list must comply"?
  To me, that is a conditional inclusion.
  Mr. Denham: I may be able to find the time to give an extended reply in due course. However, my initial response is that that covers matters such as the fact that someone should be suitably qualified to be a GP, rather than conditional inclusion in a list. It is desirable that the Bill should be clear, and that there be a specific power covering conditional inclusion in a list, rather than have such inclusion implied, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, in other parts of the Bill.
  Amendment No. 59 would change the word "director" to the words "member of the body of persons controlling". The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said that there was a perfectly satisfactory definition of a director in company law. However, there is a new arrangement: limited liability partnerships do not have directors as such, so to cover them, the Bill needs to include a separate identifier of persons in control. Those partnerships may well be suitable for some providers of health services—in pharmacy, for example.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about "this group of sections" which is defined in proposed section 49F(5) in clause 27, and runs from proposed sections 49F to 490. There is an apparent inconsistency between the terms "practitioner" and "person", but in context they are right. The word "practitioner" is used when it refers to a specific practitioner, such as a member of a medical list. The word "person" is used in the legal sense, and was used in the drafting to deal with a list that could include a corporate body, such as a dental list or a pharmaceutical list. There is a reason behind the apparent inconsistency: in fact, it is not an inconsistency.

  355
  The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) asked about enhanced criminal records and soft information. Sections 115(6) and 115(7) of the Police Act 1997 are the relevant provisions which cover the information that he and I wish to see. Most of the other questions that he asked were touched on earlier or—I must, with respect, point out—are matters for my colleagues in the Home Office.
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge tabled two amendments, with which I must deal. The first relates to local pharmaceutical pilot schemes. The hon. Gentleman is right about the issue, but wrong about the remedy. Amendment No. 31 would mean that if the relevant authority gave directions to terminate a pilot scheme because it was unsatisfactory, it would also have to direct the health authority concerned to make arrangements with all the participants under the national arrangements for pharmaceutical services instead. I accept that if we are to attract volunteers to local pharmaceutical services pilot schemes, especially if they involve the investment of a significant amount of new capital by the provider, we will have to have arrangements for what happens when pilot schemes come to an end.
  Clause 39 provides powers to make regulations on the inclusion and reinclusion of premises in pharmaceutical lists. Our intention is that before people start providing LPS, they will be told whether and to what extent they will have a preferential right of return—or, in the case of new providers, transfer—to the national arrangements.
  We will consult before we decide the precise criteria for preferential rights, but without prejudging the results of that consultation, I can say that there may well be rights of transfer even when the Secretary of State has to terminate a scheme by direction because it is unsatisfactory. However, that does not mean that we should go as far as the absolute right that would be conferred by the amendment. For example, I do not see why, if the Secretary of State were forced to close a scheme because the service provided had fallen below acceptable standards, the provider should have the right to continue providing the service under part II arrangements.
  It would be much better to have the flexibility to tailor the arrangements made in particular cases or types of case to the needs of the health authority and the LPS provider. None of us would want an absolute right to be used as a way of getting round the established rules of entry. That is the main difficulty with the amendment.
  Mr. Hammond: We are not disagreeing on an issue of principle, merely on the mechanics. The Minister said that he would rather rely on the discretionary power to deal with such a situation as it arose, but is not the problem that in order to attract capital investment into under-provided areas, there will have to be a right up-front? Unfortunately, that may mean that rights are given in advance to a provider who subsequently turns out to be the reason why the pilot fails. If the Minister cannot give the necessary guarantees up-front, surely he will not attract the investment that he seeks.
  Mr. DenhamI agree that people will not come forward with money unless they believe the investment to be reasonable. However, the way to deal with the problem is not by writing an absolute right into the Bill. It would be best dealt with case by case, scheme by scheme—otherwise, we will be issuing an open invitation to exploit the situation, not because people want to provide pharmaceutical services in an innovative way, but because that seems like a way round the normal restrictions on rights of entry.
  Finally, amendment No. 32 would require the Secretary of State to consult appropriate organisations of PMS or PDS practitioners be fore making regulations about the lists. We intend to mirror in those lists the conditions that apply to GMS or (IDS lists. However, as I said in Committee, we do not believe that we should put into the Bill formal negotiating rights in respect of personal medical services, for example.
  PMS pilots are voluntary contractual arrangements entered into at local level. The existence of a core contract does not alter the fact that the arrangement is voluntary. Although we discuss arrangements for PMS with representatives of the British Medical Association and a great many other organisations, both informally and through the PMS implementation group, we do not believe that writing formal legal negotiating rights into the Bill is the right way forward.
  Of course, GPs entering PMS have every right to be represented locally by the local medical committee. No one is saying that they should not be represented in negotiations at local level, but there is a difference between that and extending formal legal negotiating rights over PMS through the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman seeks to do.
  Mr. Hammond: The right hon. Gentleman is saying that because PMS is a voluntary scheme, people who enter it should not haw statutory negotiating rights. In Committee, the Minister could not rule out the possibility that PMS would cease to be a voluntary scheme, with single-handed practitioners, in particular, being forced into it at some stage. Can he give an undertaking now that if PMS ceases to be a purely voluntary scheme, he will take measures to gig e statutory rights of consultation to those who are to be included other than voluntarily?
  Mr. Denham: Clear1y, we would have to examine the position if the contract were national rather than local. As the hon. Gentleman knows, our approach with regard to single-handed practitioners is through agreed changes to the national contract. We shall discuss that with the general practitioners committee of the BMA in the months to come. The concerns that have been expressed about single-handed practices can be addressed through appropriate changes to the national contract. That is our preferred way forward.
  I hope that I have dealt, albeit briefly, with the substantive issues raised in the debate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Sec9nd time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 12

  CONDITIONAL INCLUSION IN MEDICAL, DENTAL, OPHTHALMIC AND PHARMACEUTICAL LISTS.
  ?.After section 43 of the 1977 Act them shall be inserted
  "Conditional inclusion in medical, dental, ophthalmic and pharmaceutical lists
  43ZA.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide—

  (a) that if a person is to be included in a list referred to in subsection (3), he is to be subject, while he remains included in the list, to conditions determined by the Health Authority,

  (b) for the Health Authority to vary that person's terms of service for the purpose of or in connection with the imposition of any such Conditions,

  (c) for the Health Authority to vary the conditions or impose different ones,

  (d) for the consequences of foiling to comply with a condition (including removal from the list), and

  (e) for the review by the Health Authority of any decision made by virtue of the regulations.

  (2) The imposition of conditions must be with a view to—

  (a) preventing any prejudice to the efficiency of the services in question, or

  (b) preventing any acts or omissions within section 49F(3)(a) below.

  (3) The lists in question are—

  (a) a list of persons undertaking to provide general medical services,

  (b) a list of persons undertaking to provide general dental services,

  (c) a list of persons undertaking to provide general ophthalmic services,

  (d) a list of persons undertaking to provide pharmaceutical services.

  (4) If regulations do so provide, they must also provide for an appeal by the person in question to the FHSAA against the Health Authority's decision—

  (a) to impose conditions, or any particular condition,

  (b) to vary a condition,

  (c) to vary his terms of service,

  (d) to remove him from the list for breach of condition, and the appeal shall be by way of redetermination of the Health Authority's decision.

  (5) The regulations may provide for any such decision not to have effect until the determination by the FHSAA of any appeal against it.".'.—[Mr. Denham.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 13

  APPLICATION TO THE CITY OF LONDON
  ?.—(1) The Common Council may establish a committee which has, in relation to the City of London, the powers which under section 021(2)(f) of the Local Government Act 2000 a local authority's overview and scrutiny committee has in relation to the authority's area.
  (2) Sections 7(3) to (6), 8 and 9 and Schedule I apply as if such a committee were an overview and scrutiny committee and as if the Common Council were a London borough council.
  (3) Section 21 of the Local Government Act 2000 applies as if such a committee were an overview and scrutiny committee and as if the Common Council were a local authority, but with the omission—

  (a) of subsections (1) to (3), (5) and (9),

  (b) in subsection (8), of "Executive",

  (c) in subsection (11), of paragraph (b), and

  (d) in subsection (13)(a), of the reference to members of the executive.

  (4) In the provisions applied by subsections (2) and (3), references to functions under any provision of section 21(2) of the 2000 Act are, in the case of the committee established under subsection (1), references to its functions under that subsection.
  (5) "The Common Council" means the Common Council of the City of London.'.—[Mr. Denham.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Denham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 141 to 143, 140 and 155 to 158.
  Mr. Denham: Amendments Nos. 140 to 143, although essentially technical, are vital for the scrutiny arrangements across London and for authorities that operate alternative arrangements under the terms of the Local Government Act 2000. Alternative arrangements will exist where overview and scrutiny committees are not in place.
  First, the amendments make it possible for overview and scrutiny committees to join forces with the authorities that are operating alternative arrangements to OSCs under the Local Government Act 2000. Secondly, they give the common council of the City of London the power to establish a committee to scrutinise the NHS, giving the common council responsibility for scrutiny of the NHS in its boundaries. The committee will have powers and duties similar to the OSCs of other local authorities and it will be able to enter the joint arrangements provided for by clause 8.
  We have been talking to the common council of the City of London and agreed that, although it is not covered by relevant provisions of the Local Government Act 2000, it should still be able to carry out the same scrutiny of the NHS as other social services authorities. Although the City might not be the most populated part of London, people do live there and important NHS services are provided there, notably at Bart's, which is within the City boundaries. The health services in the City of London need scrutinising, as do other health services.
  The Greater London Assembly has made positive representations to the Government about its potential role in supporting the London boroughs in their new NHS scrutiny role. There are examples of NHS services, such as the London ambulance service, where the London boroughs may wish to work with the GLA and its structures to facilitate pan-London scrutiny. The Bill provides powers for the establishment of joint committees which would enable a pan-London committee to undertake scrutiny.
  We will carefully consider the ideas coming from the GLA to make sure that it plays a positive role in Londonwide scrutiny of the NHS. The GLA raised a number of issues concerning independent advocacy,

  359
  to which I will return when we discuss the relevant amendments. We shall examine ways in which the GLA can be appropriately involved, working alongside the legal scrutiny powers provided by the Bill.
  Amendments Nos. 155 to 158 are technical amendments to ensure that schedule 1 provisions on exempt information apply consistently to all primary care contractors.
  I commend the new clause and the amendments to the House.
  6 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Although we are considering one Government new clause and 12 Government amendments, I feel that the House and the nation are awaiting our debates with anticipation. Given the timetable motion to which we are subject, I shall not dwell for too long—
  Mr. Bercow: Oh!
  Mr. Fabricant: Shame
  Mr. Swayne: I can only say that I share my hon. Friends' concern—"Oh!" indeed. Let me borrow a phrase from new Labour and political correctness, and say that I share their pain. If I am not mistaken, they will be unfamiliar with clause 8, to which four of the Government amendments apply. That would not be the case if they had been swatting up in the Library last night, but the record will show that they were, as always, in their places, holding the Government to account and giving their business proper scrutiny.
  My hon. Friends will not have seen clause 8 before because it was not in the Bill on Second Reading. It was introduced on Thursday last week, at the end of the Committee stage. Three parliamentary days later-I am not sure whether we should count Friday as a full parliamentary day
  Maria Eagle: Some of us were here.
  Mr. Swayne: I was here on Friday, but as there was no quorum and not even 40 out of the 659 Members of Parliament were present to secure the passage of a private Member's Bill, I am not sure whether it counted as a parliamentary day. Nevertheless, we are considering a significant number of amendments to a clause that was added to the Bill only in the final sitting of Standing Committee. If I were uncharitable, I might be inclined to say that that was owing to hasty and careless drafting on the hoof and that my noble Friends in the other place will doubtless take account of it. I am charitable, however, and I had been assured that, as one of the consequences of the new timetable motion regime, a new culture would descend not only on this place, but on the Departments—in this instance, the Department of Health. I had the impression that a Department would realise that it was no longer acceptable to table a raft of amendments at the last minute, because the timetable would not accommodate them. I am still looking forward to the arrival of that new
  360
  culture. We have been promised it, but it has unfortunately not yet been delivered, even though we still have to live with the limitations of the timetable motion.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend has shocked me and, I suspect, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). He is certainly describing a rum set of affairs, but can he diminish my pain and minimise the constitutional outrage that has been perpetrated by at least assuring me that the Government gave some advance notice of their intention to table the new clause at such a late stage?
  Mr. Swayne: To be perfectly frank, I cannot remember whether they did so. I will say in the Minister's defence that he gave us notice of new clauses and amendments throughout the Committee stage; he was assiduous in warning us of their coming and providing details of them. However, there were so many that I lost count of which of his letters referred to which proposals, so I cannot specifically answer my hon. Friend's question.
  I deal now with new clause 13, which tells us essentially that the Minister forgot the common council of the City of London, which is a rather significant thing to forget. I am sure that some of the Labour Back Benchers who appeared from time to time during discussion of the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill in the previous Session wish that he had not remembered it at all and were quite content for him to have forgotten it. Nevertheless, as it was forgotten, I should like to hazard a suggestion as to why that happened and how it might have been remembered. If we had not moved from Second Reading to Committee so swiftly—we did so at an indecent pace and with a severe shortage of elapsed time—the Department might have had time to think through the Bill rather more carefully. We would not then have been faced with the tabling of new clause 13 at the last moment on Monday night.
  I do not want to detain the House, but I should like to ask two questions, the first of which concerns Government amendment No. 140. The Minister might tell me that I completely misunderstood the amendment when I wrestled with it at d with the Local Government Act 2000 in the Library last night. I accept that that is possible, but I seek clarification. The amendment refers to "subsection (2)". Is that provision contained in section 21 of the Local Government Act 2000 or in the Bill? I concluded that either might be the case, although the meanings that could be construed would be very different.
  My second question relates to the exclusions contained in subsection (3) of new clause 13. Paragraph (a) of that subsection refers to the actions of the common council in respect of the omission
  "of subsections (1) to (3), (5) and (9)"
  of the appropriate section of the Local Government Act 2000. My principal concern relates to the exclusion of section 21(9) of that Act. Although I recognise that it would generally be unlikely for a member of the executive of a local authority to participate in the executive and scrutiny function of the health trust or authority, I can conceive of circumstances in which a local authority might want that to happen. Why is that exclusion made?
  Similarly, subsection (3)(d) of new clause 13 excludes section 21(13)(a) of the 2000 Act. Again, I understand that the scrutiny function would not principally require

  361
  the involvement of members of the local authority executive, but I can envisage circumstances when such involvement might be desired. That might be especially likely in relation to aspects of the local authority's health policy that affect the proceedings or functions of the NHS trust that is under scrutiny.
  Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman asked about the omission from the Bill of the common council of the City of London. I believe that I can say on reasonably sound ground that there is good precedent for such omission, but not for its being caught and put right in time. I seem to remember that Bromley was left out of the Health Authorities Act 1995, which was enacted under the previous Administration, and that it remained outside the remit of that Act for some four years That did not appear to affect Bromley health authority's operation, which was probably illegal for those four years.
  I seem to remember also that the Isles of Scilly were left out of the National Health Service Act 1977 for 22 years, but I am not sure about that None the less, NHS services continued to be provided in the Isles of Scilly. I am glad that we are correcting the position on the common council.
  I do not have a copy of the Local Government Act 2000 to hand, but I am reasonably sure that amendment No. 140 refers to section 21(2) of that measure. If I am wrong, I shall write to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).
  Without debating new clause 13(3) in detail, I believe that we should erect the right sort of Chinese walls between the various roles that people play, to avoid a conflict of interest in scrutiny. We have sought to do that in the new clause. I accept that it is always possible to debate whether the dividing line is in the right place, but we have tried to achieve that.
  The new clause enables the common council to establish a scrutiny role for health. The common council does not have an executive in the context of the Local Government Act 2000 because it is excluded from it. The arrangements are therefore different.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

  PATIENT DATA
  ?.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision for and in connection with requiring and regulating the transmission, holding, processing or otherwise dealing with prescribed patient information as he considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of maintaining disease registers.
  (2) In this section—
  "disease registers" means those registers of incidence of specified diseases as the Secretary of State shall by regulation prescribe;
  "prescribed patient information" means patient information specified in or determined in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section;
  "processing", in relation to information, means the use, disclosure or obtaining of the information or the doing of such other things in relation to it as may be prescribed by regulations.
  (3) Regulations made under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulation has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.—[Dr. Fox.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Dr. Liam Fox: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 1, in page 58, line 17, leave out clause 62.
  No. 33, in clause 62, page 58, line 18, at end insert "identifiable".
  No. 34, in page 58, line 38, at end insert—
  '(d) "identifiable patient information" in relation to subsection (1) means patient information in a form which allows the patient to be identified'.
  No. 35, in page 58, line 38, at end insert—
  '(e) regulations under subsection (1) may not prohibit or restrict the processing of patient information which is not identifiable patient information.'.
  No. 15, in page 58, leave out from beginning of line 39 to end of line 26 on page 59 and insert—
  '(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision for the collection, holding, processing, transmission and publication of patient information as he considers necessary for the purpose of maintaining disease registers.'.
  No. 30, in page 60, line 3, at end insert—
  '(8A) The Secretary of State shall establish an Expert Advisory Committee to advise him in connection with any regulations he proposes to make under this section, and shall consult the Expert Advisory Committee prior to making any regulations under this section.
  (8B) The Secretary of State shall appoint a chairman of the Expert Advisory Committee established under subsection (8A) above who shall be empowered to appoint such persons as appear to him to represent relevant expert bodies to the committee.'.
  Dr. Fox: The debate continues a discussion that we held in Committee. The question that we asked remains to be answered: do the Government aim to protect patients or the NHS and Ministers? Clause 59 in the original Bill is now clause 62, which allegedly clarifies matters but merely makes them murkier.
  The Government claimed that new powers were needed to protect patients from abuse of the information that was held about them. They have not defined how such information could be used against patients or explained how the powers would affect its legitimate use, for example during drug trials. We tried to obtain clarification of the Government's arguments and assertions in Committee, but to no avail.
  The Secretary of State's powers to divulge data at his discretion do not appear in the Government's national plan for the NHS. They have been included without consultation—surprise, surprise—as a method of restoring the attempted prohibition on the collection of anonymised data from retail pharmacists that the Court of Appeal rejected in December 1999. We debated that case at length in Committee. The Government claim that the Bill closes a legal loophole, without defining it. The court ruled that there was no loophole and the judge stated that
  "the law of confidence cannot be distorted"
  for the Department's purpose.

  363
  In the Committee's 12th sitting on 8 February, the Minister stated:
  "The clause does not outlaw independent reports on NHS services and it is not an attempt to restrict medical research. A fundamental point is that it does not signal any change to the Government's view about the importance of patient consent. That is a key point in today's debate. Informed consent is crucial to the Government's view of how a modern NHS should work. We cannot move to a patient-centred service if patients are not informed, consenting participants in the services they receive."— [Official Report, Standing Committee E, 8 February 2001; c. 477–78.]
  However, the Minister failed to respond to the point that the clause grants the Secretary of State powers that future Secretaries of State could implement in a manner that is far more hard line than the Government's intentions as outlined by the Minister. His constant defence was, "We may have the powers, but we will not use them." That is unacceptable.
  The Minister found it difficult to accept that the Bill's contents are what matters. Once a power is established, it can be used. We want greater clarification of the powers and when they can be used. New clause 1 seeks to achieve that.
  British pharmaceutical companies could be at a severe disadvantage because of restrictions on research. Many expressed that concern to members of the Committee and other hon. Members. Access to anonymised data is essential to their work in developing new drugs and monitoring the safety and effectiveness of existing drugs. The restrictions would especially affect their fulfilment of regulatory obligations, including those that deal with adverse event monitoring and product withdrawals. In Committee, I quoted the words of one firm; they bear repeating tonight. NDC Health Information Services stated:
  "Commercial access to non-personal data provides considerable benefits to all concerned; the loss of this access will result in less efficient health care and less funding for medical research without any concomitant benefits to either government, health providers or patients."
  If the Government continue to deny the effect of their decisions, it is incumbent on Ministers to explain why, not content with abolishing community health councils, they have introduced a clause that gives future Governments massive scope to prevent independent scrutiny of the NHS. It is part of a consistent approach by Ministers to running health care.
  6.15 pm
  Ministers must also explain contradictions. In a speech to patients groups in January, the Secretary of State said:
  "The days have gone when the NHS could act as a secret society. It cannot operate behind closed doors. It cannot operate in the dark. It has to take patients into its confidence."
  Yet clause 62 allows him to disclose identifiable information to third parties without patients' consent and despite their objections. The Minister can introduce as many regulations as he likes, but the decision ultimately lies with the Secretary of State. He has the right to produce identifiable data, even when that is not in the patient's interest, if he believes that it is in the public interest or the wider health interest. That is unacceptable. Explaining the provision's operation in practice is not the same as defining it in the Bill. New clause 1 attempts to make the provision more explicit.
  364
  A letter to The Times on 1 February was signed by Sir Donald Irvine, president of the General Medical Council; Dr. Ian Bogle, chairman of the British Medical Council; Robert Boyd, chairman of the Council of Heads of United Kingdom Medical Schools; Denis Pereira Gray, the chairman of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges; and James Johnson, chairman of the Joint Consultants Committee. They are top people, who are well respected and represent almost the whole spectrum of those who practice in medicine. The letter stated:
  "We agree with Alan Milburn that we cannot accept the benefits of medicine, science or research regardless of the wishes of patients or their relatives."
  No one would have a problem with that. It continues:
  "However, Clause 59 of the Health and Social Care Bill threatens patient confidentiality by giving the Secretary of State for Health wide and ill-defined powers to determine what information should be disclosed in the public interest or for the improvement of patient care, without patients' consent.
  We believe that any decision to override the citizen's right to privacy should be exceptional and must only be made—other than in an extreme medical emergency—after rigorous parliamentary scrutiny rather than by order of a Secretary of State. The Bill does not appear to provide for this."
  We raised those issues in Committee. None of the Minister's assurances has persuaded us or, I believe, the groups that wrote to The Times that the provision makes for a better system. The fear of its use at the whim of a future Secretary of State provokes anxiety.
  Perhaps our most important debate in Committee and tonight is on disease registries. We considered the Bill's impact on cancer registries in particular. Despite our reservations about the Secretary of State's power to require the publication of unanonymised data, we acknowledge the need for action to protect specific registries, including cancer registries.
  No hon. Member should take disclosure of information without consent lightly. If the Secretary of State can do that
  "in the interests of improving patient care",
  or "in the public interest", he must justify granting such sweeping and unprecedented powers to override the cornerstone of patient confidentiality between health professional and patient.
  We are concerned—as were hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—that disease registries, including those relating to cardiac disease and cancer, should be able to continue their valued work. The Government's acceptance that decisions regarding the application of the subsection should be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament was a concession, but it does nothing to alter the basic facts.
  The clause establishes sweeping powers far beyond what is required to ensure the continued viability of disease registries. That point was also raised in the amendments tabled for the British Medical Association by the Liberal Democrats in Committee. By dealing with specific applications of the subsection on a case-by-case basis, the Government find themselves in the position of permitting everything pending future exclusions. Why not provide clarity by stating what is permitted, as we have done in new clause I?
  The Minister's comments in Committee appeared to be an attempt to establish procedure on the hoof. The proposals for the scrutiny of applications are at best

  365
  opaque and at worst obscure. That is particularly disappointing because there had been broad cross-party agreement on the necessity of maintaining disease registries. If the Government wish to develop and consult on proposals for wider measures, they should do so, rather than seek to rush through ill-thought-through ideas without any semblance of consultation. As I said, that is an unsatisfactory way to legislate.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that although the Government might not have devoted a great deal of thought to their proposals, they hale thus far certainly devoted a great number of words to them? I am pleased to see new clause 1, which pithily sets out the basis of what Her Majesty's Opposition would like to insert into the Bill in only 151 words, in contrast to the two and a half pages of unreconstructed and inexplicable verbiage on pages 58 to 60 of the Bill.
  Dr. Fox: It is becoming habitual for me to agree with every word that my hon. Friend says. He has encapsulated the simple idea that if the Government mean something by the legislation, they ought to say it in the Bill. This part of the Bill has been drawn far too widely. If the Government's intention is as the Minister explained in Committee, that should be in the Bill.
  The Minister's comments in Committee demonstrated the lack of thought that had gone into the subsections of clause 62, formerly clause 59. Other hon. Members and I highlighted in Committee instances in which the law could either be unworkable or render existing practices unworkable. The Minister spoke frequently of the need to ensure that regulations were adequate and correct. The degree of thought that he now recommends should have occurred before the framing of the Bill rather than during the final days of Committee.
  Adequate thought has still not been given to the matter, and no satisfactory response has been given to the concern of GPs that the powers in the clause could make it mandatory for them to pass on identifiable patient information against their will, or against what they believe to be their patients' best interests. Will the Minister explain how that provision is sustainable in the face of principle 10 of the NHS plan, which states that the confidentiality of individual patients must be protected? The two concepts do not sit side by side.
  The definition of patient information provides the Secretary of State with the power to ban the use of important and beneficial non-personal data, yet it also allows him to share identifiable health data at his own discretion. The clause states that the Secretary of State will use his powers "in the public interest", but that could easily become an excuse for the suppression of politically inconvenient data.
  The explanatory notes suggest, as an example, that regulations to prohibit the use of anonymised patient information that is being used for a purpose
  "which is detrimental to the operation of the NHS"
  could fall within this definition. That could lead to situations in which cancer charities, among others, would not be able to conduct surveys of postcode rationing. This attempt to squeeze the life out of independent criticism of the NHS is reminiscent of the matter of the community health councils, which we shall discuss with the next group of amendments.
  366
  Last year, the Government abolished the patients charter in favour of a glossy brochure called "Your Guide to the NHS". A Government who are willing to use public money to publicise their party's health policies are a Government who would be willing to use possible restrictions on data to suit their party political policies.
  I can make no better summary of the problems that we are trying to address in new clause 1 than to quote a letter to The Guardian signed by the president of the Royal College of Physicians, Sir George Alberti, as well as by the chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, the director of the World Health Organisation Uppsala monitoring centre, the chairman of the Patients Association and the chairman of the Depression Alliance. I quoted the letter in Committee, but it certainly bears being put on record again. It was written by people who are well respected in their field, and who cover the whole spectrum of the practice of medicine, of patient groups and of those who have devoted their lives to patient care. They state:
  "We wish to voice our serious concerns relating to Clause 59 of the Health and Social Care Bill, currently making its way through Parliament. It is the view of many in the medical community"—
  I would say that it is almost a unanimous view—
  "that this clause would seriously threaten the ability of patient organisations, academics and the pharmaceutical industry to undertake important research and analysis, based on anonymous healthcare data, to improve the quality of patient care.
  As it stands, the Bill provides the Secretary of State with such sweeping powers as to allow him to curtail or prohibit the collection of anonymised patient information, however derived, and conversely require or regulate the release of confidential information, without the patient's consent, for reasons that he judges appropriate. Remarkable as it may sound, these measures have been barely raised either in or out of parliament and were not included in the Government's National Plan.
  It is our view that independent collection of information on the NHS enables analysis of information that the NHS does not collect or cannot provide easily to patient organisations, academics, public health bodies and the pharmaceutical industry. We have witnessed the value of such data in scrutinising the performance of the NHS and improving healthcare.
  We urge the Government, in the spirit of open government, to withdraw this clause until adequate consultation has taken place. Only then can we reach an informed consensus about what controls are required both to protect patients but nonetheless allow access to anonymised information so necessary in monitoring and improving patient care."
  Despite our pleas in Committee, we have been given nothing that makes it clear that the Government will incorporate a better definition into the Bill, so that Parliament and the courts will understand exactly what this information is to be used for. We need a better definition that will allow us to ensure that the provision is not at some point abused.
  New clause 1 tries to tie down this part of the Bill to the purpose for which most of us believed it was to be used, involving one of the most important aspects of maintaining disease registries. If the Government do not accept the new clause, we can only believe that they want wider powers for reasons that go beyond those they gave in Committee as the justification for this part of the Bill. I commend new clause 1 to the House.
  Dr. Brand: I declare an interest as a clinical practitioner, in that I work as an independent contractor to the health service as a general practitioner. It is relevant to make that declaration, as I would not like to be in conflict with the Secretary of State.

  367
  Renumbered clause 62 gives the Secretary of State powers to override the wishes of patients on the control of clinical data. I can tell the Secretary of State that most of my colleagues would join me in saying that the wishes and desires of their patients far outweigh any powers that any Secretary of State may care to take to himself or herself. Even the theoretical powers that the Secretary of State may be adopting could be profoundly unsettling for a profession that cares for patients above all, and could make the work of clinical practice a great deal more difficult.
  Dr. Fox: To make the point even more explicitly, does the hon. Gentleman accept that, under the Bill, he and other practising doctors could find themselves in conflict with the Secretary of State for not providing data about a patient, or with the General Medical Council for providing it? Does he agree that that would be an unacceptable position for any practitioner?
  Dr. Brand: That illustrates the position fairly clearly—and it would be a brave Secretary of State who took on a doctor acting in the interests of his patient. I hope that such circumstances never arise, but the Bill contains the potential for them.
  6.30 pm
  We accept that there is a problem with the maintenance of existing disease registers, especially cancer registers. In the past, consent was assumed far too frequently. In my view, it would be impractical to refer to people on existing registers in order to obtain formal consent to enable us to continue the excellent work that has been going on for decades, and has done so much to help us to understand the epidemiology and treatment of cancers and other diseases. However, I do not think there is any justification now for not asking for patients' consent at the time of the onset of their illness, or when they may be entering a register. Even after the probing in Committee, I still cannot understand why the Minister must take potentially wide-ranging powers if the aim is to maintain an important register and to deal with the anxieties of the Data Protection Registrar.
  A problem has been created by, I think, parliamentary draftsmen rather than Ministers. There was an opportunity to introduce a bit of legislation, and the Government clearly needed an NHS Bill before the election. They looked at what they should put in the legislation that they envisaged, and this is part of that. There is a real problem with, for example, the existing cancer registries, but rather than concentrating on that the Government said, "Here is an opportunity to create a few more sweeping powers". There was then a great outcry.
  Dr. Howard Stoate: As the House will know I, too, am a medical practitioner, and the regulations will therefore impinge on me to a large extent. Clause 62(5) states:
  "Regulations under subsection (3) may not make provision requiring the processing of confidential patient information for any purpose if it would be reasonably practicable to achieve that purpose otherwise than pursuant of such regulations".
  368
  Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the power will be used under the Bill only if it is impracticable to obtain information in any other way—in other words, by patient consent?
  Dr. Brand: This is fascinating—it is what the legislation says, but the judge of whether the condition is fulfilled will be the Secretary of State, who will consult both Houses.
  The Government, almost shocked by their own temerity in wishing to take these powers, obviously felt that they must put the brakes on. I appreciate the fact that they have done something quite unusual in requiring affirmative resolutions from both Houses, but that has happened only because they recognise that the powers they have given themselves are so ridiculous. They are far too wide and they are totally unnecessary.
  Mr. Bercow: I do not want to criticise the hon. Gentleman, who is making an important point and speaks with some medical expertise. However, although I understand what he says about the parliamentary draftsmen, there is no way in which we can exonerate Ministers on the basis of errors of commission or omission by draftsmen: the Minister of State is responsible for what transpires.
  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that clause 62(2)(c) is a model of ambiguity? It blathers on about level five on the standard scale,
  "or such other level as is prescribed",
  and goes on to refer to
  "other procedures for enforcing any provisions of the regulations."
  Why on earth can we not be told about those arrangements in the Bill?
  Dr. Brand: As often, that was a valuable intervention. I think that there is a shared responsibility. It was noticeable that the only people who showed any enthusiasm in Committee were the officials, who agreed with every word that the Minister said. The rest of us shook our heads in some surprise.
  It is clear that the Minister should take a small step—an interim step—to deal with the concerns about existing disease registers. I cannot understand why the Minister has taken the opportunity to assume powers in a completely different issue, that of anonymised data. By definition, that is not patient-identifiable information. It seems that the Government want an opportunity to reverse a slight that they may have experienced when they lost a case in the High Court. [HON. MEMBERS: "Henry VIII"' My memory does not go back as far as Henry VIII, and I do not understand the exact purpose of the "commercial" clause.
  In Committee, I asked the Minister for a definition of "commercial". He referred me to the Town and Country Planning Acts, but they concern commercial premises rather than commercial activities. This is an important point. A good deal of research in this country is funded by drug companies and others in the health care field-not for altruistic reasons, but because they hope they will gain some commercial advantage. I am not saying that commercial activities are always benign: I think it improper for a drug company to try to work out the individual prescribing pattern of a particular general

  369
  practice or a particular general practitioner in order to target its promotion. We have received briefing from some commercial organisations, and I can assure the House that their activity is not designed to drive down drug costs; it is designed to increase their share of the drug market, often through the prescribing of their expensive patented drugs as against generic drugs.
  I can see that the Secretary of State might want to consider a way of dealing with the need for information on NHS activities to be made freely available. All audit and a good deal of local government information is dependent on access to anonymised information. However, I do not think that what we are discussing makes sense.
  Dr. Stoate: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about audit, but we are talking about "prescribed commercial purposes". Audit is not commercial; it is for the good governance of the national health service, and for allied purposes. The provision relates specifically to the use of anonymised patient data for profit.
  Dr. Brand: It depends on how the data are collected. I do not know my medical colleague's practice well, but I know that he has long been concerned with medical education, postgraduate education and training, as I have. I know how many training activities depend on a degree of sponsorship, and it is important to ensure that sponsorship does not corrupt the activities of the practice; but we are talking about a commercial activity nevertheless.
  I understand why the Minister might be tempted to take powers, but I think he has adopted the wrong route. The most important step that he could have taken, as a Minister responsible for national health information, would have been to say that non-patient-identifiable information should be covered under freedom of information provisions, and accessible to all. That would make narrow commercial interests disappear, because it would not be in the interests of companies to produce the information—but the overall trends relating to drug use would still be explored, because that would be in the interests of if not just one drug company, drug companies generally.
  I am profoundly unhappy about clause 62. As I said in the debate on the programme motion, it is ludicrous for the Government to propose such a provision before their own working party on patient confidentiality and associated issues has even reported _Although I welcome the fact they are establishing a formal body to advise them, there is already such a body and they have not waited for its advice before rushing us into legislation.
  I think that it would be sensible for the Government to rethink clause 62, and I am glad that I am not the only one who thinks so. At the last Committee sitting, I gave a list of people who feel as I do. Since then, however, the list has grown from four to 11 signatories, representing a wide range of patient interests rather than commercial interests.
  Should the House not divide on new clause 1, I would certainly seek to press amendment No. 15 to a Division. As the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, that amendment is extremely elegant and cost-effective, with only 32 words.
  Sir George Young: I hope that someone who is not a registered general practitioner may participate in the debate on this group of amendments.
  370
  Although the Government have tabled a very large number of amendments since the Committee rose last Thursday, they have not tabled any amendments to what was clause 59, now clause 62, which was the section of the Bill where I thought that they came under most sustained attack and were on the thinnest ice. I am very sad that they have not found an opportunity to meet some of those anxieties by tabling amendments of their own to new clause 62.
  When I initially went through the Bill, before I went on to the Standing Committee, clause 59 was not one that immediately was drawn to my attention. At that stage, no one had written in about clause 59. Admittedly, it had not been in the NHS plan. It was only when the debates in Standing Committee began that letters came in.
  The Government, in their definition of patient information, have managed to upset two wholly different groups of people. On the one hand, the Secretary of State has the potential power to ban the use of important and beneficial non-personal data, which has upset the pharmaceutical companies; on the other, the Government also allow sharing of identifiable health data without the subject's consent, which has of course upset the patient organisations.
  Like the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand), I have received representations from the chairman of the Patients Association, the director of the BMA Foundation for Aids and the director of the National AIDS Trust. They say that they have continuing concerns that clause 62 gives the Secretary of State
  "unprecedented powers to collect patient data without consent. It is an attack on patient confidentiality. The Government has not made a proper case for overriding patient consent, even for the cancer registries."
  The chairman and directors also say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said, that the Government are
  "embarking on legislation without a due process of public consultation."
  They also criticise the Government for drafting clause 62 very broadly and allowing
  "expedient use of identifiable patient information at the discretion of the executive, subject only to clawback safeguards",
  which they find ineffectual.
  Therefore, the Government are not only being attacked by patients' representatives for their definition of patient information, they are being criticised by the pharmaceutical companies for potentially prohibiting the use of anonymised data. Although those data are of commercial value, they are also of real benefit to academics, research institutions, consumer organisations, doctors, pharmacists and patients. In debate in Committee, the Minister, although he tried valiantly, never really justified the very wide definition of patient information in a manner that would allow him to forbid the use of anonymised data, which I believe are of wide benefit.
  The assumption has been made that even the use of data without personal identification is, according to the explanatory notes,
  "not in the interests of patients".
  I ask the Minister to have another go at defining
  "in the interests of patients" in a manner that will reassure the House that he does not seek to ban the use of anonymised information that could be of beneficial use by identifying drugs that have application but, for whatever reason, are not being prescribed in certain parts of the country.

  371
  6.45 pm
  My final point is on rural pharmacies. Pharmacists receive additional revenue from commercial companies in return for anonymised data. That revenue is greatly welcomed by rural pharmacies across the country, which provide pharmaceutical cover to many housebound and many elderly patients through, for example, prescription delivery and collection and extended opening hours. The remuneration that pharmacists receive from the NHS has been reduced significantly in recent years. That has led them to look for new revenue sources. Income derived from prescription data can help provide additional employment, extend opening hours and be of broader use to the NHS.
  I therefore ask the Minister to think again about that very wide definition and to see whether, even at this late stage, he cannot help the House by being more explicit about why he needs such very wide-sweeping powers.
  Mr. Fabricant: On clause 59, which has become clause 62, the Bill's explanatory notes state:
  "The existing legal framework concerning the control of information relating to patients is complex and contains some uncertainties."
  If the Bill's aim was to try to limit the complexity and uncertainties, it has patently failed to do so. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) said, there could well be conflict between the current terms of clause 62 and his responsibility to the General Medical Council. I would state the case even more strongly. As things have not changed so much in these days of new Labour that doctors no longer adhere to the Hippocratic oath—they still do-I wonder whether there would be a conflict between the Bill and the Hippocratic oath.
  There is no question but that the Secretary of State could find himself in conflict with the General Medical Council or with the British Medical Association. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight said that a Secretary of State who willingly engaged in such conflict would have to be a brave Secretary of State. I say that he would have to be not so much brave as foolish. Nevertheless, although it is most unfortunate, foolish Secretaries of State are not unknown, particularly in this Government.
  It is important to gather such information, particularly in disease registers, for epidemiological purposes. However, as both my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, it is also important that we know where certain drugs are being used. I take the hon. Gentleman's point on generic drugs. Drug companies often push their own branded analgesics and other remedies that could be bought at one-tenth of the price as a generic product at Boots or another pharmacy. Paracetamol with codeine is available under the most marvellous names, pushed by drug companies at 10 times the price of a generic product. I can understand why the Government would be cautious in allowing that type of detailed information to fall into the hands of drug companies.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) said, anonymised information does not fall into that category. During the past few weeks, I have become aware of how the National Institute for Clinical Excellence—which was established not so long ago by Health Ministers—has made recommendations on drugs that should be available for
  372
  doctors to prescribe free to their patients. In some areas, however, those drugs are still not available because of postcode funding. In some parts of the country, drugs are not available because the money for them is just not available. That has happened in the South Staffordshire health authority area, for example.
  New clause 1 is still not as tight I would like it to be. It still gives considerable powers to the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Bercow: I feel sure that the House will want to hear my hon. Friend expatiate on the subject of new clause 1. Before he does, would he turn his mind to clause 62(4)(c), which is part of the genesis of our objection to the Government's proposals? The subsection provides for regulations
  for securing that, where prescribed patient information is processed by a person in accordance with the regulations, anything done by him in so processing the information shall be taken to be lawfully done despite any obligation of confidence owed by him in respect of it.
  Does that not create a potentially hazardous and even sinister conflict of obligations? If not, would it not be better if the Government explained themselves more clearly?
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend, as ever, has put his finger on the heart of the matter—if that is not mixing my metaphors. I think that doctors and the BMA have every reason to be alarmed by the far-reaching nature of clause 62. It is saying, in effect, that if the Secretary of State so decides, any question of confidentiality that might exist between a patient and his doctor can be swept aside and the information can be made public. Should we be surprised that so many august organisations acting on behalf of patients and people suffering from specific dysfunctions such as AIDS are concerned about the clause?
  Dr. Stoate: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the proposal, which does have potential problems. But surely he must accept that there have always been notifiable diseases that a doctor has a legal duty to notify, including patient-sensitive data. That even includes food poisoning. If a patient visits a GP with food poisoning, that doctor is under a legal obligation to notify the health authority, whether the patient likes it or not. We have always had the need for public health measures such as the notification of diseases and disease registers. Surely this is not a draconian and brand new measure; it is merely what has gone on for some time, but in a slightly different way.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman misses the point and does so because he is a doctor and not a lawyer. Of course he is right that this sort of data have always been collected for epidemiological purposes. That is tremendously important. When the Conservative Government introduced trusts—which the present Government are attempting to build on—we made sure that epidemiological research would continue nationally. Clause 62(4)(c) makes it clear that the information so provided may not now be anonymous. That is the difference. In the past, doctors would notify the NHS through its various agencies of a particular event

  373
  or dysfunction. However, there was no obligation previously to provide the name of the person suffering from such a dysfunction.
  Dr. Stoate: This is an important point. The notifiable disease register contains patients' details; it must. If a patient of mine were to get tetanus, polio, typhoid, cholera, hepatitis or even food poisoning, I would have to identify that person to the local health authority by name, age and address, as the patient would have to be contacted and followed up for public health reasons. Patient-sensitive data have always been held.
  Mr. Fabricant: But that data wet e always confidential. The point is that now they may not be.
  Dr. Brand: I wish to clarify something said by the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate). Epidemiology can deal with anonymised data, and it is perfectly proper that it should do so. Notifiable diseases are notifiable because they may present a risk to the patient if not treated. More importantly, they present a direct risk to people coming into contact with the disease. That is not an argument that can be applied to most registers.
  Mr. Fabricant: That is the point. [Laughter.] It is all very well people who have just walked into the Chamber laughing at this exchange—it demonstrates why time is needed for Members such as myself, who did not serve on the Committee, to explore the meaning of the clause. That is what this Parliament is all about, for God's sake. But the Government are saying that these important issues have to be terminated at 9 o'clock. It is all very well for Labour Members to laugh and say that the issues are not important, but the BMA and the other organisations to which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire referred are worried. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, it is one thing Lo discuss notifiable diseases such as tuberculosis, or other diseases that can generate epidemics; it is another to talk about other forms of disease, details of which may now be placed in the public domain by virtue of the Bill
  Dr. Fox: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not a question of what has happened In the past—even in specific cases, such as notifiable diseases—or even what is likely to happen with the use of data, but what could happen under the wide powers in the Bill?
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is right; that is why there is concern among organisations such as the BMA. We recognise that some form of register needs to be kept-that is why my hon. Friend has tabled new clause 1, which still gives considerable powers to the Secretary of State. Subsection (2) says that
  disease registers' means those registers of incidence of specified diseases as the Secretary of State shall by regulation prescribe."
  The Secretary of State will be free to prescribe, but by regulation which requires the scrutiny of this House; that is right and proper. The definition of "prescribed patient information" is of great concern to some doctors inside this House and to the BMA. In the new clause, the definition is
  patient information specified in or determined in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section."
  374
  Again, we are giving the Secretary of State latitude but, first, the Secretary of State must prescribe that information in legislation or regulation, which needs to be scrutinised by the House. The same definition applies to "processing".
  There is clearly concern among the medical profession about confidentiality. It is one thing to provide information to the NHS about those dysfunctions that may produce an epidemic in this country; it is another to give far-reaching powers to an unscrupulous Secretary of State to require personal information given by patients to doctors or learned by doctors from their patients to be given to him, and for that information then to appear in the public domain.
  It is no surprise to me that the BMA should be concerned. What surprises me is that Labour Members do not share that concern.
  Mr. Denham: This is an important debate on an important matter. It is a shame that, so far, it has not lived up to the importance of the subject.
  I think that the characterisation of the clause that has been advanced is not justified by what is in the Bill or by the Government's intentions. As I hope to make clear, the debate has not assessed properly the debate outside the House about the use of patient information. Contributors to that debate have said that the Bill should not contain the proposals that it does contain, or that the proposals should be different, or that they should not be introduced now, and so on.
  7 pm
  As I said in Committee, the Government are starting from a position in which the use of non-anonymised patient information in the NHS is widespread, and has been so for years. The problem that we must tackle is to establish the principle of informed consent on the use of patient information from a starting point that has not made the use of informed consent the principle by which the NHS is guided.
  The Government's task with this clause is to find the best way to move as quickly as possible to deal with a problem that was never tackled by the previous Government. They tolerated it, and never criticised its existence, but everyone accepts that the situation is different now. I do not entirely blame the previous Government, because there has been a sea change in attitudes towards the handling of patient information, both among the public and members of the medical profession. I could criticise the previous Government for many things, but it would not be fair to judge Ministers of 10 or 15 years ago by the standards of today. The standards applicable to a lot of the issues to do with patient consent were different then.
  I have described the Government's task with the clause. It had to be accomplished at a time when we were not entirely in control of the time scale. That is why the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) was wrong to say that we should have waited.
  As everyone knows, the General Medical Council, exercising its responsibilities as a professional self-regulatory body, last summer issued guidance that had an immediate impact on the collection of data by cancer registries. As I said in Standing Committee, it issued

  375
  further guidance in November in response to the ensuing debate. That guidance appeared after the publication of the NHS plan, and said that the professional obligation would not be asserted until October 2001.
  If the Government had not taken the earliest possible opportunity, represented by this Bill, to put a proper statutory framework around the use of patient information, I have every reason to believe that the GMC would have felt under a professional obligation to carry through its advice. That would have had an immediate impact on the operation of cancer registries and other activities. The Government are therefore not in control of the time scale, which is why I believe that we are right to go ahead with the proposal and why it would have been wrong to wait.
  The hon. Member for Isle of Wight referred to work in the Department on the use of patient information. That work is part of a different exercise looking at all the changes that need to be made across the NHS to put our use of information on a satisfactory basis. We will not have the results until later this year, but it is right for us to get right the statutory framework contained in the Bill.
  Dr. Fox: I understand that the Minister is genuine in what he says about what the Government's wish for the Bill, but why has the clause drawn so much criticism from such a wide range of bodies? They cannot all have misinterpreted what the clause is capable of, so surely this is a fault in the drafting. It is not the intention of the Government but the use to which the provisions could be put that has caused such widespread anxiety among the many groups mentioned in the debate.
  Mr. Denham: There is disagreement outside the House, as well as in it, about the relevant issues. For example, Professor Martin Vessey of the department of public health at Oxford university wrote to me about the work that he carried out with Dr.—now Sir—Richard Doll in the 1960s investigating the links between leg vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism and women who had been using oral contraceptives. He wrote about the necessity of using patient data at the time.
  I have received a letter from Leslie Davis of the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, in which he states:
  "I support clause 59 in providing support for the continuation of important transmission of health information. It will give the NHS and other key agencies guarding the health of the public the temporary ability to maintain critical flows of public health information."
  We have received correspondence from Dr. Monica Roche and Professor David Foreman of the United Kingdom Association of Cancer Registries. The letter states:
  "We are writing on behalf of the United Kingdom Association of Cancer Registries to ask for your support in ensuring that clause 59 of the Health and Social Care Bill is passed. Without this enabling legislation the national system for monitoring cancer will have collapsed by the end of the year."
  The attached briefing note goes on to explain why the approach adopted in the Bill is necessary. Sir Richard Doll from the clinical trials service unit and the epidemiological studies unit at the university of Oxford has written to state:
  "It is, we believe, important for the future health of people in this country that a legislative framework should exist that ensures that public health surveillance and medical research can continue when
  376
  they require information that is available in patients' medical records, without the need to obtain individual patients' consent for their use when this is impractical. In so far as clause 59 will permit this for bona fide research workers on a confidential basis, we strongly support it."
  I could continue with examples from other correspondence, but the point is not simply that the correspondence illustrates that there is a debate in the medical profession about how to approach this matter. I do not think that there is a debate about informed patient consent, but there is a debate about how we move from where we are, and the practices that have been developed over many years, and reach a better system in the future.
  I chose the correspondence that I did because, with the exception of the cancer registries, they referred to activities that fall outside the definition of cancer registries. I gave other examples in Standing Committee. That is why I believe that the approach adopted in the Bill, which has many built-in safeguards, is better than attempting to list or predict in a narrow way in the Bill all the acceptable uses of information.
  Dr. Brand: The Minister has used very valid examples, and they all involve bits of research where problems can be overcome by anonymising the clinical data. That is why it is so relevant to say that the outcome of his own working party's research on confidentiality and the processing of clinical data should be available before we decide about what should be the proper legislative proposals that the Minister needs. If the Minister would accept amendment No. 15 or new clause 1, his anxieties over cancer registries would be overcome and he would have time to reflect on whether he needs to take powers that are as wide as those contained in the Bill. We have no doubts about the Minister's intent, but we have great worries about what is in a Bill that does not mention patient confidentiality anywhere.
  Mr. Denham: I think that the hon. Gentleman has simply—and inadvertently, I am sure—not really looked at the Bill and the safeguards that it contains. He asserts that all the examples that I gave involved work that could be undertaken with anonymised patient data. I do not have confidence that the hon. Gentleman is right about all the research that I mentioned, or about other legitimate, important and pressing research that might be undertaken.
  I hope that, in tilt not too distant future, the NHS IT systems will be fully in place, so enabling electronic patient records to be kept and anonymised patient data to be used routinely. However, I am not sure that we have reached that point yet. That is why the Bill contains two important safeguards that have been included from the outset.

  First, the Bill limits the use of the powers to medical purposes where there is a benefit to patient care and public health. Secondly, it limits their use to circumstances in which there is no reasonably practical alternative. The latter is not a once-and-for-all test, and does not mean that once a particular activity slips past the test it is there for ever and a day, because the Secretary of State is required by the Bill to review each set of regulations every year.
  Therefore, any activity will have to pass the "practical alternative" test and, as I explained in Standing Committee, it must be looked at by an advisory group. That group will involve organisations such as the GMC, the BMA, research councils, patients' organisations and

  377
  others. If they advise the Secretary of State that there is no reasonably practical alternative, the Secretary of State then has to make regulations. He then has to consult on the regulations.
  That is not an end to the matter because those regulations have to come before Parliament, not, as is so often the case, through the negative resolution procedure, but under the affirmative resolution, which requires a positive vote by both Houses of Parliament. Even if that is achieved, the following year and every year after that, the Secretary of State has to satisfy himself, no doubt by taking advice, that the conditions that led him to believe that anonymised data should not be used no longer apply.
  That is a pretty robust set of safeguards, but the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) painted a picture of the Secretary of State getting out of bed one morning and making up his mind on this matter, as if that were an end to it. That is so far from the truth that it is outrageous. Such caricatures are one of the reasons for the amount of concern about the Bill.
  On the second issue, which was raised by several hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), I suspect that there is simply a difference of opinion in the House, as there was in Committee. We were concerned about the activities of a company called Source Information. We believed that its processing of anonymised patient information led, or was likely to lead, to a targeted marketing effort that was not beneficial to the NHS, so we sought to restrict its activities. We lost that case in court on the basis that there had been no breach of confidence, and we are not attempting to overturn that judgment in the Bill. However, we are, as the judge invited us to do, taking the necessary powers to restrict such activity in future.
  It is clearly ridiculous to suggest that this Government, who have published more information about the NHS than any previous Government, are engaged in an exercise to suppress information or criticism. I accept that the hon. Member for Woodspring thinks that in the distant future he might be Secretary of State and that he would use the legislation differently. He invited me to use the precautionary principle to deny him that power. However, it is necessary to take action to protect the interests of the NHS, and with the amendments that were made in Committee, the Bill is a proportionate response to that need.
  Since the debate in Committee, the Association of Medical Research Charities has written to us to say:
  "We welcome the Government amendment to subsection two of this Clause which has addressed some serious concerns about the application of the law. AMRC believes that there is merit in including in the Bill a Clause that allows the appropriate use of anonymised patient data for the purposes of research but also makes provision for clear and robust safeguards."
  That is what I believe we are doing.
  Dr. Fox: As I said in opening the debate on the new clause, we believe that in its major provisions this Bill is centralising and authoritarian. Clause 62 is such a provision, and that is why we tabled new clause 1.
  There are two main objections to clause 62. It allows the Secretary of State to control anonymised data for reasons that he may determine in future, and rather than detailing when information can be used, the Bill says that the Secretary of State knows best and will exclude its use where he sees fit.
  378
  As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) pointed out, the Bill will force doctors to divulge identifiable patient data against patients' will, which is entirely unacceptable. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) rightly said that in Committee the Government came under sustained attack on clause 62. The Minister gave us a long explanation of the mechanics that he believed would provide safeguards, yet nothing has been added to the Bill to make it more explicit or enforceable.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) said that what matters is not what happened in the past or even the Government's intentions, but what could be done within the scope of the Bill. That is what worries Members of the House and the many outside groups who have written to us. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, we are legislating even before the end of the Government's consultation process on patient information. That is a bad way to make law; the Bill is bad law, and at some point Ministers will return to the House to reconsider it. It is nothing less than the nationalisation of patient data, and we oppose it. I should like to press new clause 1 to a vote.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 306.

  Division No. 124]

  [7.14 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Cran, James

  Allan, Richard

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Amess, David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Day, Stephen

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Baker, Norman

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Evans, Nigel

  Ballard, Jackie

  Fabricant, Michael

  Beggs, Roy

  Fallon, Michael

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Bercow, John

  Flight, Howard

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Blunt, Crispin

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Boswell, Tim

  Gale, Roger

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Garnier, Edward

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Brady, Graham

  Gibb, Nick

  Brake, Tom

  Gidley, Sandra

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Brazier, Julian

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Breed, Colin

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Greenway, John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Grieve, Dominic

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Burnett, John

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Burns, Simon

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Burstow, Paul

  Hammond, Philip

  Butterfill, John

  Hancock, Mike

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Cash, William

  Harvey, Nick

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Hayes, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Chope, Christopher

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Horam, John

  Collins, Tim

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Cotter, Brian

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  379

  Hunter, Andrew

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Sanders, Adrian

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Keetch, Paul

  Shepherd, Richard

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

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

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

  Key, Robert

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Soames, Nicholas

  Laing Mrs Eleanor

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lansley, Andrew

  Steen Anthony

  Leigh, Edward

  Streeter, Gary

  Letwin, Oliver

  Stunell, Andrew

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lidington, David

  Syms, Robert

  Livsey, Richard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Loughton, Tim

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Luff Peter

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Thomas Simon (Ceredigion)

  McCrea, Dr William

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Tredinnick, David

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Tyler, Paul

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Viggers, Peter

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Walter, Robert

  Malins, Humfrey

  Waterson, Nigel

  Webb, Steve

  Mates, Michael

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Whittingdale, John

  Moore, Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Willetts, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Willis, Phil

  Oaten, Mark

  Wilshire, David

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Page, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Pickles, Eric

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Prior, David

  Randall, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Mr. James Gray and

  Rendel, David

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Belts, Clive

  Ainger, Nick

  Blackman, Liz

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Allen, Graham

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Borrow, David

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Ashton, Joe

  Browne, Desmond

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Austin, John

  Burden, Richard

  Bailey, Adrian

  Burgon, Colin

  Banks, Tony

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Battle, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Beard, Nigel

  Cann, Jamie

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Caplin, Ivor

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cawsey, Ian

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Chaytor, David

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Clapham, Michael

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Benton, Joe

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Berry, Roger

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Best, Harold

  Clelland, David

  380

  Coaker, Vernon

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Coleman, Iain

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Colman, Tony

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Corbett, Robin

  Hutton, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cousins, Jim

  Illsley, Eric

  Cox, Tom

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cranston, Ross

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Crausby, David

  Jamieson, David

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cummings, John

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Joyce, Eric

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dawson, Hilton

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Kemp, Fraser

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Doran, Frank

  Kidney, David

  Drew, David

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Drown, Ms Julia

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lammy, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Laxton, Bob

  Efford, Clive

  Lepper, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ennis, Jeff

  Levitt, Tom

  Etherington, Bill

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Fisher, Mark

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lock, David

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Love, Andrew

  Flint, Caroline

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Flynn, Paul

  McCabe, Steve

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Macdonald, Calum

  Foulkes, George

  McDonnell, John

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McFall, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Goggins, Paul

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McNamara, Kevin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McNulty, Tony

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Grocott, Bruce

  McWalter, Tony

  Grogan, John

  McWilliam, John

  Gunnell, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hain, Peter

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hanson, David

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Healey, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Martlew, Eric

  Heppell, John

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hesford, Stephen

  Meale, Alan

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Merron, Gillian

  Hinchliffe, David

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hope, Phil

  Miller, Andrew

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mitchell, Austin

  381

  Moffatt, Laura

  Soley, Clive

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

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

  Spellar, John

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mullin, Chris

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stringer, Graham

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Olner, Bill

  O'Neill, Martin

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pickthall, Colin

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pike, Peter L

  Timms, Stephen

  Pond, Chris

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pope, Greg

  Todd, Mark

  Pound, Stephen

  Touhig, Don

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Trickett, Jon

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Purchase, Ken

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Rammell, Bill

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Vaz, Keith

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Watts, David

  Rogers, Allan

  White, Brian

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Rooney, Terry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Roy, Frank

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Wills, Michael

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Winnick, David

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Sawford, Phil

  Woodward, Shaun

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Woolas, Phil

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wray, Janes

  Singh, Marsha

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mr. Jim Dowd and

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mr. Mike Hall.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 2

  COMMUNITY HEALTH COUNCILS: SCHEME FOR REFORM
  ".—(1) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament within 12 months of the date of coming into force of this section regulations setting out a scheme for the reform of Community Health Councils in England.
  (2) The scheme set out by the Secretary of State in regulations under subsection (1) above shall extend t3 all parts of the health service (including the provision of Part [I services under the 1977 Act).
  (3) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for access by members of a Community Health Council to premises from which services under Part II of the 1077 Act are provided.
  (4) The scheme set out by the Secretary of State in regulations under subsection (1) shall provide for the proper representation of the population in the area served by a Community Health Council on that Council.
  (5) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.—[Dr. Fox.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  7.30 pm
  Dr. Fox: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 7—Community Health Councils: additional functions—
  ".—(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations providing in relation to Community Health Councils ("Councils") in England for—

  (a) the delivery by Councils of support and advocacy services to patients and others with complaints about health services;

  (b) Councils to advise and make recommendations to the relevant overview and scrutiny committee, health authority and trust about matters arising from complaints;

  (c) reports on the operation of the complaints support service to be compiled by Councils and provided to the Secretary of State to the relevant overview and scrutiny committee, health authority, trust, and other appropriate organisations;

  (d) annual reports to be published by Councils detailing the arrangements maintained in that year for obtaining the views of patients;

  (e) the establishment of sub-committees of each Council to be known as Patients' Forums, for each NHS and primary care trust in the district of the Council, made up of representatives of the Council, and co-opted representatives of the local authority overview and scrutiny committee, patients, carers and the wider community, with duties to—

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

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

  (iii) provide advice and make reports and recommendations about matters relating to those services to the Council, the relevant Health Authority, and the trust to which it relates,

  (iv) make available to patients, carers and the wider community advice and information about those services;

  (v) in the case of primary care services carry out the functions as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;

  (vi) carry out such other functions as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;

  (f) the appointment of representatives from the Patients' Forum as non-executive directors to the board of the trust to which the Forum relates;

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

  (h) the extension of Councils' rights of inspection to all premises from which services as defined in subsection (3) are provided and;

  383

  (i) matters of concern which Councils may refer to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, the Commission for Health Improvement, the Audit Commission and the Secretary of State.

  (2) References in subsection (1) 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 arrangements under regulations under section 31 of the Health Act 1999; and

  (c) services provided elsewhere in pursuance of such arrangements with a local authority in England.

  (3) In subsection (2)—

  (a) "relevant overview and scrutiny committee", means the committee of the council or councils whose district corresponds, or is included within, the community represented by the Council.

  (b) "relevant Health Authority" in subsection (1)(e) in relation to a Patients' Forum for a Primary Care Trust, means the Health Authority whose area is, or includes, the area for which the trust is established.

  (4) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall consult with Councils and such patients' and carers' organisations as he shall consider appropriate.'.
  New clause 8—Community Health Councils in Wales—
  '. The National Assembly for Wales may, by order, in relation to Community Health Councils in Wales, make provision corresponding to the provision which the Secretary of State must, by regulations, make in relation to Community Health Councils in England under section (Community Health Councils: additional functions).'.
  New clause 9—Patients' Councils—
  '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide for the establishment of bodies to be known as Patients' Councils (referred to in this section as "Councils") the members of which are to be appointed in each case by two or more Patients' Forums.
  (2) The regulations shall provide for determining—

  (a) the Patients' Forums by which the members of a Council are to be appointed, and

  (b) the area in relation to which the functions of a Council are exercisable.

  (3) The functions of a Council are—

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

  (b) to make reports to health authorities, local authorities and their committees and to the Secretary of State in accordance with the regulations;

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

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

  (4) The "member Forums" of a Council are the Patients' Forums by which its members are for the time being appointed.'.
  New clause 10—Independent advocacy services—
  '. After section 19 of the 1977 Act there shall be inserted—
  "Independent advocacy services
  19A.—(1) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to arrange, to such extent as he considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements, for the provision of independent advocacy services.
  (2) "Independent advocacy services" are services providing assistance (by way of representation or otherwise) to individuals making or intending to make—

  (a) a complaint under a procedure operated by a health service body or independent provider,

  384

  (b) a complaint to the Health Service Commissioner for England or the Health Service Commissioner for Wales,

  (c) a complaint of a prescribed description which relates to the provision of services as part of the health service and

  (i) is made under a procedure of a prescribed description. Or

  (ii) gives rise, or may give rise, to proceedings of a prescribed description.

  (3) In subsection (2)—
  "health' service body" means a body which, under section 2(1) or (2) of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, is subject to investigation by the Health Service Commissioner for England or the Health Service Commissioner for Wales;
  "independent provider" means a person who, under section 2B(1) or (2) of that Act, is subject to such investigation.
  (4) The Secretary of State may make such other arrangements as he thinks fit for the provision of assistance to individuals in connection with complaints relating to the provision of services as part of the health service.
  (5) In making arrangements under this section the Secretary of State must have regard to the principle that the provision of services under the arrangements should, so far as practicable, be independent of toy person who is the subject of a relevant complaint or is involved in investigating or adjudicating on such a complaint.
  (6) Before making arrangements under this section in respect of complaints relating to the provision of any services. the Secretary of State shall consult—

  (a) any relevant Patients' Council, and

  (b) such other persons as he considers appropriate.

  (7) A Patients' Council is, for the purposes of subsection (6)(a), a relevant Council if the services concerned are ones to which functions of a member Forum of the Council relate.
  (8) The Secretary of State may make payments to any person in pursuance of arrangements under this section.".'.
  Amendment No. 2, in page 9, line 6, leave out clause 11.
  Government amendments Nos. 144 to 150.
  Amendment No. 3, in page 10, line 18, leave out clause 12.
  Amendment No. 4, in page 10, line 30, leave out clause 13.
  Amendment No. 5, in page 10, line 38, leave out clause 14.
  Amendment No. 24, in clause 14, page 10, line 39, at end insert "and Patients" Councils ("Councils").".
  Government amendment No. 151.
  Amendment No. 25, in clause 14, in page 11, line 24, at end insert—
  '() Subsection (2) applies in relation to a Council as it applies in relation to its member Forums.'.
  Amendment No. 26, in clause 14, in page 11, line 36, at end insert—

  '() The regulations must include provision as to the use by member Forums of a Council, and by the Council, of shared facilities and staff.'.
  Amendment No. 6, in page 12, line 7, leave out clause 15.
  Amendment No. 19, in page 12, line 34, leave out clause 16.
  Government amendment No. 159.
  Dr. Fox: This is likely to be the most controversial of the debates today. The strength of feeling aroused must have come as a shock to the Government; it must have come as a lesson to them that, although they may be able to muzzle criticism inside the How e, it is much more difficult for them to do so in the real 'world. We look forward to whatever climbdown from the proposals the Minister of State is going to make.
  Under the Government's proposals, the current functions of community health councils will be divided up into patient advocacy and liaison services, patients forums and local authority scrutiny committees. During the debates in Standing Committee, the Government did nothing to dispel our fear that the replacement of CHCs with a fragmented system will mean that there will no longer be an overall body that can span many care providers to oversee the whole of a patient's experience. The example was used of a patient who, in a single episode of illness, had a problem with his GP, a problem with the ambulance service and a problem with the acute trust. Under the new system, to whom would such a patient complain about each of those bodies? Will the patient find the new system more difficult or easier than the current one?
  Similarly, the separation of scrutiny and complaints procedures undermines the work of CHCs in understanding the broader patterns of health provision. The Government have tried to argue that bringing scrutiny closer to trusts will mean that there will be speedier action. However, the loss of an independent perspective may result in no action at all. Attempts to solve those problems will necessitate further quangos. The new clauses proposed by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) would create even more confusion. The Government are creating a system in which patients will have to shop around for their rights.
  I am sorry that no apology was offered in Committee for the way in which CHCs have been treated by the Government during the progress of this matter. The Government have still to apologise for the lack of consultation that has left their employees in the dark as to the future. In the House, the Prime Minister famously claimed to have consulted the CHCs, but they denied it and the right hon. Gentleman was forced to backtrack. As Richard Gordon QC told the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales:
  "in my opinion, the consultation process Dyer the new NHS plan was…legally flawed."
  That is a severe indictment of Ministers. What was the ministerial response? In a letter, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who is not in the Chamber at present, replied:
  "We do not accept that the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales or CHCs had any legitimate expectation to be consulted in relation to the proposals that CHCs should be abolished in primary legislation to be introduced in parliament in due course."
  So, the association was felt not to have "any legitimate expectation"—yet the Prime Minister went to great lengths to point out how extensively the Government were consulting over the proposal. The Minister let the cat out
  386
  of the bag: the Government never believed that there was any legitimate expectation that CHCs would be consulted. That is the definitive version of the Government's policy.
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend says that the Government saw no reason to expect the CHCs to wish to consult. I suspect that he will not be surprised to learn that I received a letter from the South East Staffordshire community health council that states
  "the Government has consistently refused to consult on this issue, and has still not produced substantive detail on our proposed replacements, even at Committee Stage."
  In a short intervention, I might just go on to say—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think perhaps the hon. Gentleman might not go on to say anything.
  Dr. Fox: My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) is right—the House will not be shocked to learn that I am not surprised at the information that he imparts.
  In Committee, the Government also failed to answer some of the questions on funding in respect of CHCs. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government continue to reject the claims of the association that, by 2004–05, the new bodies that are to replace CHCs will cost £114 million, compared with the current CHC budget of £23 million? If the Government reject those sums, will the Minister tell us how they expect hospitals to fund the additional bodies?
  On Second Reading and in Committee, the Government argued that the presence of patient advocacy and liaison services in hospitals will lend more immediacy to the complaints of patients. However, to steer patients towards the complaints system where necessary is greatly different from the proactive advocacy role currently played by CHCs. Independence will undoubtedly be lost, not gained—to the detriment of patient care.
  The Government have also tried to argue that patients forums will be able to remove PALS from the control of trusts. That just might prevent a gross distortion of the system, but it would do nothing to stop PALS employees from feeling beholden to trusts; they might take decisions different from those that they would have taken had they enjoyed full independence.
  The Government have failed to explain how conflicts of interest on the part of councillors scrutinising care trusts will be dealt with. Such conflicts will arise when councillors are increasingly called on to scrutinise services for whose funding and provision their authority has joint responsibility. They will thus not be independent of the services that they scrutinise. Many such councillors will be of the same political persuasion as the non-executive directors, and even chairmen, of the local trusts. We do not need to go back over the ground about appointments to trusts under the Labour Government-of which Dame Rennie Fritchie gave such a damning indictment. An alternative scenario might pertain, in which such councillors were of a different political colour. What we would then see would not be cronyism but the use of the situation as a political football, in a way that does not occur at present. That cannot be to the advantage of patients.
  The Government have been unable to confirm that the lone member of the patients forum appointed to a hospital trust board will be selected by the relevant patients forum.

  387
  Perhaps the Minister can offer us that assurance tonight. In a Labour party briefing, the Government have also tried to portray patients forums as mini-CHCs. This is the line that goes out: "Don't worry about it because the patients forums are really mini-CHCs". If that is so, why are the Government abolishing CHCs? That makes no sense whatever.
  In Committee, the Minister of State said:
  "It is our expectation, however, that patients forums will undertake specific or general monitoring activity. That is important as an allegation has been made—and repeated this morning—that the aim of the exercise has been to remove from the system of scrutiny in the NHS any organisation or body that could play that role. That is not the case. Patients forums will be able to carry out that role, as CHCs have in the past."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 30 January 2001; c. 235.]
  If all that the Minister said in Committee is true, why do the Government want to abolish CHCs, which are currently performing those tasks, in many cases—as the Minister pointed out—excellently?
  Ministers have conspicuously avoided public discussion of these issues. The Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales held a seminar on 4 December last year, but the Minister who was to respond wrote in advance that she would be unable to answer questions about the Government's proposals to abolish CHCs. In other words, the Minister with responsibility for the abolition of CHCs tells a conference of CHCs that she is unable to answer questions on that very issue.
  The Department of Health arranged a meeting in Fulham on a day when the Standing Committee was discussing many of those issues. A junior Minister took the place of the Secretary of State, but there was no sign of the promised guidelines. That is not surprising, given the confusing signals coming from the Government.
  As we noted in Committee, the Prime Minister's agent wrote to his local CHC in Durham to say that, on the anniversary,
  "Tony would certainly like to add his congratulations to the work the CHCs have done over the last 25 years and wishes them every success in the future."
  The Prime Minister's implementation of the concept of "every success" is the success we wish for the Government in the coming general election. A short time after that letter, the Government announced the abolition of CHCs. Indeed, on 4 December, the South Durham and Weardale CHC, which covers the Prime Minister's constituency, wrote:
  "We are concerned that the Government have announced the intention to abolish CHCs as a cynical attempt to silence any negative publicity…What better way to deflect attention away from any shortcomings than by silencing the only independent monitor that the public has for the NHS."
  Interestingly, neither the Labour-dominated Scottish Executive nor the Labour-dominated Welsh Assembly has made any plans to abolish CHCs. What have patients in England done to deserve such special silencing treatment from the Government?
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend has quoted the Prime Minister's agent wishing CHCs well in the future and cited the Prime Minister saying on the Floor of the House that there had been
  388
  consultation on their abolition. Has any Minister from Department of Health acknowledged on the Floor of the House that there has been no consultation? If no Minister has yet done so, will the Secretary of State do so now?
  Dr. Fox: I very much look forward to Ministers being open about the fact that there was absolutely no consultation on the abolition of CHCs, either before it was announced in the national plan or subsequently. They have consulted only on what should replace CHCs. To suggest that proper consultation on abolition has taken place is to define the concept in a way that the rest of us would not understand from reading an English dictionary. That shows that the Government's interpretation of consultation is very far removed from that which anyone else would regard as meaningful.
  Under new clause 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Wakefield, CHCs would not be retained, and we simply cannot accept the complex mechanism that he proposes as an alternative. What has been suggested in that new clause constitutes a tool for limiting the damage that the Government's proposals would cause, rather than an attempt to stop the damage being done in the first place. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has departed from his position, which involved a robust defence of CHCs; he is now trying to ameliorate the damage. That is a case of crusader turned collaborator, and it does the hon. Gentleman no justice.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Dr. Fox: I will not. I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me.
  We make a strong case in new clause 2 for reforming CHCs to make them more effective. For example, there could be more standardisation of CHC work, reform of the appointments systems and better resourcing. No one can deny that CHCs have done good work-for example, in the Harold Shipman and Rodney Ledward cases, in preparing and publishing "Casualty Watch" and in highlighting the many instances of poor performance in our hospitals. It should never be forgotten that CHCs represent the entire public, not just patients in the NHS. There is a growing feeling among politicians, CHCs and patient and medical bodies that Ministers are making up all the new systems as they go along. No doubt, they will make up a new version on the hoof during the debate.
  Some CHCs do work well, and we all accept that. Ministers have said that some are excellent, and we also all accept that. Our logic suggests that we should bring the standard of the poorest up to the standard of the best. The Government's logic suggests that everyone should be judged by the standard of the poorest—then let them be abolished. I should love to see them try to apply that Mandelson test to Ministers.
  The Opposition will accept nothing less than reform and retention of CHCs. If we are defeated on new clause 2 tonight, we shall carry the fight to the other place. The Government are running out of time as they come to a general election. We look forward to carrying into the general election our proposal to maintain and reform CHCs, whereas th,3 Government want to abolish organisations run by many people who have not only done sterling public service in the past and helped many patients, but who support their own party. Government

  389
  Back Benchers should be warned that if they vote to abolish CHCs, they will inflict deep hurt on many people who may well have been willing to help them in the forthcoming general election. Given that the Government have treated CHCs with contempt by failing to consult, and given that they are now treating them with disdain, Labour Members may not receive that help in the future.
  Mr. Paul Burstow: The Liberal Democrats want to make it clear that we stand on a ticket of reforming CHCs, not of abolishing them. I want to outline our views on the amendments that my hon. Friends and I have tabled. I want to make it clear that if a Division takes place on new clause 2, we will join the official Opposition in the Lobby to advocate the case for retaining CHCs and building on what is good about them, not throwing out the baby with the bath water as is proposed at the moment. We belive that an effective watchdog is needed, so we must look at the good practice that exists in CHCs, which Ministers acknowledged in Committee.
  7.45 pm
  The new arrangements will fragment the watchdog rule. They will shatter the complaints handling system and inspection and overview. They will scatter those matters around to a range of new bodies. The new system—which is being gradually revealed, piece by piece—is more centred on the interests and needs of care providers than on those of the patients who receive that care. The reality is that people's experience of the NHS is gained not on a piecemeal basis of what individual trusts provide, but on the care pathway that they take through the NHS, which includes visits to their GPs and the services provided by community NHS trusts and acute trusts. To end up with a system in which different patient, forums deal with different aspects of patients experience misses the point of trying to create a patient-centred NHS. That is what the Government say in their NHS plan they want to do, but the new system will not deliver it in practice.
  As the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has said, the new arrangements will leave community interests out in the cold. We are specifically sealing with patients experience of the services provided, so it is essential that we do not lose the wider view of the interests of the local community being served by the local health care economy, the NHS and other care providers. The powers and other aspects of the proposals show. time and again, the confusion between customer care and advocacy on behalf of patients and the community and the effective oversight and scrutiny of the NHS.
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: I think we would all applaud what the hon. Gentleman says about the needs of the community, but does he not accept that the role of the proposed patient advocacy and liaison service is an entirely new one, especially for patients in hospital, which is not currently addressed by CHCs?
  Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the role of PALS is entirely new, but it is a customer-care role, not a customer advocacy role. Indeed, the Bill contains no specific proposals about setting up independent advocacy services. New clause 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), tries to
  390
  deal with that, and the hon. Gentleman has our support in that respect because proposals that establish genuine, independent advocacy services for patients are needed.
  Dr. Fox: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that even if we accepted that PALS were good in itself, there would be nothing to stop that being introduced alongside CHCs, as an additional measure rather than as a substitute?
  Mr. Burstow: I entirely agree. The proposals on PALS should be viewed completely outwith those on patient advocacy and the ability to scrutinise how the NHS works on behalf of local community and patients. PALS are separate matter, but the proposals, although useful, are more about customer service than about anything else. Although PALS are a good idea, we do not view them as part of the watchdog role that we need to retain and develop. Many outside the House, including many of those who lobbied hon. Members today, view PALS as poodles rather than effective watchdogs.
  Dr. Brand: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real value of PALS is to encourage the internal resolution of complaints in trusts and that they will be very useful vehicles for doing just that, but that they cannot be a substitute for supporting people who have genuine problems with the care provided by trusts and who have lost faith in them?
  Mr. Burstow: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is worth stating that the Government still have to produce the details of the complaints procedures. They are designing the systems to operate a new complaints procedure before we have seen them. They are putting the cart before the horse.
  The overview role, which is to pass to local authorities, will be handicapped if we do not have the benefit of the insight provided by inspection and individual complaints. The independent local advisory forums that health authorities will set up are neither independent nor particularly local—and, not least, they lack statutory backing. As a result, they will be the creatures of the Secretary of State. I hope that they will be independent, but they will be very much at the beck and call of individual Secretaries of State in terms of the directions that will be used to set them up.
  The Government have so far failed to make the case for abolition. The CHCs, as they stand, are underpowered and under-resourced. As has been said in this debate and in Committee, their performance is variable across the country. However, surely we should raise the standards of the poorest performers to match those of the best. We should examine what is good in the system and build on that instead of casting the whole system aside. The Government's reasons do not sustain the case for abolition; they are reasons for reform and for properly resourcing CHCs, not for getting rid of them.
  If we are unable to persuade the Government tonight of the merits of new clauses 7 and 8, my colleagues will not accept the case for abolition when the Bill is considered in the other place. They will not vote for abolition and will want the Government to embrace the case for reform before they accept any attempt to take the Bill through the Lords. To that extent, we welcome the fact that Members in both Opposition parties support that approach.

  391
  The Government have failed to make their case. In Committee, several Labour Members told us that CHCs had not fulfilled their role as the bodies that deal with complaints in the NHS. Unfortunately, that is a bit of misconception. Although CHCs undertake complaints on behalf of complainants and help them navigate their way through the complaints system, there is no statutory duty on them to do such work. Despite the fact that no funds had been specifically earmarked for that purpose, CHCs saw a gap, recognised a need and undertook that responsibility and it is only because of that that they carry out the role at all. That is another reason for considering how we can ensure that they are properly equipped. We should pay tribute to the work that CHCs have carried out, for example, in the Alder Hey case. The work that they did in supporting parents should not be neglected when we consider the case for keeping them.
  Our new clauses 7 and 8 show how CHCs could be reformed to become the delivery mechanisms for the proposals set out in the NHS plan. The new clauses address the need for independence and co-ordination. They are about stitching together the pieces in the NHS plan and in the scheme for consultation and the empowerment of patients. Quite rightly, they would extend the remit to primary care and they would locate the independent advocacy services in the new reformed CHCs. They would establish patients forums as sub-committees of CHCs and allow co-ordination, sharing and the following of patients care pathways to take place more effectively. They would also require the Secretary of State to consult on the detail.
  I do not believe that the Government have demonstrated that their proposals, as they currently stand in their various pieces, will enhance the patients voice. New clause 9, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Wakefield, will not do that, either. It does not go far enough. Although I understand the intentions behind it, it fails to deal with the fragmentation of the proposals in the Bill and in the NHS plan. It would add an extra tier without being clear as to what that tier would do for the management of patient advocacy.
  The Government have overlooked the wider community, but one of the questions that has been asked tonight and in Committee is how much their proposals will cost. When the Bill was in Committee, I tabled a written question to ascertain from the Government how much the proposals would cost and I received a reply from a Minister telling me that it would not be appropriate to provide that information because we were not at the right stage of the Bill's passage through the House. Does that mean that there can be no scrutiny of the Government's proposals for the abolition of CHCs and their replacement, or does it mean that scrutiny must occur once the Bill has become an Act and the details have been worked out in regulations? What on earth does it mean when a Minister tells the House in a written answer that it is inappropriate to provide the costings that should be the basis of examination, scrutiny and debate in this place?
  The proposals in the Bill were unmodified in Committee and I suspect will remain unmodified after the Report stage. The arrangements are nothing more than a dog's breakfast. We need a decent watchdog on behalf of patients and the wider community, and unless we get that, we will not accept this part of the Bill.
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I wish to speak to the new clauses that stand in my name and in those of my hon. Friends.
  I have listened with interest to the two previous contributions, and he hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) appears to think that I have performed a U-turn. He must have been absent when I spoke on Second Reading. I said that I had been a member of a CHC for 10 years and served as its vice-chair, but added:
  "I hold no particular brief for community health councils…Some are excellent, but some have not done the job required of them, and the voice of patients has not been heard. Such CHCs have been the poodles of local trusts and health authorities. They have not stood up to be counted on occasions when patients' views should have been expressed loudly and clearly at local level."—[Official Report, 10 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 1106.]
  That comment was not reflected in what the hon. Member for Woodspring said about my personal position.
  On Second Reading, I said—and I repeat it tonight—that the provisions in the Bill, as it stands, do not offer a better alternative to tie C'HC system, and I tabled my new clauses in the hope that we could improve the Bill in a constructive fashion.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman has suggested that there is nothing in the Bill that would make CHCs better. Does he agree with me and other Opposition Members, including those in the Liberal Democrat party, that the Bill will make the position worse?
  Mr. Hinchliffe: There are positive aspects in the Bill that I wish to mention, but I think that we can improve it. I hope that by the end of the debate we shall have a new structure that will represent patients' interests in a more effective way.
  As I argued a moment ago—and as I argued on Second Reading—the effectiveness of CHCs varies considerably. Every hon. Member knows that. Some are excellent, but some are anonymous and some are invisible. I picked up that point when the Select Committee on Health conducted a major inquiry into adverse incidents and considered some serious problems. I asked several patients who had been affected—in some instances they had lost relatives—and some of them had never even heard of the local CM. We must address that point.
  In other areas—the Alder Hey case is a positive example—CHCs have played an important role and there is a different picture We need to get consistency, and I hope that my new clauses will introduce a degree of consistency.
  Dr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman has said, as the Minister has said before, that some CHCs are excellent—so is not the logic to bring the standards of the poorest up to the standards of the best, if necessary by plugging the gaps that the hon. Gentleman mentioned by introducing services such as patients advocacy and liaison services? Would that not be better than going down the route of abolition, and introducing other bodies to ameliorate the damage, as is suggested in his new clauses 9 and 10?
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I hope that the new system will build on the excellence of some CHCs. That is precisely what

  393
  I want to see the new clauses achieve. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members listen, I shall explain what the new clauses mean.
  On Second Reading, I made the point that, arising from the work that the Health Committee did on the scrutiny of complaints in our adverse incidents inquiry, we picked up directly from patients the clear principle that they wanted to be included in any changed system. I mentioned the details on Second Reading, and I shall not repeat them now. However, the two key area; that patients were concerned about were independence and having a comprehensive system.
  My concern about the Bill echoes one or two of the points that have been made in the two previous speeches. The PALS—patient advocacy and liaison services—system is, indeed, trust based. It focuses on the work of a single trust, be that a hospital or i primary care trust. Therefore it is neither independent nor comprehensive. However, I have no problem with a system that offers an effective customer services department in my local hospital or my local primary care trust where I, as a patient, can go to resolve issues face to face with the trust. As I understand it, that is the purpose of PALS, so I am happy for that system, as proposed in the Bill, to remain.
  The concern that I raised on Second Reading about patient advocates was that the Bill was not explicit about the location of the advocacy function. We were initially advised that that function might be commissioned by health authorities. I was worried about that because I have dealt with complaints that relate to health authorities. It struck me as wrong that any system that purports to be independent could be funded by a party to a complaint, that is involved in the problem. It was suggested that we might locate advocates within the remit of the local authority scrutiny panels, but those panels will be scrutinising the work of the new care trusts.
  8 pm
  Dr. Brand: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have much respect for his views. Is he riot surprised that we are being asked to decide on the Bill tonight, before we know of the outcome of the Government's review of the complaints system? Perhaps he has greater knowledge of what is in the minds of Ministers, put is he not alarmed that we are being invited to adopt a framework without knowing what it has to deliver?
  Mr. Hinchliffe: If the hon. Gentleman reads my speech on Second Reading, he will see mat I referred to that matter. However, the principles that we can establish tonight will relate to the review's conclusions.
  The Bill also provides for the patients forums. I am concerned that the new arrangements will focus primarily on one aspect of the system and will not enable a complaint or problem to be considered comprehensively. We all know that the patient's pathway through health care often starts in primary can, and moves on to secondary and tertiary care before going back into the community. The system needs to reflect the need to look across the board at the comprehensive issues that affect patients when they have a complaint.
  I want to thank a number of people who have been involved in many discussions with me and others in the past few days and during the Committee's proceedings. The Clerk was extremely helpful, because he attempted to

  394
  pick up on some of our concerns. I am also grateful to the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales and, in particular, Donna Covey. The hon. Member for Woodspring said that I had sold out on CHCs, but I was with Donna Covey immediately before I tabled my new clauses and amendments on Monday, and she did not give me that impression—nor do representatives from my local CHC, who have been here today. They recognise that we are proposing a positive way forward, on which we can build.
  Dr. Stoate: My hon. Friend knows that I support what he is trying to do. I met my CHC earlier today and its members, too, were happy with the new clauses and amendments. They believe that they will strengthen the position of CHCs rather than make it worse. I urge the Minister to accept my hon. Friend's new clauses and amendments.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. The new clauses and amendments have drawn a wide range of support from Labour Members, and have also received positive comments from the Opposition. I am proud to have got both my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to support the same new clause. That is quite an achievement—I think I have discovered the third way.
  I pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Secretary of State for the work that they have done on this issue in the past few weeks and today. They have taken the concerns that we have expressed seriously, and listened to them.
  Let me explain my proposals, because Conservative Members obviously do not understand them. I am suggesting that the PALS system should remain. The customer services role is valid and reasonable. It will be genuinely helpful in resolving many—possibly most—of the issues that affect patients in local hospitals and local primary care trusts. I have also included patients forums in new clause 9, because it is logical for them to be closely involved in considering the detail of individual trusts at a local level.
  The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) said that I would introduce an extra tier. I am probably more intimate with the detail of his new clause than he is—he knows the background to that, and I do not wish to embarrass him. There would be no extra tier. Instead, my proposed arrangements would occupy the same tier as the CHC would represent in his new clause on the retention of CHCs. I want patients councils to be established as umbrella bodies that will collectively draw together the individual patients forums to address the issue that worries me—the lack of a comprehensive overview of the work of the trusts. That function will create a better system.
  I am proposing to establish a common secretariat to service the individual forums and the patients councils. The councils functions would not be dissimilar to those discharged by CHCs. However, the significant change, which reflects the Select Committee's views on advocacy, is that they would, in most instances, host the independent advocacy services set out in new clause 10. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam is wrong to say that CHCs already have that advocacy function, because many

  395
  do not. A major weakness of the health service, which the Committee has noticed several times, is the lack of advocacy services.
  In my dialogue with the Government, I have recognised that basing advocacy services within every patients council may not be the most appropriate arrangement. There are geographic differences in the areas to be covered. I believe that patients councils should be consulted by the Secretary of State, in accordance with new clause 10, about where the advocacy function should be placed.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for explaining his proposals so carefully. Will he elucidate a little further on how they will affect CHCs in Wales? Wales is covered by new clause 10, but CHCs are to be retained in Wales—[HON. MEMBERS: "You support that."] Indeed, I do, but surely it would be better for the Government to go back to the drawing board, forget about their current proposals and return to the House with fresh suggestions.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I support devolution and believe that if the Welsh wish to retain CHCs they should have that right. I look forward to a time when there is devolution in Yorkshire, and I no longer have to mix with some of the people that I meet here.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Representatives from my local CHC told me today that they were concerned about how representatives on patients forums and patients councils might be appointed. Does my hon. Friend agree that great care will need to be taken to ensure that representatives are genuinely independent? That might be easier with trusts that have an on-going relationship with patients—such as mental health trusts—than acute trusts, where patients are often involved with the hospital only for a short time.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend will understand that I have not proposed to amend the Bill as it relates to the new NHS Appointments Commission, which was established after the publication of Rennie Fritchie's report. I accept that the issue needs to be considered carefully, and I make no bones about the fact that I am proposing a framework that needs to be examined in more detail.
  New clause 10 is especially important. The Select Committee noticed—
  Mr. Mark Todd: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hinchliffe: No, I am sorry but I must conclude; I have given way several times.
  The Select Committee picked up on patients concerns that when something has gone badly wrong in the NHS—fortunately, that does not happen very often—the experience has been worsened by the inability to get an appropriate response, help in complaining, and someone to rectify the damage. I hope that the advocacy services as proposed in new clause 10 would help to deal with that.
  396
  My proposals wilt improve the system proposed in the Bill. Patients councils will be independent and comprehensive. They will bring together the various patients forums. They will cover primary care. Community health councils do not co that, which is a huge weakness. I am surprised that those who are defending the status QUO do not recognise that. Moving to the idea of patients councils reflects the work that they will do better than does the term "community health council".
  In my constituency—as in the constituencies of some of my hon. Friends, perhaps—there is a community health trust. I would bet that 99 per cent. of my constituents have not the least idea about the difference between the community health council and the trust. I hope that the name "patients council", which will reflect so much of the positive contributions of the CHCs, will have an impact.
  Dr. Fox: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hinchliffe: No.
  I accept that the new clause and the amendments should be reconsidered in another place. However, I hope that we have a framework on which we can build. We must consider continuity between any change and the new system. I genuinely hope that some of those who have served so well on CHCs will make a major contribution within the new system. My proposals offer a framework for improving patient representation. I hope that the Government will accept them. If not, I intend to put the issue to the vote.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: The debate characterises all that is worst about the Government, and particularly their management of the national health service. Earlier, we had the disgraceful spectacle of the Prime Minister refusing to admit how many people had written to him in support of his proposals to abolish community health councils. He did not have the courage or the candour to recognise that it was only a handful of people, or none. We know that there have been numerous representations in favour of the retention of CHCs. They have been articulate and well argued. I have received no representations in favour of the proposal to abolish them, as announced in the NHS White Paper.
  That was typical of the Government. There was a fanfare of political trumpets in favour of the proposals in the White Paper for increased resources for cardiac care and thoracic medicine, for example. However, in the small print it was seen that the CHCs were to be abolished. People realised that yet again they had been conned. They were unimpressed and, as a consequence, opposition to the proposals to abolish CHCs grew to the point where Parliament was lobbied by many people this afternoon. I am talking of individuals who have given many years of service, dedication and professional expertise to helping to resolve patients' complaints and representing the interests of their local communities through the health service.
  The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) was right to stress the importance of the representational role of local communities, which CHCs fulfil. It is the arrogant and soviet-style management of the NHS which is so abhorrent to n any of our electors. There is the feeling that decisions are taken on high in Whitehall that

  397
  have no relationship to the situation in particular community areas. CHCs fulfil a crucial lightning-conductor role in trying to dissipate the feeling of impotence, fury and frustration within many local communities against decisions that they believe to be entirely wrongheaded and against their interests.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wilkinson: No, I will not. I w ill amplify my point.
  In the part of Middlesex that I represent, proposals have been imposed by the Government to move one of the best burns and plastic surgery units in the country from its present location at Mount Vernon hospital. To its credit, the CHC provided the impartial chairmanship of consultation meetings. It answered the questions and it sought to resolve the difficulties. Above all, it provided a mechanism, as it has for the proposed closure of Harefield hospital, for objections to be lodged with the Secretary of State, upon which he will have to make a decision. The crucial function of official objection is one which needs to be maintained. It gives the public at least some hope that they have an opportunity of redress against wrongheaded public policy.
  8.15 pm

  The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) gave me the impression, with all his bluster, that he had been bought off politically. New clauses 9 and 10 may be verbose but they are not clear. Patients councils, which he is advocating, seem to offer a bureaucracy which gullible people might believe to be a genuine alternative to an effective system provided by CHCs, in which the public already have great confidence.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the difference between what I have proposed and existing CHCs that have sub-committees? The only difference, as I see it, is independent advocacy and the title.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I leave that judgment to the Secretary of State. If he and his Department are impressed with the proposals of the hon. Gentleman and his numerous friends who have similarly been bought off, the right hon. Gentleman will show himself to be more amenable to rational argument than he has in most of his direction of the NHS. I shall applaud the event. I am sure that some Labour Members will, too. However, I do not believe that it will happen, any more than I believe that I shall see pigs airborne tonight.
  We have heard about local government being a forum within which complaints can be addressed. Usually, local people fail to regard local authorities as impartial. Instead, they regard them as party political institutions. Local government is not genuinely objective. The joint responsibility that it has with the NHS in the social services sector gives it a vested interest that CHCs do not possess.
  We have heard, too, about the patient advocacy service. If patients are to have confidence and feel that their complaints are properly addressed, NHS hospitals need a clear line of command. There should be one chief executive, to whom complaints shot Id be addressed. He should address them properly, answer them and meet any
  398
  failings in the service with the necessary changes, and, if necessary, alterations of style and method of service. However, this does not happen.
  All too many hospitals have a shared boss. In the part of London that I represent, one section of Mount Vernon, a major hospital, has, in essence, a head who is the boss of three other hospitals. How will that give confidence to patients? How does it give staff the authority to know to whom they should refer? It is a recipe for chaos. That is why even a patients advocacy service in a hospital is not the right mechanism. One wants a clear line of command, and the man or woman in charge at the top to take full responsibility for everything that goes on in the institution.
  Mr. John Hayes: Does not the difference between existing practice and that advocated by Government Members as a replacement centre on the fact that the existing system is well tried and tested, well understood by many people and involves many good people who are already giving service? If it is working, why change it? If it ain't broke, why fix it? Is that not the difference between what my hon. Friend is proposing and what was proposed by Government Members?
  Mr. Wilkinson: As so often, my hon. Friend is right, and he makes his point succinctly and clearly. I suspect that there is a malign motive: CHCs, by and large, do their job so well that they show up the deficiencies of the NHS and reflect the foolishness of many public policy decisions taken by the Government.
  Mr. Dawson rose—
  Mr. Wilkinson: I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson); I accept that I ought to have given way to him earlier.
  Mr. Dawson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that CHCs are not powerful enough? They often end up making their point by shouting from the sidelines. Does he further accept that putting a representative from a patients forum on the board of every trust undermines all the pejorative remarks that he has made about the new system of representation?
  Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely wise point, with which I have considerable sympathy. If he studied new clause 2, he would see that we propose that there should be 12 months from the enactment of the Bill for the Secretary of State to consider appropriate reform of CHCs. The Secretary of State would have time to get it right. The Government bounced abolition of CHCs on an unwitting public, with no consultation or prior notice.
  Under subsection 4 of the new clause, the Secretary of State would be bound to
  "provide for the proper representation of the population".
  It is therefore essential that he appoints individuals with qualifications, impartiality and commitment to public service, which are all attributes that would give confidence to local communities and those whom they would represent. Last but not least, Parliament itself

  399
  would have to consider whether proposed reform was wise. We would have to judge it, with debate on a statutory instrument giving effect to the proposed reform.
  To conclude, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre suggested that the CHCs were not powerful enough. As I said, I am sympathetic to that view. However, the problem also lies with Whitehall and Secretaries of State who believe that they know best. The official objections lodged against proposed changes to the NHS—such as the closure of Harefield hospital, to which my local CHC, along with Brent and Harrow, have lodged official objections-should be taken seriously by the Secretary of State and acted upon through modifications of policy and changes to bring public policy into line with the wishes of local communities. Because the Government seek to impose their will, Soviet—style, on local communities, there is frustration and a feeling of impotence, which can be best addressed by the retention of CHCs and their intelligent reform, as proposed by new clause 2 and the Opposition's related amendments.
  Dr. Stoate: We have now had CHCs for about 25 years. Listening to Opposition Members, one would think that everything in the garden was rosy and that there was no cause for concern whatever. Even on the admission of Opposition Members who have spoken, the service provided by CHCs is at best patchy. There are some excellent ones: the CHC serving Dartford and Gravesham is a good one, and I have an excellent relationship with it. I have been a doctor for a long time and, time and again, I hear of cases in which CHCs have failed patients or been unable to help them in the required way. I shall give some examples.
  CHCs have no role in primary care. Opposition Members talk about CHCs as if they were wonderful. However, although the Tories were in power for 18 years, they never addressed the fact that CHCs have no role at all in primary care. My practice is immune to CHC interference, which is illogical. If everything was so wonderful, why is performance so patchy, why do CHCs have no role in primary care and why are they unable to investigate when primary care services fail or when premises are substandard and patients consequently get a bad deal? That is an illogical situation.
  There is no consistent advocacy role across the country. Some CHCs, including my own, provide an advocacy service. Others, however, do not. There is no requirement for them to do so, so patients in some parts of the country have no access to advocacy. If CHCs were uniformly wonderful, surely that sort of thing would be provided by all CHCs? Given that the Opposition were in power so long and did not address those issues, one wonders what was their understanding of what was going on in the community and the health service.
  Mr. Burstow: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that he is making a case for reform to drive up standards to the best standard? Has he considered new clause 7, which my hon. Friends and I tabled, which specifically extends the role of CHCs to cover primary care and deal with advocacy?
  Dr. Stoate: The hon. Gentleman makes valid points, and I agree with some of them. However, the bottom line
  400
  is that doing nothing is not an option. For far too long, CHCs have provided a complacent service in some parts of the country, which has not worked. We need radical reform; how that reform is carried out is a subject for debate, and which proposals we accept are a legitimate concern for the House.
  Making the advocacy service uniform across the country is the right way forward. Patient advocacy and liaison services, which will provide a point of contact in every hospital, are the right way forward. If wards are dirty or showers are not working, there will be somebody on site who can call the management to account then and there. Recently, the House heard how the mortuary in Bedford hospital had rusty hinges on its doors. PALS could pick up and sort out that kind of thing, avoiding some of the tragedies that have occurred. We have to have that radical reform.
  It is equally important that we make sure that patients feel as if they are at the center of the NHS. Although it is important that patients get a good deal, it is also important that they feel they are getting a good deal. In too many parts of the country, they do not feel that. The Government's proposals on patients forums go a long way towards dealing with that. However, there is clearly a problem.
  Some patients and some people in the community feel that patients forums might be too close to the health authority, the trust or the local authority. The umbrella organisation—the patients council—suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) is surely the way forward. That could give a sense of overriding impartiality and independence, and would encompass all the reforms under one umbrella.
  When I discussed the idea with members of my CHC earlier today, they were reassured by the proposal and think that it would go a long way towards addressing their legitimate concerns. I do not want to belittle CHCs. They have done a marvellous job, they are a well-intentioned group and they include some excellent people, but the service is not uniform. For far too long, patients have been sold short because they have not received the uniform, guaranteed level of service that they have a right to expect in the 21st century.
  Opposition Members tell us that everything in the garden is rosy, when clearly it is not. They failed to address the problems for 18 years. [Interruption.] I do not mean the Liberal Democrats; I am referring to the previous Government. I believe that the Liberal Democrats have honourable intentions on the matter and I do not dismiss what they say. I do not believe that they have the right ideas, but I do not belittle what they do.
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the height of hypocrisy for the Conservatives to complain about postcode rationing, as they do so often in their rhetoric, when they are prepared to continue the system of community health councils which leads to that?
  Dr. Stoate: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Effectively, there is postcode rationing through CHCs. There are excellent ones in some parts of the country, and others that are unacceptably poor. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and I are asking the Government to consider how we could get the best of all worlds—

  401
  a truly uniform service under the umbrella of patients councils, which will ensure that patients get a good deal, wherever they live.
  Mr. Fabricant: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman's rant, but he clearly has not read new clause 2. The Opposition recognise that everything in the garden is not rosy, despite what the hon. Gentleman says. That is why we propose in new clause 2 that there should be reform. He proposes throwing the baby out with the bath water.
  Dr. Stoate: The hon. Gentleman I as not been listening. That is precisely what I suggest we should not do. His party was in government for 18 years, and has finally come round to the idea that there ought to be reform. That is laughable. The Conservatives had a long time in which to do something, yet they did nothing. We are proposing radical reform and, more important, reform that brings benefits to patients, uniformity of service, an advocacy role and the guaranteed impartiality of the umbrella suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, which I hope Ministers will accept.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Let us start at the beginning and not lose sight of tow the issue arose; perhaps then it would be proper to ask about the motivation behind the Government's summary decision to scrap community health councils.
  There was a consultation exercise on the NHS, which was not well responded to. It is nimoured—we do not have the findings—that the few respondents who referred to CHCs generally did not know much about them. Let us consider why that might be. Although they were not originally expected to deal with complaints, CHCs have grown to be the body in which patients have confidence and which they trust to deal with their complaints, because CHCs are seen to be independent.
  One of the reasons for the success of CHCs is that patients, who are often vulnerable at this stage, or their relatives, have been able to engage with them in trust, because CHCs have tended not to trumpet what they do. With their knowledge, expertise and volunteer spirit, CHCs have sought to resolve problems, and only when a resolution was not possible, after exhaustive efforts, were formal procedures initiated to take a complaint forward and ensure that it was properly resolved in accordance with the patient's rights.
  It is not right to think that because CHCs are not generally known, they should be abolished. Surely a Government using the rhetoric—but not the substance—of meritocracy would look at the worth of CHCs, not seek to abolish them because they were not known.
  I was more hopeful about what the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), would say, and I eagerly awaited his comments. I found his speech disappointing and not as dispassionate as I had hoped. It brought to mind Churchill's remark when he was told that there was a new hon. Member in the House called Mr. Bossom. He said, "Oh dear, poor man. Neither one thing, nor the other." That was very much my reaction to the speech of the Chairman of the Health Committee. It is not possible to argue for independence and at the same time to trumpet
  402
  the potential benefits of structures whose purpose is to expose the difficulties of the very institutions of which they are part.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: The hon. Gentleman is arguing that the existing structure of CHCs is independent. Does he understand the current make-up of CHCs, particularly the fact that one third of their members are members of local authorities? How would they monitor independently the work of future care trusts?
  Mr. O'Brien: I hope that the hon. Gentleman would be surprised if I were not aware of the make-up of CHCs, as I have made a study of the subject. The members currently nominated by local authorities are in balance with the other interested parties on CHCs. One of the difficulties with the Government's proposals is that that balance would shift towards much more political involvement at local authority level. That is an important point to recognise, even if the Chairman of the Health Committee believes that the Government are proposing something different. Like him, I have had discussions with the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales. It was keen to support new clauses 9 and 10, but that support was expressed before the association had seen new clause 2. Today I had a meeting with CHC representatives who were specific about the fact that they regard new clause 2 as the better option and that they would prefer it to win through on Report.
  The decision to abolish CHCs appeared shortly before the summer recess, tucked away in page 95 of the Government's NHS plan, in paragraph 10.35. It was a decision, not a proposal for consultation, and it had been made without any prior consultation. The staff of Chester and Ellesmere Port CHC and of Cheshire Central CHC came to see me almost immediately. They learned through the internet of the threat to their jobs and to what they realised were regarded as voluntary organisations. That is no way for any Government to handle the morale and expertise of people who have given dedicated service and who, above all, have demonstrated that they are in it not out of careerism, but to ensure that patients get the best out of the NHS. It was a ghastly shame on the workings of the Government that they informed CHC staff through the internet that their jobs were under threat.
  Of course, the decision caused massive consternation. No prior consultation had taken place. I have had regular contact with my local CHCs, which are generally acknowledged to be excellent. However, I know that strong feelings have built up not only within them, as would have been expected—the decision has also been hugely controversial among patients and NHS staff who have found CHCs to be a worthwhile and important aspect of the broad delivery of health care services.
  I raised the matter in Prime Minister's questions on 15 November last year. I asked the Prime Minister whether he was aware that his proposals to scrap community health councils were bitterly opposed. He answered:
  "I am aware that there is bitter opposition, which is why the proposals are being consulted on."
  He went on to say:
  "It is precisely because we want to consult that we have issued the health plan. We will report back to the House in due course on the consultation."—[Official Report, 15 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 937.]

  403
  Surprise, surprise—I received a letter on the following Monday. It began with the words "Dear Stephen", which, surprisingly, appeared in the Prime Minister's handwriting. In the letter, the Prime Minister states:
  "I thought it would be helpful if I clarified the nature of the consultation on which we are currently engaged"—
  in relation to the abolition of CHCs. He goes on to state:
  "Our proposals mean that Community Health Councils are to be abolished".
  The letter continues for a further two pages, without adding anything of substance, but the Prime Minister concludes:
  "This better describes the consultation I alluded to in my answer during Prime Minister's Question time."
  It is important to put those matters on record.
  The letter, which the Prime Minister's office placed in the Library, showed that despite all the claims about prior consultation, even the Prime Minister was caught out and had to correct the direct answer that he gave to me during Question Time.
  I cannot tell the House how many calls, e-mails, faxes, letters and other representations I received from CHCs and others who were concerned about the issue in the days between the Prime Minister's answer on the Floor of the House and the day I received his letter. They were delighted to see that there was a chink of light after all and that CHCs might not be abolished. However, we found a few days later, when I received the letter, that that assurance had been cynically removed. I sought to question the Secretary of State for Health the following day—21 November—but he said that he would not give an answer. In my view, that was an outrage and a gross abuse of parliamentary accountability.
  I was then fortunate enough to secure a debate on the matter in Westminster Hall. The debate had an unusually high attendance, but it was notable because it was well attended not only by Opposition Members, but by Labour Members. One displayed a touch of "careerismitis" during the debate, but none spoke in favour of the Government's decision—I wish that I could say "proposals", but I cannot. We were presented with a summary decision at the end of July last year.
  Second Reading and a Committee stage have occurred to no avail, despite the strength of feeling that was expressed on the subject. It is fair to put it on record that, in terms of consultation and process, the proceedings constitute a travesty and a sham. The Government should be deeply ashamed of that. They owe an apology to the hard-working staff in CHCs across the country and to the volunteers and nominees from local authorities.
  Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the sham continued this afternoon at Prime Minister's Question Time? Although the Prime Minister knew that we were considering the Bill later, he pretended at the Dispatch Box that consultation on the abolition of CHCs, not the new arrangements, was continuing. The sham went on. We heard weasel words from the Prime Minister, and weasel words from Dr. Stoate and other Labour Members.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)>: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not help the debate by using
  404
  those terms, and he did not observe the forms of the House in the way in which he referred to another hon. Member.
  Mr. O'Brien: I noted the Prime Minister's answer, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) referred quite properly. The Prime Minister attempted to paint a picture of genuine consultation. It was claimed that consultation, as it is defined in English, would take place and that people could make representations, which would be taken into account when a decision was made. We know that such consultation has not occurred. The Government have already made their decision on the abolition of CHCs. The process has been a sham. The fact that we have reached that point reflects shame on the House
  My constituency of Eddisbury is in south-west Cheshire, and it is important to note that in Cheshire, where genuinely good CHCs exist, local Labour Members of Parliament have been challenged in the press to state whether they support abolishing them. Notwithstanding a hiccup from the hon. Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell), who pulled back from issuing a specific press release, nothing has been heard. No attempt has been made to justify the Government's actions.
  Representatives of CHCs who came to see us today are rightly proud of their service to local patients. They are proud not only of their knowledge and independence but of their lack of careerism. The Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales has rightly asked whether patients at e better served by lapdogs or watchdogs. The association has earned a reputation for being a watchdog.
  Trust and confidence are vital. The Government have the audacity to make a distinction in Wales. As it is a properly derogated matter, it has been decided to maintain CHCs in Wales. Why should England be different? We should all question CHCs' abolition in England.
  The replacements could be more costly, more complicated and less trusted by vulnerable patients who need them. Ministers have said nothing to justify abolishing CHCs, to efface the shame of their lack of prior consultation or to show that they have listened. They have had the brass neck to resist all representations, logic and the need to retain trust and confidence. Let us hope against hope that, for once, this arrogant Government will stick their brass neck out far enough to accept that they have misjudged the matter, climb down with grace and support new clause 2.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Denham: A patient-centred NHS is central to the vision that we set out in the NHS plan. Lip service has been paid for years to the idea of a patient-centred NHS, without bringing about any real change. As the NHS plan acknowledges, services are all too often not organised around the needs and lives of patients, and when things go wrong patients find inadequate safeguards and little help available to them.
  During the consultation on the NHS plan, patients across the country complained that no one listened to them, that there was no one there when they needed help, and that there was no one to turn to for advice. Patients organisations stressed, throughout the consultation, that patients need to have real influence in every part of the

  405
  NHS. That is why, during our consultations on the NHS plan, we decided that there was a case for real change. The NHS plan set out radical proposals to strengthen the voice of patients in the NHS. It also sought to address the lack of democratic scrutiny at local level by involving local government elected councillors. The Bill introduces the legislative change to deliver the plan.
  I want to make it clear that the starting point for the proposals was not—and still is not—the abolition of community health councils. We have designed a new system based on the need to increase and improve patient representation in the NHS. The functions of CHCs will be taken forward by new more powerful or more appropriate organisations. It is for that reason, and no other, that the plan proposed the abolition of CHCs. Some CHCs have undoubtedly done good work, given their limited structure and remit. However, that has too of ten depended on the undoubted merits of the individuals involved, rather than on the structures in which they were working. The case for radical reform has been made, and it is a case that cannot be answered with piecemeal changes.
  Dr. Fox: Will the Minister answer a question that has often been asked during this debate? Was there any consultation with the CHCs about their potential abolition before the national plan was introduced?
  Mr. Denham: Prior to the national plan, there was consultation with everybody who had an interest in the NHS. That included CHCs and patients. We introduced the plan in response to what patients said about what had happened to them, and about what they thought was available to them when things went wrong.
  In the debate over the past few months, there have been three distinct voices. First, we heart the complacent and conservative voice of those who will not recognise the scale of the changes that need to be made if we are really going to put the patient's voice at the heart of the NHS. Those are the ones who advised us co tinker with this or that problem.

  Secondly, we heard the voice of those who have suddenly discovered an interest in patents' rights that was never evident before. They are happy to jump on a bandwagon to make the Government look temporarily uncomfortable, without making a real commitment.
  Thirdly, and more importantly, we have heard the constructive voice of those who have considered the Government's proposals, and asked whether the proposals are right and how they could be in 'proved. This debate has involved many people inside and outside the House, and I welcome the contributions that my hon. Friends have made tonight. We should listen to that third voice.
  Mr. John Austin: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend received any Valentine cards today. I received one from some residents in Bexley, asking me to support their request for independent monitoring and independent advocacy in the national health service. Does my rid ht hon. Friend agree that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) would give a guarantee of such provisions?
  Mr. Denham: I shall come to those amendments in just a moment. The issues that my hon. Friend mentions are very important.
  406
  I shall set out briefly what we shall put in place. There will be a patient advocacy and liaison service in every trust and primary care trust. Patients want someone to sort out their problems when things first go wrong, before they need to make a formal complaint. PALS are not a replacement for CHCs because that is a role that CHCs have never played. PALS will be a powerful part of each trust, but patients forums will have the power to ensure that PALS remain influential and effective.
  There will be a patients forum for each trust, monitoring its work, inspecting premises, electing a non-executive director and reporting on the quality of patient services of each trust. The patients forums will also have the power to take action if PALS fail to provide an effective service. They will have independently appointed members, representative of individual patients, patients groups and carers organisations. Establishing a patients forum for every trust and PCT is key, because that will bring the voice of the patients to bear on the individual building blocks of the NHS—that is, on each chief executive, each medical director, each nursing director, each clinical governance lead.
  We have also recognised the importance of co-operation by patients forums in each local area. One of our findings from consultation and debate was the need to institutionalise such co-operation. As a result of amendments, the Bill already supports the idea of joint committees between patients forums to enable that to happen. We have already made it clear that forums in each area should share administrative and professional support, so that expertise can be located in one place.
  The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) take those issues a step further. I shall say more about that shortly, but first I want to say something about another issue, which was in the NHS plan and has been stressed throughout the consultation. We need an independent advocacy service for patients in every part of the country, because however good the system is in each trust things will go wrong and will not be sorted out, and someone will not then be able to rely on a part of the NHS to take them through the complaints procedure and ensure that they are looked after.
  We are talking about a service that has never existed uniformly in the NHS. Some community health councils have provided it, but others have not. As we have made clear, we will ensure that independent advocacy services exist in every part of the country. That represents a major step forward in patient rights in the NHS, but my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield seeks to go further by enshrining it in the Bill.
  The NHS has long lacked any democratic scrutiny at local level. The Bill provides for overview committees to scrutinise the service locally, and to scrutinise joint work between the NHS and local authorities, in exactly the same way as the work of local authorities is scrutinised.
  I want to leave time for the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), so I shall be brief. During consultation, organisations stressed the need for a national body representing patients' interests—a body that could represent patients, while also supporting those whom we want to volunteer to serve on patients forums. We are already working on a study, instigated by patients organisations, on the best way to set up such a body.
  From the outset, we have stressed our wish to ensure that the experience and expertise of CHC members and staff can be retained in the NHS. We expect local health

  407
  communities to help CHC staff to find new employment. As I think my speech should make clear, in future there will be more rather than fewer opportunities to work in patient empowerment and scrutiny in and around the NHS than there are at present, backed up by our commitment of an additional £10 million of investment—a sum that builds on the funds already available for CHCs.
  What we have already done has greatly strengthened the voice of patients in the NHS. The Opposition amendments tie us to a system that, however hard people have worked, is not right for the modern NHS. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield has raised an important point. We have already said—indeed, we have said it in the Bill—that patients forums should work together; my hon. Friend says we should go further and legislate for a patients council capable of facilitating the co-ordination of the work of patients forums as well as other functions.
  I think that the case has been made very clearly that there are people whose problems begin in primary care, continue in the ambulance trust and end up in the hospital trust, perhaps then returning to primary care in a long stay context. We need co-ordination across the system. My hon. Friend is, I think, right to want the Bill to include provision for a patients forum.
  I have said that we will provide a common secretariat to support patients in each area. Amendment No. 26 would enshrine that responsibility in the Bill and extend it to providing support for the patients councils. That would ensure that the new organisations had a coherent structure at local level.
  Although we have made this commitment from the outset, a case has been made that it would be a big step forward to include—for the first time in the 50 or more years since the NHS was founded—the provision of independent advocacy in NHS legislation. New clause 10 will do just that. It also places a responsibility on the Secretary of State to consult with interested bodies, but particularly with patients councils, on the best location of those services.
  Nevertheless, although we accept the amendments in this group tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), which will enable us to create a better structure, much of the necessary action is not purely legislative. We must have clear signposting to the new advocacy services. Additionally, the telephone number, like that for NHS Direct, should be the same in every part of the country so that people are routed to the service.
  I have again set out our proposals and stated very clearly how we have already responded to the issues raised in consultation. I have also dealt with and accepted the new clauses and amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield. I know that the hon. Member for Woodspring would now like to reply to the debate.
  Dr. Fox: I am so grateful for the crumbs that the Minister has seen fit to leave the Opposition to reply to the debate.

  Very many questions remain completely unanswered. Despite repeatedly asking the Minister, we still do not know how much the new system will cost. We still do not really know what will happen to CHC staff and to CHC
  408
  medical records. CHCs keep a huge amount of confidential information. Will that be returned to patients doctors or go to hospital trusts? What about cases in which patients have complained about those very hospitals or trusts? who owns the information and where will it go?

  The Government's approach of abolition is illogical. As the Minister and some Labour Members said, some CHCs are excellent. An argument made repeatedly today by Opposition Members is that we have to bring the standards of the poorest up to those of the best. If it is possible for CHCs in some parts of the country to be excellent and to provide the standards and services that many hon. Members and very many members of the public claim they offer, that should be an argument for reform.
  On Second Reading. the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said—he quoted it himself today—that the abolition of CHCs and scrutiny were an "afterthought" in the Government's plan. I am sure that most hon. Members agree that if his new clauses are accepted, that would diminish the damage that would be done by the Government's original proposals. However, I am sorry that he did not throw his considerable weight in the House behind new clause 2 and fight for proper reform of CHCs.
  The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) said that the provision is just an extra tier on top of the Government's proposals, and I have much sympathy with that comment. It certainly means more complexity and a more labyrinthine structure. I wonder about the whole concept of a single point of access. As was mentioned in the debate, what about a patient who, in a single episode of illness, has several complaints about different bodies? Where is his or her single point of entry to the system? I am not sure that the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Wakefield identify that point.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) described local examples of CHCs working well and the need for reform. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) started the ball rolling with his expos" of the Prime Minister's cynical use of the term "consultation". He gave the House a very good example of ht w the culture of this Government operates.
  It is sad that the Labour Back Benchers who spoke at length on Second Reading about their opposition to the principle of abolishing CHCs have been absent from this debate. Notably missing have been those Labour Members who haw been going around Westminster telling us privately how much they hate the Government's proposals. We did no hear much from them in the debate.
  It has been a genuinely sorry tale. There has been a refusal to apologise for claiming consultation when there was none, and a refusal to be properly accountable to those who are most involved—the CHCs. Despite knowing that he was going to change the system at the end of this debate, the Prime Minister refused to give a straight answer to straight questions at Prime Minister's questions today. The Minister could not even give us a straight answer to the straightest question of all—was there consultation with the CHCs before their abolition was announced in the national plan? If they were thirsty, they could not ask for water.
  New clause 2 does not tie us to a failed system; the only thing it ties anyone to is reform. The new clause would bring the standard of the poorest up to that of the

  409
  best. We did not want CHCs to be abolished. We will continue to fight to thwart the Government's plans beyond this House in the other place, so that these proposals go into the general election—
  It being Nine o'clock, MR. DEPLIT Y SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
  The House divided: Ayes 163, Noes 301.

  Division No. 123]

  [9 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Greenway, John

  Allan, Richard

  Grieve, Dominic

  Amess, David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hammond, Philip

  Baldry, Tony

  Hancock, Mike

  Ballard, Jackie

  Hayes, John

  Beggs, Roy

  Heald, Oliver

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Bercow, John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Horam, John

  Blunt, Crispin

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Howarth Gerald (Aldershot)

  Boswell, Tim

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Jackson Robert (Wantage)

  Brady, Graham

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Brake, Tom

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  Keetch, Paul

  Breed, Colin

  Key, Robert

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Burnett, John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Burns, Simon

  Lansley, Andrew

  Burstow, Paul

  Leigh, Edward

  Butterfill, John

  Letwin, Oliver

  Cash, William

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lidington, David

  Livsey, Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Loughton, Tim

  Collins, Tim

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  McCrea, Dr William

  Cotter, Brian

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cran, James

  MacKay Rt Hon Andrew

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Maclean Rt Hon David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Mates, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Duncan, Alan

  Moore, Michael

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Evans, Nigel

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Norman. Archie

  Fallon, Michael

  Oaten, Mark

  Flight, Howard

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Öpik, Lembit

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Ottaway Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Page, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Pickles, Eric

  Garnier, Edward

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Prior, David

  Gibb, Nick

  Randall, John

  Gidley, Sandra

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gill, Christopher

  Rendel, David

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gray, James

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  410

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Townend, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  Tredinnick, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Trend, Michael

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Tyler, Paul

  Shepherd, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Walter, Robert

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

  Waterson, Nigel

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Webb, Steve

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Spring Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Steen Anthony

  Wilkinson, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Willetts, David

  Swayne, Desmond

  Willis, David

  Willshire, David

  Syms, Robert

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Mr. Peter Luff and

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Clelland, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cohen, Harry

  Ashton, Joe

  Coleman, Iain

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Colman, Tony

  Austin, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cooper, Yvette

  Banks, Tony

  Corbett, Robin

  Barnes, Harry

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Barron, Kevin

  Cousins, Jim

  Battle, John

  Cox, Tom

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cranston, Ross

  Beard, Nigel

  Crausby, David

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cummings, John

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Darvill, Keith

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Davidson, Ian

  Benton, Joe

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Berry, Roger

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Best, Harold

  Betts, Clive

  Dawson, Hilton

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dismore, Andrew

  Borrow, David

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Doran, Frank

  Browne, Desmond

  Dowd, Jim

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Drew, David

  Burden, Richard

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Burgon, Colin

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Edwards, Huw

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Efford, Clive

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Cann, Jamie

  Ennis, Jeff

  Caplin, Ivor

  Etherington, Bill

  Cawsey, Ian

  Fisher, Mark

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Chaytor, David

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Clapham, Michael

  Flint, Caroline

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Flynn, Paul

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  411

  Foulkes, George

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gerrard, Neil

  McDonnell, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Goggins, Paul

  McNamara, Kevin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McNulty, Tony

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McWalter, Tony

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McWilliam, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Grogan, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Gunnell, John

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hanson, David

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Healey, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Meale, Alan

  Hendrick, Mark

  Merron, Gillian

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Heppell, John

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Miller, Andrew

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hope, Phil

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

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

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Mullin, Chris

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hutton, John

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Norris, Dan

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jamieson, David

  Olner, Bill

  Jenkins, Brian

  O'Neill, Martin

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Pond, Chris

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Joyce, Eric

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Purchase, Ken

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kemp, Fraser

  Rammell, Bill

  Kidney, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lammy, David

  Rogers, Allan

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Laxton, Bob

  Rooney, Terry

  Lepper, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rowlands, Ted

  Levitt, Tom

  Ruane, Chris

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Linton, Martin

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Lock, David

  Salter, Martin

  Love, Andrew

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McCabe, Steve

  Sawford, Phil

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  412

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Trickett, Jon

  Singh, Marsha

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morcambe & Lunesdale)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Soley, Clive

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Spellar, John

  Wareing, Robert N

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Watts, David

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  White, Brian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stringer, Graham

  Wills, Michael

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Winnick, David

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Woolas, Phil

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Wray, James

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Timms, Stephen

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mr. Don Touhig and

  Todd, Mark

  Mr. Ian Pearson.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together new clauses 9 and 10.

New Clause 9

  PATIENTS' COUNCILS
  ".—(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide for the establishment of bodies to be known as Patients' Councils (referred to in this section as "Councils") the members of which are to be appointed in each case b v two or more Patients' Forums.
  (2) The regulations shall provide for determining—

  (a) the Patients' loruins by which the members of a Council are to be app Hinted, and

  (b) the area in relation to which the functions of a Council are exercisable.

  (3) The functions of a Council are—

  (a) to facilitate he co-ordination by member Forums of their activities;

  (b) to make reports to health authorities, local authorities and their committees and to the Secretary of State in accordance with the regulations;

  (c) to carry out such arrangements as may be made with the Council under section I9A of the 1977 Act (independent advocacy services);

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

  (4) The "member Forums" of a Council are the Patients' Forums by which its members are for the time being appointed.'.

New Clause 10

  INDEPENDENT ADVOCACY SERVICES
  ". After section 19 of the 1977 Act there shall be inserted—
  19A.—(1) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to arrange, to such extent as he considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements, for the provision of independent advocacy services.
  (2) "Independent advocacy services" are services providing assistance (by way of representation or otherwise) to individuals making or intending to make—

  (a) a complaint under a procedure operated by a health service body or independent provider,

  (b) a complaint to the Health Service Commissioner for England or the Health Service Commissioner for Wales,

  (c) a complaint of a prescribed description which relates to the provision of services as part of the health service and

  (i) is made under a procedure of a prescribed description, or

  (ii) gives rise, or may give rise, to proceedings of a prescribed description.

  (3) In subsection (2)—
  "health service body" mean a body which, under section 2(1) or (2) of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, is subject to investigation by the Health Service Commissioner for England c r the Health Service Commissioner for Wales;
  "independent provider" means a person who, under section 2B(1) or (2) of that Act, is subject to such investigation.
  (4) The Secretary of State may make such other arrangements as he thinks fit for the provision of assistance to individuals in connection with complaints relating to the provision of services as part of the health service.
  (5) In making arrangements under this section the Secretary of State must have regard to the principle that the provision of services under the arrangements should, so far as practicable, be independent of any person who is the subject of a relevant complaint or is involved in investigating or adjudicating on such a complaint.
  (6) Before making arrangements under this section in respect of complaints relating to the provision of any services, the Secretary of State shall consult—

  (a) any relevant Patients' Council, and

  (b) such other persons as he consit ers appropriate.

  (7) A Patients' Council is, for the purposes of subsection (6)(a), a relevant Council if the services concerned are ones to which functions of a member Forum of the Council relate.
  (8) The Secretary of State may make payments to any person in pursuance of arrangements under this section.".'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clauses be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 335, Noes 124.

  Division No. 126]

  [9.17 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Ainger, Nick

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Allan, Richard

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Allen, Graham

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Benton, Joe

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Berry, Roger

  Ashton, Joe

  Best, Harold

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Belts, Clive

  Austin, John

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Bailey, Adrian

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ballard, Jackie

  Borrow, David

  Banks, Tony

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Barnes, Harry

  Brake, Tom

  Barron, Kevin

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Battle, John

  Breed, Colin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Beard, Nigel

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Browne, Desmond

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  414

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gidley, Sandra

  Burden, Richard

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Burnett, John

  Goggins, Paul

  Burstow, Paul

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Grogan John

  Cann, Jamie

  Gunnell, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Caton, Martin

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hancock, Mike

  Chaytor, David

  Hanson, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Harvey, Nick

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clelland, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hendrick, Mark

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cohen, Harry

  Heppell, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Hesford, Stephen

  Colman, Tony

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Connarty, Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Corbett, Robin

  Hope, Phil

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cotter, Brian

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cox, Tom

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cranston, Ross

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Crausby, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hughes, (Southwark N)

  Cummings, John

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov"try S)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Hutton, John

  Darvill, Keith

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Illsley, Eric

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jamieson, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hassle)

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B"ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh"ton SW)

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Doran, Frank

  Joyce, Eric

  Dowd, Jim

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Drew, David

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Keetch, Paul

  Edwards, Huw

  Kemp, Fraser

  Efford, Clive

  Kidney, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ennis, Jeff

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Etherington, Bill

  Fisher, Mark

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Flint, Caroline

  Lammy, David

  Flynn Paul

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Laxton, Bob

  Foulkes, George

  Lepper, David

  Galloway, George

  Leslie, Christopher

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Levitt, Tom

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Linton, Martin

  415

  Livsey, Richard

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Lock, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Love, Andrew

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rowlands, Ted

  McCabe, Steve

  Ruane, Chris

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McDonagh Siobhain

  Russel1, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McDonnell, John

  Salter, Martin

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McNamara, Kevin

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McNulty, Tony

  Sawford Phil

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McWalter, Tony

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McWilliam, John

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Singh, Marsha

  Mallaber, Judy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

  Martlew, Eric

  Soley, Clive

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Meale, Alan

  Spellar, John

  Merron, Gillian

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Miller, Andrew

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Moffatt Laura

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Moore, Michael

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stunell, Andrew

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

  Sutcliffe Gerry

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mulllin, Chris

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Taylor Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Morris, Dan

  Timms, Stephen

  Oaten, Mark

  Tipping, Paddy

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Todd, Mark

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Olner, Bill

  Trickett, Jon

  O'Neill, Martin

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pike, Peter L

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pond, Chris

  Tyler, Paul

  Pope, Greg

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pound, Stephen

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Watts, David

  Webb, Steve

  Primarolo, Dawn

  White, Brian

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Purchase, Ken

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Rammell, Bill

  Williams, Allan W (E Carmarthen)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Willis, Phil

  Rendel, David

  Wills, Michael

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Rogers, Allan

  Woolas, Phil

  416

  Wray, James

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Mr. Don Touhig and

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Mr. Ian Pearson.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Amess, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Lansley, Andrew

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Leigh, Edward

  Baldry, Tony

  Letwin, Oliver

  Beggs, Roy

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Bercow, John

  Lidington, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Loughton, Tim

  Body, Sir Richard

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Boswell, Tim

  McCrea, Dr William

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Brady, Graham

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Brazier, Julian

  Malins, Humfrey

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Moss, Malcolm

  Burns, Simon

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Butterfill, John

  Norman, Archie

  Cash, William

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Page, Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Pickles, Eric

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Collins, Tim

  Prior, David

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Randall, John

  Cran, James

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Day, Stephen

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Duncan Alan

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Shepherd, Richard

  Evans, Niqel

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Fallon, Michael

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Flight, Howard

  Spring, Richard

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Steen Anthony

  Streeter, Gary

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gale, Roger

  Syms, Robert

  Garnier, Edward

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Gibb, Nick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Gill, Christopher

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Townend, John

  Gray, James

  Tredinnick, David

  Greenway, John

  Trend Michael

  Grieve, Dominic

  Viggers, Peter

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Walter, Robert

  Hammond, Philip

  Waterson, Nigel

  Hayes, John

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Heald, Oliver

  Whittingdale, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Wilkinson, John

  Horam, John

  Willetts, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Yeo, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Key, Robert

  Mr. Peter Luff and

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clauses read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
  Question Put, That the remaining Government amendments and amendments Nos. 24 to 26 be made:—
  The House divied: Ayes 338, Noes 118.

  Division No. 127]

  [9.31 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Ainger, Nick

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cotter, Brian

  Allan, Richard

  Cousins, Jim

  Allen, Graham

  Cox, Tom

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Cranston, Ross

  Crausby, David

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cummings, John

  Ashton, Joe

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Austin, John

  Darvill, Keith

  Bailey, Adrian

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Banks, Tony

  Davidson, Ian

  Barnes, Harry

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Battle, John

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Beard, Nigel

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Dawson, Hilton

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Doran, frank

  Benton, Joe

  Dowd, Jim

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Drew, David

  Berry, Roger

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Best, Harold

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Belts, Clive

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Edwards, Huw

  Blizzard, Bob

  Efford, Clive

  Borrow, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ennis, Jeff

  Brake, Tom

  Etherington, Bill

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Fisher, Mark

  Breed, Colin

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Flint, Caroline

  Browne, Desmond

  Flynn, Paul

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Foulkes, George

  Burden, Richard

  Galloway, George

  Burgon, Colin

  George Andrew (St Ives)

  Burnett, John

  George Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Burstow, Paul

  Gerrard, Neil

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Goggins, Paul

  Caplin, Ivor

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chaytor, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clapham, Michael

  Grogan, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Gunnell, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hancock, Mike

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Herman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clelland, David

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Coaker, Vernon

  Harvey, Nick

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Healey, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Coleman, Iain

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Colman, Tony

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hendrick, Mark

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hepburn, Stephen

  418

  Heppell, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Hesford, Stephen

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Meale, Alan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Merron, Gillian

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hope, Phil

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Moore, Michael

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

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

  Hutton, John

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morris, Fit Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Illsley, Eric

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jamieson, David

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Norris, Dan

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Oaten, Mark

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh"ton SW)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Pickthall, Colin

  Joyce, Eric

  Pike, Peter L

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pond, Chris

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pope, Greg

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pound, Stephen

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Keetch, Paul

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kidney, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prosser, Gwyn

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rammell, Bill

  Lammy, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Laxton, Bob

  Rendel, David

  Lepper, David

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Levitt, Tom

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rogers, Allan

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Linton, Martin

  Rooney, Terry

  Livsey, Richard

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lock, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Love, Andrew

  Ruane, Chris

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruddock, Joan

  McCabe, Steve

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Salter, Martin

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sanders, Adrian

  McDonnell, John

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McIsaac, Shona

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sawford, Phil

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McNulty, Tony

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McWalter, Tony

  Singh, Marsha

  McWilliam, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Soley, Clive

  419

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Spellar, John

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Tyler, Paul

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Watts, David

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Webb, Steve

  Stringer, Graham

  White, Brian

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Willis, Phil

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wills, Michael

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Winnick, David

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Timms, Stephen

  Woodward, Shaun

  Tipping, Paddy

  Woolas, Phil

  Todd, Mark

  Wray, James

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Trickett, Jon

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Mr. Don Touhig and

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Mr. Ian Pearson.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Amess, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Hayes, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Heald, Oliver

  Baldry, Tony

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Beggs, Roy

  Horam, John

  Bercow, John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hunter, Andrew

  Body, Sir Richard

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Boswell, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Brady, Graham

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Brazier, Julian

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Key, Robert

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Burns, Simon

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Butterfill, John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Cash, William

  Lansley, Andrew

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Leigh, Edward

  Letwin, Oliver

  Chope, Christopher

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Lidington, David

  Collins, Tim

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Loughton, Tim

  Cran, James

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  McCrea, Dr William

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Day, Stephen

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Duncan, Alan

  Malins, Humfrey

  Evans, Nigel

  Maples, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fallon, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Norman, Archie

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Page, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Pickles, Eric

  Gibb, Nick

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Prior, David

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Randall, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gray, James

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Greenway, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Grieve, Dominic

  St Aubyn, Nick

  420

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Viggers, Peter

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Walter, Robert

  Shepherd, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Whittingdale, John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Spring, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Willetts, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Wilshire, David

  Swayne, Desmond

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Syms, Robert

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Townend, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tredinnick, David

  Mr. Peter Luff and

  Trend, Michael

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Minister to speak on Third Reading, I should announce that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Liberal Democrat party.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker Do you think it adequate for the mother of Parliaments to give a Third Reading of just 15 minutes to an important Bill?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It must be adequate because I am proceeding according to the rules of the House. I call the Minister to speak.
  9.46 pm
  Mr. Denham: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Had the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) been here earlier, he would have heard his colleagues argue that an hour was far too long to spend on Third Reading of a Bill of this sort. The House would welcome a little bit of co-ordination by Opposition Members.
  As we approach the end of the Commons stage on the Bill, I want to make a few points. The Bill is vital to implement the NHS plan. As a Government, we inherited a fragmented and under-resourced NHS; buildings were crumbling and there were too few staff. We have already acted to end the internal market, to get the biggest ever hospital building programme under way, to set up primary care groups and trusts and to expand the training of staff. We are now seeing unprecedented investment in the NHS which, however, must be investment for modernisation. The measures in the Bill make sure that that will happen.
  First, it is a decentralising and devolving Bill, which underpins the principle of earned autonomy for the best run parts of the health service, together with the principles of less performance; management and greater financial freedom. It gives new powers to the NHS and local councils to work together at local level. They already have partnership powers; row they have the ability to create new joint organisations and a new level of partnership to provide a seamless care service for the elderly, the mentally ill and children. Those powers have been widely welcomed and sought. Unfortunately, not all right hon. and hon. Members have taken a close interest in the Bill, but it is no less important for that.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Denham: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I should like to make a little progress.

  421
  As we have just discussed, the Bill provides more power for patients and increased democratic local scrutiny. It also enables us to tackle variations. The best of the NHS is extremely good, but the variations in the service are too wide. As we develop earned autonomy for the best parts of the system, we have more effective means to support and intervene in any part of the system in which performance is poor or trusts are failing. The Bill underlines the new performance management system and the performance fund that will be worth £250 million in two or three years' time. It gives us the power, if needed as a last resort, to tackle failing trusts.
  The Bill gives us the power to tackle variations in primary care. The new unified budget will make it easier for health authorities to determine the expansion of GP numbers, attract more GPs to deprived areas and enable them to work in better premises. The Bill makes possible a new partnership to invest £1 billion in primary care premises and one-stop primary centres, starting in deprived areas. It therefore helps our commitment to tackle health inequalities.
  The Bill also enables us to protect the quality of patient services. All GPs will be on health authority lists; there will be a new system of suspension, removal and appeal which means that, in the small number of cases in which it is needed, there will be a faster and more effective system to safeguard patients and a fairer system for GPs. It enables us to hour the agreement with the British Medical Association that, as GPs move on to lists, all of them will be able to join the NHS pension scheme. It will take some months to get the lists into place, but our aim is to backdate them to April this year. We rightly extend the list system to other health professionals.
  The Bill protects patients and improves the quality of care in other ways, for example, by ensuring tight controls over the use of patient information and by enabling patients to have more information about their own personal care. The Bill backs innovation: it provides for new ways of providing pharmaceutical services, establishes new groups of health professionals able to prescribe prescription drugs, and creates new powers to ensure that the NHS can benefit properly and fairly from its own research and innovation.
  The Bill brings new fairness to health care for the elderly. For the first time ever, NHS nursing care will be free wherever it is delivered. It ends the means test of health care in nursing homes. That is a huge step forward, which goes with the investment by 2004–05 of £1 billion in new and improved health and social care services for the elderly.
  That means turning our back on Tory privatisation, on the cuts that they promised in social care, and on the cuts that they promised in health care to make up for the money that they would not raise from tobacco, and the money that they would waste on subsidising private health insurance. It reverses Tory plans to make people pay for hip operations, knee operations, cataract operations and hernias. It is an important Bill, which underpins the Government's commitment to the long-term future and modernisation of the NHS.
  9.50 pm
  Dr. Fox: I begin by correcting the first of a remarkable list of inaccuracies in the Minister's speech. He said that we did not want as much time as was allocated for Third
  422
  Reading. The point that we made at the beginning of the day was that we had very little time for all the remaining stages of the Bill, including the Government's new clauses and more than 120 amendments. It is a sad reflection on the new procedure in the House that we have been able to give so little consideration to the remaining stages. The one correct thing that the Minister said was that the Bill was extremely important.
  The Bill must be judged by whether it will improve the overall health care in this country and the running of the national health service. Almost any medical or nursing group that we speak to throughout the country speaks about morale in the NHS being at an all-time low, more people leaving the service than ever before, more doctors taking early retirement than ever before—
  Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is talking down the NHS again.
  Dr. Fox: The hon. Lady says that I am talking the service down. Her Government have been in charge of the NHS for the past four years. More people are leaving the service than ever before. That is one thing for which she cannot blame the previous Government. This is the fourth winter that the Government have been in control of the health service, where morale among staff is clearly very poor. I wonder when the Government will take responsibility for anything that they are getting wrong.
  Increased numbers of people are waiting to be treated in the service. The Government talk about the number by which they have reduced the in-patient waiting list. The Minister deprecates the private sector, but it is worth pointing out that since the Government came to office, 450,000 people have left the waiting list of their own volition to purchase treatment in the private sector with their savings. Had it not been for people being forced to use their savings by the waiting times overseen by the Government, the waiting lists would have risen by even more than they have.
  Notwithstanding that huge reduction, as a result of the fact that people have been willing to pay, often for life-saving treatments, with their life savings, the total number of patients waiting in our system has gone up, if one adds together the in-patients and the waiting list for the waiting list, which has soared since the Government came to power.
  Perhaps worse than that are the distorted priorities in the system. In the short time available to me, I will not go over the catalogue of horrors that we have heard in recent debates and which have been raised in the House during Question Time. When surgeons are asked to cancel waiting lists for surgery for cancer patients so that they can treat more minor cases, we must wonder about the ethical basis for our system. Under the Government's bizarre and distorted waiting list initiative, we have reached the point when we are debating whether to treat the sickest patients first. That is the background to the debate, and the level of distortion that now exists in the system.
  Ministers have failed to tackle the most important thing of all—not the number of patients waiting, but what the service does. There is nothing in the Bill about outcome-based targets for a system and a country that has just slipped behind Turkey in life expectancy—down to 19th place in the world. In many priority areas, the NHS

  423
  fails to deliver outcomes that we might rightfully expect for the fourth wealthiest nation in the world, yet patients with in-growing toe nails and impacted wisdom teeth are being removed from the waiting list simply to make the figures look better for Ministers. That is a disgraceful way to run a service.
  Against that background, we are faced with the NHS plan and the Bill. The NHS plan is not a plan in the sense in which most people would understand that word. It is more of a wish list, as we see when we consider some of its particular aspects and scrutinise them in detail. Such aspects include the number of staff required. Medical bodies such as the British Medical Association and the royal colleges tell us not only that the Bill does nothing for the provision of staff, but that the numbers are greatly underestimated in the first place.
  The Minister tells us that the Bill is a decentralising measure. He has many talents, but he has only recently turned his hand to comedy. The Bill could not be described as decentralising by any stretch of the imagination. It will reinforce all the micro-management tendencies of the current Government, who genuinely believe that a service that employs a million people can be managed from behind a single Minister's desk in Whitehall. There is constant interference with management and the Department is continually distributing circulars that make it impossible for anyone to set budgets for any length of time and which force those in NHS management to go chasing after packets of money for which they must compete by investing huge amounts of their time and energy. We need depoliticisation and decentralisation, but the Bill gives us increased centralisation.
  That is not to say that the Opposition do not welcome some parts of the Bill. We welcome the extension of nursing care, which the Minister mentioned. We also welcome proper control of locums. From my personal experience, I think that that is long overdue in the NHS. We do not pretend for a minute that every aspect of the Bill is undesirable, but three major issues make it completely unpalatable.
  The first issue is the abolition of community health councils, which we have recently addressed. Let me make the Opposition's position perfectly clear. We think that the new clauses introduced on Report will reduce the damage caused by the abolition of CHCs, but we do not accept them because we do not accept that policy. We will continue to press for retention and reform of CHCs as the Bill proceeds through the House of Lords. I believe that we will have the support of Liberal Democrats in the other place in carrying that process forward. There is no doubt that the abolition of CHCs is a completely unacceptable policy, as it removes an independent voice for patients, as well as their ability to use a single point of access into the system.
  None of the questions that we asked earlier were answered. We had no answer about cost or about what would happen to the staff or to confidential information. We have debated the ownership and confidentiality of patient information, and have considered where it should rest. A huge volume of information about patients is contained in the records of CHCs throughout the country. Having spent time debating those matters, however, we have reached Third Reading and we do not yet know
  424
  where that information will go. As it may contain complaints about specific doctors or hospitals, it could potentially return to those doctors or hospitals.
  Mr. David Maclean: My hon. Friend's point about CHCs worries us all, but what concerns the doctors and surgeons in my constituency and those of other Opposition Members is the fact that the Government are taking away their clinical freedom. Will he give an absolute assurance that after the election, when he is in charge of health policy and the Conservative party is in government, the distorted priorities imposed from the centre by Labour Ministers will be swept away and doctors will have the freedom to treat the sickest first?
  Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of Liberal Democrat Members.
  Mr. Speaker: I cannot allow that on a point of order. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) is on his feet and has the Floor.
  Dr. Fox: At least two hon. Members who have spoken today would benefit from reading "Erskine May". You mentioned one earlier, Mr. Speaker; I offer you another candidate.
  I give my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) the assurance that he seeks. In a few months, when the electorate have decided that they need a change of Government, we shall return to a system of proper clinical priorities that treats the sickest patients first.
  Another unacceptable aspect of the Bill is the interventionism in hiring and firing trust board members, and the ability of the Secretary of State to set terms and conditions of employment. That will allow greater manipulation of and further controls over information for which clause 62 provides. The Secretary of State will be able to perform unacceptable actions, including publishing patient information if he chooses to do that.
  It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [7 November and this day].
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 168.

  Division No. 128]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Ainger, Nick

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Benton, Joe

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ashton, Joe

  Berry, Roger

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Best, Harold

  Austin, John

  Betts, Clive

  Bailey, Adrian

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Banks, Tony

  Blizzard, Bob

  Barnes, Harry

  Borrow, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Battle, John

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Bayley, Hugh

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Beard, Nigel

  Browne, Desmond

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Buck, Ms Karen

  425

  Burden, Richard

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Burgon, Colin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Grogan, John

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gunnell, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Caton, Martin

  Hanson David

  Cawsey, Ian

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Chaytor, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hodge, MS Margaret

  Clelland, David

  Hope, Phil

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Coleman, Iain

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Colman, Tony

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Connarty, Michael

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hutton, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Illsley, Eric

  Cousins, Jim

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cox, Tom

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cranston, Ross

  Jamieson, David

  Crausby, David

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jowell, Ftt Hon Ms Tessa

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Joyce, Eric

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kidney, David

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Doran, Frank

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Dowd, Jim

  Lammy, David

  Drew, David

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Laxton, Bob

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lepper, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Leslie Christopher

  Edwards, Huw

  Levitt, Tom

  Efford, Clive

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Ennis, Jeff

  Linton, Martin

  Etherington, Bill

  Lock, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Love, Andrew

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  McCabe, Steve

  Flint, Caroline

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Flynn, Paul

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Foulkes, George

  Macdonald, Calum

  Galloway, George

  McDonnell, John

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gerrard, Neil

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McNamara Kevin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McNulty, Tony

  426

  MacShane, Denis

  Salter, Martin

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McWalter, Tony

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McWilliam, John

  Sawford, Phil

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Singh, Marsha

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Martlew, Eric

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Merron, Gillian

  Soley, Clive

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Spellar, John

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Miller, Andrew

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mitchell, Austin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

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

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Stringer, Graham

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mullin, Chris

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Norris, Dan

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Timms, Stephen

  Olner, Bill

  Tipping, Paddy

  O'Neill, Martin

  Todd, Mark

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Touhig, Don

  Pearson, Ian

  Trickett, Jon

  Pickthall, Colin

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pike, Peter L

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pond, Chris

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Pope, Greg

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pound, Stephen

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Vaz, Keith

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Wareing, Robert N

  Purchase, Ken

  Watts, David

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  White Brian

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Rammell, Bill

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Raynsford, Nick

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Wills, Michael

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Winnick, David

  Rogers, Allan

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Woodward, Shaun

  Rooney, Terry

  Woolas, Phil

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wray, James

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Roy, Frank

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Ruane, Chris

  Wyatt, Derek

  Ruddock, Joan

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mr. Kevin Hughes and

  Salmond, Alex

  Mr. Graham Allen.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Allan, Richard

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Amess, David

  Baker, Norman

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Ballard, Jackie

  427

  Beggs, Roy

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Beith, Rt Hon AJ

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Keetch, Paul

  Bercow, John

  Key, Robert

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Blunt, Crispin

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Body, Sir Richard

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Boswell, Tim

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Leigh, Edward

  Brady, Graham

  Letwin, Oliver

  Brake, Tom

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Lidington, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Livsey, Richard

  Breed, Colin

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Loughton, Tim

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  McCrea, Dr William

  Burnett, John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Burns, Simon

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Burstow, Paul

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Butterfill, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cash, William

  Malins, Humfrey

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Maples, John

  Mates, Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Moore, Michael

  Clark, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Collins, Tim

  Norman, Archie

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Oaten, Mark

  Cotter, Brian

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Cran, James

  Öpik, Lembit

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Page, Richard

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Pickles, Eric

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Prior, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Randall, John

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Nigel

  Rendel, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fallon, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Feam, Ronnie

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Flight, Howard

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Sanders, Adrian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gale, Roger

  Shepherd, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

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

  Gibb, Nick

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gill, Christopher

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Spring, Richard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Gray, James

  Steen, Anthony

  Greenway, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Grieve, Dominic

  Stunell, Andrew

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Syms, Robert

  Hammond, Philip

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hancock, Mike

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Harvey, Nick

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Hayes, John

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Heald, Oliver

  Townend, John

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Tredinnick, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Trend, Michael

  Horam, John

  Tyler, Paul

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Walter, Robert

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Hunter, Andrew

  Webb, Steve

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Whittingdale, John

  428

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Yeo, Tim

  Wilkinson, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Willetts, David

  Willis, Phil

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wilshire, David

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  and

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Mr. Peter Luff.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  AGRICULTURE
  That the Pig Industry Restructuring (Capital Grant) Scheme 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 251) dated 1st February 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
  Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made,
That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended as follows:
Line 31, at end add—
'() The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to report to the committee from time to time.
() The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before the sub-committee.
() The quorum of the sub-committee shall be three.'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
Hon. Members: Object.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January],
That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest—[Mrs. McGuire.]
Hon. Members: Object.

SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 January],
That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session—[Mrs. McGuire.]
Hon. Members: Object.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)
Motion made,
That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
Line 40, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 50, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 52, at the end insert the words:—
'(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mrs. McGuire.]
Hon. Members: Object.

LANGUAGE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS
Motion made,
That—
(1) this House approves the First Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 2000–01 (HC 47); and
(2) the Resolution of 5th June 1996 on the Language of Parliamentary Proceedings be amended accordingly by inserting, after the word 'Wales,', the words 'and at Westminster in respect of Select Committees'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION

  Community Transport Schemes
  10.17 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: I am grateful for the chance to present a petition on behalf of more than 2,000 of my constituents. It was collected on the streets of Thornbury and Yate and in the Gazette newspaper on behalf of the community transport schemes in my area. Community transport schemes have been a great success in recent years, but they are now threatened and could cease within months.
  The petition states:
  The Humble Petition of the citizens of South Gloucestershire sheweth:
  the great value which is attached to the work of South Gloucestershire Community Transport schemes.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will take such measures as lie within its power to end the uncertainty over their future funding and to make an immediate commitment to supporting such schemes over the long term.
  And your petitioners, as in Duty bound, will ever pray etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Endometriosis
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
10.18 pm
Mr. John McDonnell: It is a cruel irony that the subject of endometriosis has been timetabled for debate today, on St. Valentine's day. It is ironic because, for many women sufferers of endometriosis, lovemaking can be extremely painful. It is cruel because, for some women, the condition prevents them from bearing the children they so lovingly wish for. I have sought this debate to draw attention to a condition that not only has heart-rending consequences, but is underestimated in its incidence and effects; under-publicised, resulting in widespread ignorance of its symptoms among women and general practitioners alike; and under-resourced, leading to delays in diagnosis, inappropriate treatment and a postcode lottery for patients seeking to gain access to the relevant expertise.
What is endometriosis? It is probably one of the most complex gynaecological conditions, and it is the second most common such condition. It occurs when the endometrium—the cells that line the interior of the uterus—are found in other parts of the body. The endometrium is most commonly misplaced on the outside of the uterus, on the Fallopian tubes, the ovaries, the bowel, the peritoneum—the lining of the pelvis—and elsewhere, usually in the pelvis. Cyclical bleeding of these fragments can lead to chronic pelvic pain and the formation of adhesions and cysts. The symptoms are known to vary widely. This affects the ability to diagnose the condition because of the similarity with the symptoms of other diseases. Symptoms associated with endometriosis include: dysmenorrhoea, or painful bleeding; chronic pelvic pain; deep dyspareunia, or painful sexual intercourse; and infertility.
A recent study by the Northern Endometriosis Centre found that endometriosis causes both disturbing local symptoms and also profound effects on the general health, personal life and well-being of sufferers. Apart from the physical manifestations of this condition, the chronic pain suffered by its victims can place strain on the woman's relationships and career.

A survey by the National Endometriosis Society conducted last year asked whether endometriosis had ever affected women's employment. Some 65 per cent. said yes; 30 per cent. had not been able to keep the same job and 16 per cent. had stopped working. The cost to the economy has yet to be calculated, but must run into hundreds of millions of pounds.
The causes of endometriosis are not known for certain. However, there are several theories, including retrograde menstruation; metaplasia theory, or incorrect cell development; vascular theory, under which endometriosis tissue may travel through the bloodstream; and immune theory, linking the condition to an immune dysfunction. As diagnosis can only be confirmed surgically, it is difficult to establish accurate figures for the incidence of this condition in the UK.
The organisation Women's Health UK suggests that between 3 and 10 per cent. Of women have endometriosis. For women having difficulty conceiving, the figure rises to between 25 and 35 per cent. As more diagnoses are

431
occurring, we are having to revise our estimates upwards. It is now suggested that between 1.5 million and 2 million women suffer from endometriosis, giving an average of between 500 and 2,000 sufferers in every constituency.
The NES survey demonstrated that, contrary to past belief, the age range of sufferers is across all ages, but there is a high incidence among young women. Some 17 per cent. of endometriosis sufferers were found to be under 16, and 35 per cent. were in the age range of 20 to 29.
The diagnosis of endometriosis is difficult. Its variable presentation and its overlap with other conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome and pelvic inflammatory disease has contributed to an average eight-year delay between onset and a surgical diagnosis in the UK. For some, the time between onset and diagnosis can be decades.
The surgical procedure of laparoscopy is the standard diagnostic test, but non-invasive diagnostic methods such as ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging have also become available.
The choice of treatment depends on a number of factors, such as the woman's age and her fertility plans, previous treatments and their effects and the nature and severity of the disease. The most common medical approach is the continuous use of oral contraception. Other approaches include the use of androgen-like drugs and the use of analogues.
Although all these treatments have been shown to provide some control of mild or minimal disease, they each carry a side-effect profile. It is clear that moderate and severe endometriosis cannot be managed by drug therapy alone. For these sufferers, surgery becomes the preferred option. Minimal surgery is commonly by laser. Other forms used are cauterisation, ablation and excision. In the most extreme cases it may be necessary to remove the uterus, ovaries and Fallopian tubes in order to remove all the active disease. Tragically, a significant proportion of women who undergo radical surgery report the recurrence of symptoms.
Given the extent of this condition and the potential severity of its effects, there is a need for a comprehensive programme to address the needs of endometriosis sufferers. For too long there has been no comprehensive response to the disease. Local planning, campaigning and pressure have not contributed to an overall approach—only to a limited approach in particular geographical areas. If men were suffering in this way, I doubt whether we would need today's debate.
First, we need to tackle the level of ignorance about this condition. Widespread ignorance of the condition and its symptoms results in women delaying their first consultation with their general practitioner or health practitioner. In the NES survey, women were asked whether, when they first experienced the symptoms, they thought they were normal. A staggering 46 per cent. said yes; they accepted the pain that came with the condition almost without question. When asked whether they suspected that they might have endometriosis before they sought medical help, 81 per cent. of women said no. That is a reflection of the lack of awareness of the condition, and of the lack of information disseminated about it. When women were asked where they had gained the information about the condition, 54 per cent. said that they
432
had discovered the information from the media, and only 8 per cent. said they had found out from official sources, medical leaflets, and so on.
Unfortunately, some women's conditions are still veiled in stigma, and this condition can be one. It can lead to difficulties of disclosure, anxieties and distress, especially among girls and young women. We need a national programme to raise awareness among the general public and among women of all ages, but especially among young women and girls. That would also assist in identifying the needs of women from the range of cultures that make up our multicultural society today. In raising awareness among the general public, we must also facilitate early diagnosis and more effective treatment.
The National Endometriosis Society survey found that in only 9 per cent. Of cases was the condition diagnosed when a sufferer first vent to her doctor and discussed the symptoms. It found that 43 per cent. of women received a non-gynaecological diagnosis, usually of irritable bowel syndrome or appendicitis. A further 11 per cent. were told that they were suffering from painful periods, and 15 per cent. were told that there was nothing wrong.
We desperately need a new initiative to reduce delays in diagnosis and ensure that GPs are more informed about recognising the disease. That could be done by featuring the condition more prominently in medical training, and by emphasising it in in-service training and in information provided to GPs.
Greater recognition needs to be given to specialists already working in field, but we also need to establish a wider base of expertise among primary carers. That could be an ideal area in which to develop the proposals in the Government's NHS plan for the training of GP specialists. Mentoring could be provided by consultant specialists in particular hospitals around the country, and it might be possible to use distance learning to develop the specialism among those working in the field.
Although some of the world's leading researchers and clinicians in this condition work in this country, access to treatment can depend on which GP a woman encounters and on the area in which she lives. Often, our limited NHS resources are waged by inappropriate treatments and diagnostic delays.
The NES survey asked sufferers which treatments the GP recommended after their first visit. It found that 47 per cent. were given pain killers, 32 per cent. were provided with non-endometriosis-relevant treatment, and 22 per cent. Were prescribed an oral contraceptive—which at least went some way towards some form of treatment. A further 9 per cent. were given antibiotics, while 7 per cent. were recommended to get pregnant and 16 per cent. were given nothing. Among those who saw a specialist regarding their symptoms, 32 per cent. saw a non-endometriosis specialist first, and 25 per cent. of sufferers saw a gynaecologist only after having seen two other specialists. The survey found that 54 per cent. of sufferers were told that there was nothing wrong with them before they were diagnosed.
Those terribly stark statistics demand a response. We need a systematic approach to treating this condition. That should include support and ring-fenced funding for the development of a network of national centres of excellence for endometriosis, capable of providing a range of treatments. We also need a review of the specialist referral procedures to ensure equity of access across the country.

433
Endometriosis is not an acute disease that generally disappears with treatment. Most women with endometriosis suffer in the long term. It may not be a life-threatening disease, but many sufferers will say that it can destroy a woman's life, and her family life.
Endometriosis sufferers and their families need greater support in coping with, and managing, the condition. The NES has been successful in developing techniques for support and in running self-management courses for endometriosis victims, but that superb provision is limited by lack of funds.
The national society provides a comprehensive range of services to address the unmet needs of patients, and its services are used about 100,000 times a year. It does all that on a shoe-string budget of £200,000. Most of those funds are raised by charitable donation, with limited grants from the Government.
We need to launch a fresh initiative to support the NES in promoting self-management schemes for women with endometriosis, led by lay people. That would follow the Government's lead in placing greater emphasis on patient-centred approaches to illness. At present, endometriosis sufferers feel that they are not at the centre of care, but on the circumference.
It is feared that, as national frameworks for the treatment of acute conditions are rolled out, because endometriosis is not life-threatening it will be ignored. That situation will be reflected in the pharmaceutical industry's priorities in researching and developing other forms of treatment. The severity of the pain of endometriosis sufferers and the scale of suffering by the vast number of women affected means that there is a strong argument for developing a national framework for the treatment of the condition as a matter of urgency.
Is the Minister willing to meet me, a group of my parliamentary colleagues and representatives from the NES to discuss how we might take forward that programme of support for endometriosis sufferers? The issue is too important to too many women for us to ignore their pain. Later this year, on Wednesday 4 July, we will be organising a lobby of Parliament as part of an endometriosis awareness day. At that time I hope that we will be able to report a record of action to give hope to sufferers of this debilitating condition.
Finally, I want to thank and pay tribute to three women. Candice Pires is a brilliant young woman who researched the report that I published on this subject last year. If I can convince her about the future of socialism, I hope that one day she will use her talents in the Chamber. Angela Barnard, from the NES, has doggedly and with courage, determination and commitment ensured that the issue will not be ignored. My constituent Tracey Holliday has, throughout the pain of her condition, worked hard to support other sufferers and to develop the campaign for recognition of the need for the Government to act. Without them, we would not have had the opportunity of this debate tonight. I give them this undertaking: we will not let them down.
10.32 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) on securing this debate on endometriosis services. This is a subject in which I know he has a great personal interest
434
and to which he is devoting considerable time and energy, and I welcome that. I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to reply to the debate because this is a complex and often ill-understood disease that affects many thousands of women in this country.
Endometriosis is the second most common gynaecological condition in this country, and it affects up to about 2 million women. It is estimated that between 3 and 10 per cent. of women aged between 15 and 45 have endometriosis. In women who have difficulty conceiving, the rate rises to between 25 and 35 per cent.
My hon. Friend has ably described endometriosis and its effects. It is a condition that remains with a woman intermittently throughout the reproductive years of her life. For many women, the continuing recurrent pain and other symptoms make life difficult or even intolerable. The condition can have lasting effects on a woman's self-image, sexuality and fertility. The widespread effects are felt not only by the woman herself but by family and friends trying to cope with the problems that can result. We should not underestimate the importance of endometriosis and the effects that it has on so many people.
Outdated ideas about who is likely to have endometriosis are unfortunately still common. There remains a belief in some quarters that it is the illness of goal-oriented career women over the age of 30. That misconception has now been well and truly disproved. Women in their 20s are increasingly coming forward with endometrial symptoms, and the condition is being diagnosed and treatment offered. The sooner the condition is diagnosed and treated, the better, because that can prevent women from experiencing unnecessary suffering and developing more complex problems that will need more radical treatment.

Endometriosis is not always easy to diagnose because it can mimic or even accompany other causes of abdominal pain. That leads to many women facing uncomfortable, difficult and frustrating delays in diagnosis. Laparoscopy is the only sure way of diagnosing endometriosis. Often in the past, and even today, the pain experienced by sufferers has been dismissed as psychological, while the damage to the pelvic organs continues from the condition.
It is important that at all stages of treatment, medical practitioners discuss the disease and possible treatments fully with the patient. It is vital that each woman understands the options for treatment and understands and agrees with the way in which the condition is handled.
Treatment options can include management of symptoms, medical management of the disease, conservative surgery and radical surgery. Most drug treatments for endometriosis are based on suppressing ovarian activity and hormone release, which abolishes a woman's normal cycle. Generally, such treatments can only suppress endometriosis. I know that many women have found some improvement in their symptoms through using complementary therapies.
For more limited surgery, minimally invasive surgical techniques are increasingly used, allowing a woman to be up and about much sooner following the operation. The radical treatment for endometriosis is a hysterectomy. However, that is appropriate only for women who have completed their families or in cases in which the disease is showing itself in a particularly severe form.

435
With hysterectomy, it is vital that a woman feels psychologically prepared for the impact of such a radical move.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has produced guidelines on the investigation and management of endometriosis. The guidelines bring together the latest knowledge and best practice, based on clinical evidence of the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis. They also examine options for treatment in the light of presenting symptoms and associated infertility. The guidelines have been distributed to all the royal college's fellows and members, and I welcome that piece of work.
My hon. Friend has raised a series of concerns, issues and proposals. I will be happy to discuss them with him and with any delegation that he chooses to bring. There are many areas in which we could have a positive and constructive discussion about some of his proposals.
My hon. Friend referred to increasing awareness among women about endometriosis. Work on that is already done through the National Endometriosis Society. The Department of Health funds the society by giving it a grant to help with its core costs, and a further grant for employing an information officer. The NES is a long-standing, effective organisation that can target information about endometriosis at relevant audiences. We look forward to continuing the close working relationship with the society over the range of its activities, including raising awareness of this serious condition.
There may be other areas that we can explore. There are, for example, new ways of making information available. A section on endometriosis is now included on the NHS website and there may be other ways, particularly using new technology, that could help to raise awareness. However, I recognise that as we use new technology to raise awareness, we must also be conscious of the limitations that it can have in reaching all parts of society. We must ensure that our means of communication do not perpetuate inequalities.
My hon. Friend mentioned improving the awareness and training of general practitioners. I should certainly be interested to discuss that issue further with him. Options in that respect may include taking advantage of the new technologies, such as the electronic health library. This may be an area in which more work can be done. My hon. Friend will be aware that the NHS plan sets out proposals to expand continuing support and training for doctors and general practitioners across the board. This is certainly an aspect that we would be interested in considering further.
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is undertaking the referral practice project on advice to GPs about referring common conditions. Endometriosis is not included in the project, but the results of the project may give us a guide on an effective way of offering referral
436
guidance to GPs on a range of common conditions including endometriosis. That may be another area to explore.
My hon. Friend raised issues about increased specialisation, especially as regards centres of excellence. When we meet, I should be interested to hear further from him on that subject, although I express a note of caution: given that endometriosis is so prevalent, managing and treating it should be part of the routine work of every gynaecology department. We want every area to use the evidence-based approach, to ensure that gynaecologists are following the guidelines issued by their governing body, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
My hon. Friend referred to the importance of a patient-centred approach. That is crucial. Right across the board, patients, rightly, expect to receive more information about their health. The NHS must provide that; it must respond to that expectation. It is not enough to leave the provision of information about medical conditions to voluntary organisations and support groups. It is essential that the NHS—whether through consultants, GPs or specialist nurses—can provide patients with the support and information that they need about their condition.
Individual patients need proper discussion of the problems from which they are suffering and of the options that are available. That patient-centred approach and self-management are very much part of the new NHS plan and the work going on at present. Endometriosis is a good example of a condition where that approach can work effectively to the patient's benefit. There are a variety of options for treatment of the condition, but the right treatment will be that which suits a particular woman's own condition and needs. That will be achieved only by the woman discussing her needs fully with her doctor.
There may be further work on self-management which could be pursued. Work is continuing on expert patients groups—supporting patients to help them to manage their own conditions. That may be another aspect that could be developed to provide support for women who suffer from endometriosis.
I welcome the points made by my hon. Friend. I look forward to discussing them further with him and with any delegation that he chooses to bring. More can be done. The RCOG guidelines and the work already under way have improved matters for women suffering from endometriosis. Decades ago, the condition was often less recognised and sufferers experienced many difficulties in having their condition taken seriously; there has certainly been an improvement since then, but I am sure that there is more we can do. When I discuss the matter with my hon. Friend, I hope that we can come up with a constructive way forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

AIDS
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
9.30 am
Sir Norman Fowler: I am grateful for the opportunity of this short debate. I raised the prospect of such a debate in business questions two weeks ago and was told that Westminster Hall would provide me with the best opportunity. I am genuinely grateful for being allowed to hold this debate, but I hope that time can be found to hold such a debate on the Floor of the House.
AIDS is a subject of undoubted gravity—almost 19 million people throughout the world have died of it, of whom about 4 million were children. More than 34 million people are now living with HIV and, barring a miracle, most of them will die during the next decade. The most recent estimate shows that in 1999, almost 5.5 million were newly infected with HIV. To put the problem at its mildest, the disease will not go away—it is becoming worse. I hope sincerely that the House of Commons will find time to debate it in full.
In terms of human catastrophe, it is difficult to think of a problem that should cause us more concern. I intend to refer to what is happening in the United Kingdom, although it is impossible to do so and ignore the context of AIDS throughout the world. As each minute passes, four more young Africans are infected. As the Secretary-General of the United Nations said, when he came to London a few months ago, every day Africa buries 5,500 of its sons and daughters who have died of AIDS. A child born in Botswana should have an average life expectancy of 70 years, but thanks to AIDS he will have an even chance of dying by the time he is 41.
The epidemic is expanding in new directions. It has spread to eastern Europe, where even five years ago the virus was still almost unknown. In India, HIV is firmly embedded in the general population. In east Africa and the Pacific, new HIV infections rose by 70 per cent. between 1996 and 1998. This debate takes place against that dire background.
I shall concentrate on the United Kingdom for two reasons: first, we can do something directly about the position here. We have the responsibility to do so. It is no one else's responsibility. It is most important to note that it is not a case of our advising others; it is a challenge for us to act.
Secondly, it is all too easy to say that, because our problem is not on the same scale as that in Africa, for example, it is of no consequence. That way lies complacency and a bigger and ultimately more deadly problem than we have at the moment. It is true that our figures are better than those for many other countries, including many of our European neighbours, and thank God for that. We should only take limited comfort, however, from the figures The Public Health
62WH
Laboratory Service estimates that about 35,000 people with HIV live in the United Kingdom. That equates to a prevalence among those aged 15 to 49 years of about one in 1,000. It also estimates that the number of people living with diagnosed HIV infection is increasing by at least 10 per cent. a year. That is one reason why the disease was the highest priority in the recent overview of communicable disease undertaken by the Public Health Laboratory Service. Although HIV is an entirely preventable infection—that needs to be repeated and repeated—in the past two years in particular there have been increases that give real cause for concern. In January, the Public Health Laboratory Service reported that, in 2000, there had been 2,868 new HIV diagnoses. That number is set to rise further as more reports of diagnoses made last year continue to come in. By the time all the reports are collected, it is expected that 2000 will have seen the highest ever number of new HIV diagnoses in the United Kingdom. That follows figures for 1999, which also showed an increase in HIV diagnosis. At that time, they were running at a 10-year high. Dr. Barry Evans, the head of the HIV division of the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, said that 1999 saw more diagnoses than any year since 1985, when HIV testing first became available.
As it happens, I was Health Secretary in 1985, when we conducted our high-profile health education campaign. The issue was how to respond. There was no cure and no vaccine. Today, the issue remains how to respond. There may be a perception among people at risk that HIV and AIDS are now curable, because of clinical advances. Despite the medical advances, there is still no cure and there is no vaccine.
When I was the Minister responsible, there were conflicting views about what the Government should do in the face of the challenge. Some said, "Don't do anything. People such as drug addicts have brought their sufferings on themselves and should be left to their own fate." Others appeared embarrassed by the whole subject. I remember going to the United States after we launched the health campaign in this country and politicians there who could not bring themselves to mention the word "AIDS". It was not only politicians—I recall journalists in this country who were content to cover wars but preferred not to cover the battle against AIDS. Even the churches tended to be schizophrenic. They wanted to help, but they did not want to give the impression that they were encouraging promiscuity, drug taking and the rest.
As you may imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I received a lot of advice during that period. In 1997, I met the then Chief Rabbi. As I sat down, he handed me an aide memoire, which complimented me on the urgency and boldness of the campaign, but he went on to set out no fewer than 14 reasons why he was disturbed by the general thrust. He said:
"It tells people not what is right, but how to do wrong and get away with it. It is like sending people into a contaminated atmosphere but providing them with gas masks and protective clothing, or instructing thieves how to escape being caught…Say plainly: AIDS is the consequence of marital infidelity, pre-marital adventures, sexual deviation, social irresponsibility, and putting pleasure before duty and discipline."
Although that was possibly an extreme example, there was a lot of that sort of criticism and advice at the time. Many people thought that we should have been conducting an entirely different sort of campaign.

63WH
All those attitudes have echoes today. They explain in part, and only in part, why some countries respond with positive policies, while others, sadly and tragically, try to ignore what is happening all around them. My attitude was and is that antipathy towards AIDS sufferers is incomprehensible. Disease is disease, whether it is sexual or not. Suffering is suffering. One does not have to condone the conduct to help the casualties, many of whom—children, wives, haemophiliacs—are innocent victims of circumstance. Our first priority for a policy, as a country and Government, must be to prevent the disease from spreading further.
That leads me to one certain conclusion. In the campaign against AIDS, a particular responsibility lies with Governments. Voluntary organisations do heroic work, as I have witnessed in this country and the United States. They deserve enormous praise for the work that they do, especially when one considers the pressure that it puts on them. I pay tribute to the National AIDS Trust in this country and to the work of the all-party parliamentary group on AIDS. Particular tribute must be paid to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), the chairman of that group, who is taking evidence on the subject in another part of Westminster. The churches—in spite of some of the attitudes that they had when the problem was first recognised—also do invaluable work.
It is the Government's responsibility to lead in this area, however, by providing public education and the finance for it and for other necessary policies. If Governments do not do it, others will not be able to do it half as effectively; they may try, but they do not have the resources. If Governments fail to take up the challenge, the problem will not be tackled. That is a lesson for us—and it is a lesson internationally, too.
We should be in no doubt that public education remains the chief weapon at our disposal. Public education campaigns need to be more closely focused than they were in the 1980s; we cannot have the same campaign, 15 years on. We know more about the subject and about the groups at particular risk—homosexual and bisexual men, drug users, and heterosexuals who have visited areas of high HIV prevalence. We know a great deal more than we knew in 1986–87, but the lesson remains the same: public education is the only vaccine at our disposal.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the right hon. Gentleman share a certain dismay and disappointment that the excellent television campaign that ran in 1986–87, during his time as a Minister, has not been repeated on an annual basis?
Sir Norman Fowler: I do—and the fact that that campaign has not been repeated is a comment not only on this Government but on the Governments that followed the period when I was Health Secretary. Television is undoubtedly one of the chief mediums for advertising—I am a newspaper man, so I will not say that it is the chief medium. There is no question about the impact that television has. A commercial company that had one big campaign, followed by nothing discernible in the next few years, would be regarded as following an eccentric policy.
64WH
The campaign must be different, but the Government must use the resources at their disposal for health education and the message of prevention. That message is crucial, but it does not receive the attention that it might, and is not often enough the subject of public debate.
My short answer to the hon. Lady, therefore, is yes, we should do much more in the area to which she referred, and it is a pity that we have not done more in the intervening years.
I remember one important lesson from my experience: the public will accept sensible, objective advice given by the Government on the basis of the best medical advice from the chief medical officer—I was fortunate in Donald Acheson. Such advice is crucial. The Government are not condoning drug taking or promiscuity by issuing such advice; they are counselling against it. As was shown in the 1914–18 war, when there was an enormous problem not of AIDS but of sexual disease, and again in 1986–87, a campaign is much more likely to be effective if it offers practical advice rather than preaching—however well-intentioned that preaching may be. Frankly, I disagree with the Chief Rabbi on that matter. On balance, Ministers in any Government are not regarded as the fount of all moral guidance.
Ministers in non-health Departments are nervous about public education campaigns. I remember having a fascinating, but ultimately frustrating and delaying, debate about whether using the phrase "to have sex" was a proper description to be used in a newspaper advertisement.
It is also probably true that Margaret Thatcher's Government was not necessarily synonymous in most people's minds with a high-profile campaign on sex education, but that Government set up a special Cabinet Committee, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister and consisting of a good third of the Cabinet, to oversee our campaign, then sent out leaflets to every house in the country pointing out the dangers of AIDS, put up posters on billboards to remind people of those dangers and, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) mentioned, promoted and paid for a television campaign on AIDS that meant, according to later research, that 90 per cent. of the public understood something of the dangers. Apart from public education initiatives, that Government organised free needle exchanges for drug addicts, so that at least they would not pass the virus from one to another. Again, that action was enormously controversial at the time, but proved to be literally a life saver.
In parenthesis, perhaps an international lesson from our experience is that if Governments take the issue seriously and act upon it, that can have a real impact on AIDS. If we compare infection rates in the United Kingdom with those in other European countries, let alone internationally, we see that the Government had an impact. Other countries, such as Uganda and Senegal, have also shown that Governments that get serious can have an impact. The nations that do worst are those where Governments, for one reason or another, brush the issue under the carpet.
To return to the United Kingdom, I do not suggest for one moment that the Government are brushing the issue under the carpet; I do not remotely regard this as a party

65WH
political issue. Nevertheless, there is a serious question as to whether today's response is adequate to the challenge that we face. I say that for two reasons. First, there is a real danger that we have become complacent. The figures do not justify complacency and we should listen to people such as Dr. Barry Evans, when he says:
"This is the second consecutive year where we have reported record high levels of HIV diagnoses. We are now two decades into the HIV epidemic but we continue to see new cases of an infection which is largely preventable. We cannot afford to become complacent about safer sex. The basic prevention messages remain the same: use a condom when having sex with a new or casual sexual partner and in the case of injecting drug use never share injecting equipment. As health professionals we have to find new ways of making the risks of HIV clear to the public and in particular to young people."
That is a challenge to health professionals, but it is a challenge to political professionals, too. It is a challenge to the Government—any Government. We must find ways of communicating the risk, and we must find and finance ways of warning people, especially young people, of the dangers, and influencing their behaviour.
The second reason that further action is required is that we have now been waiting a long time for the Government's promised strategy on sexual health and HIV. Perhaps the Minister will be able to say more about that this morning. On 6 February, the Minister for Public Health said in a written reply:
"We plan to issue the strategy for consultation shortly."—[Official Report, 6 February 2001: Vol. 362 c. 508W.]
"Shortly" is certainly better than "in due course", but it is not as good as "very soon". We—at least, those of us who have been Ministers—have all used those words from time to time, but as the Government now seem to be in a mood to define what they mean by those generalised terms, I should be grateful for the Minister's guidance.
If we were dealing with any other matter, the excuses for delay might not be accepted as easily as they have been in this case. Given the problem, it is the Government's duty to publish now. To provide some encouragement, I need no instruction on how nervous a Government machine can become on entering into the area: I remember the debates. However, in my experience, when it came to publication and the campaign, the public were substantially more mature than all the so-called media experts pointing out the possible pitfalls. "Trust the people" is not a bad guiding policy, even in such an area.
The case for a new set of initiatives is overwhelming. The Government have the responsibility for detailing those initiatives, and I hope that any lead that we give here might have at least a persuasive effect on other Governments with bigger problems who are still strangely reluctant to act. Above all, however, an initiative in this country could help save lives and prevent unnecessary suffering. After 30 years in the House—I believe that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I entered on the same day—and having experience of several Government Departments and shadow Departments, I can imagine no greater aim than that—the saving of lives and the prevention of disease.
9.53 am
Mr. Peter Brooke: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) for a
66WH
characteristically magisterial introduction to the debate, and for having arranged it. Mine will be a much less substantial contribution, but I am delighted to speak in support of his interest.
I declare an interest myself. I have a natural constituency interest, given that my part of London is one of the areas in which AIDS has been most prevalent, and more specifically, I am a patron of the La Verna housing association in Paddington, in my constituency.
Apart from La Verna, in which my interest is continuous, I have a continuing interest in developments in Africa, having travelled widely as a young man in South Africa and central and east Africa. However, my direct involvement has been in the United Kingdom and in parliamentary terms had three brief stages. In the first instance, I was, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, in at the beginning, in that I was the Civil Science Minister in 1985. By an extraordinary coincidence, my first wife died in March 1985, and in that same week, between her death and the funeral, Sir James Gowans, then the executive head of the Medical Research Council, visited Sir Keith Joseph, the Secretary of State. I remember the redemptive quality, from my point of view, of attending a meeting about so serious a matter at that moment in my life.
Sir David Phillips, later Lord Phillips, had advised us as chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils that virology was one of the fields in which the United Kingdom had fallen behind—he said that no nation can keep up to date with every field of science simultaneously. When Sir James visited us, he said that one of the disadvantages that we would have in coping with the circumstances would be that inattention to virology in the previous decade. He told the late Sir Keith that it was extremely important from the point of view of those planning the campaign to cope with the epidemic to have the best possible statistical information about where the case load was occurring. However, the Medical Research Council could not fund that out of the resources then available to it, and he asked whether the Secretary of State might provide extra money for that purpose. We were heavily pressed at the time: we had had to introduce the idea of student tuition fees because the science budget was so stretched. Nevertheless, Sir Keith found £2 million for the MRC to set up a statistical database to show where the incidence was occurring.
My second stage was brief. I left the Government for a five-month sabbatical in 1992 and obviously needed to look for new interests. I identified AIDS, and had developed a programme of how to become more expert on the matter, but that was nipped in the bud by my return to the Government.
I subsequently left the Government permanently in 1994 and I have endeavoured to be a regular attender of the all-party group, although following the explosion of all-party groups in this Parliament, diary conflicts do not allow me to attend as many meetings as I would like. I join my right hon. Friend in paying the warmest possible tribute to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) for the way in which he chairs and leads that group, which is responsible for his absence today because of hearings elsewhere.

67WH
On a series of mornings in the summer of 1998, the all-party group held hearings because it was anticipated that the Government were on the point of delivering their national strategy. Rather a long time has elapsed since then without our having seen that strategy. Like my right hon. Friend, I am looking forward to hearing the Minister's comments on that. The timing of 1998 related to a seminar that was due to take place involving experts in the field in the autumn—perhaps October—of 1998, and we wanted to have held our hearings. We held them in this Room and elsewhere for three or four hours on three or four mornings and we heard many witnesses.
The timetable required to complete or agree the report before the summer recess, in anticipation of the seminar in October, worked marginally to the disadvantage of the report. We were not a Select Committee; we were operating in necessarily rather improvised circumstances, and we did not pay as much attention as we might have done to what we said in the report. Tell it not in Gath nor in the streets of Askelon, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I would not have signed up to absolutely everything that we put in the report, but we did not have the opportunity to explore such issues in detail.
Having gone to that trouble in 1998, we have obviously been listening carefully to the Government. We have heard noises at intervals since the summer of 1998 that the report was imminent, coming, on the way, or would be with us soon. Each of those dawns turned out to be false and we are still waiting. Rumours suggest that it may, as my right hon. Friend said, be with us in the next month, but after so many disappointments we shall, necessarily, believe it only when we see it.
It would be helpful if the Minister could explain why it has proved difficult to produce the report, given that many people are interested in it and waiting for it. If it does not appear before the end of March, I can only echo the dying words of General Braddock, who was ambushed by the Iroquois in 1763. While propped up against a tree to die, he uttered the memorable words,
"We shall know better how to deal with them next time."
In the meantime, we get a cri de coeur. I received one this very week from the president of the Mildmay Mission hospital, which is to the east of my constituency. The president said:
"I expect you have seen in the press recently that Mildmay Mission Hospital has been forced to close one of its eleven bedded units due to the financial difficulties.
Funding comes from many different Health Authorities, but regrettably due to the lack of resources this is having unfortunate repercussions on Mildmay. It is strange that, when more men, women and children have been treated in 2000, funds are becoming less available.
I have just read in Hansard the debate on hospices"—
on 6 February, the same day as the written answer—
"and how the funding is ad hoc throughout the service. I feel however that Mildmay does come within a different category. It's the only specialist hospice in London (where most of the patients come from) and we are the only place that care specifically for patients with brain impairment, as a result of AIDS.
It is not generally understood that only about ⅓ of the patients can take the combination drugs and recently we have had more deaths than previously, though not as many as when we first opened."
68WH
She proceeds to invite me to the hospice, which I have visited in the past.
Finally, like my right hon. Friend I want to say a few brief words about Africa. It is commonplace to quote with praise the example of the Ugandan Government, and such a reference is a much happier one than the usual euphemism for Uganda of which we read in Private Eye. Last month, I visited South Africa with the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office briefing included the following ominous words:
"South Africa is one of the countries in the world most seriously affected by HIV/AIDS. Recent estimates suggest that, at the current rate of infection, 25% of the population will be HIV positive by 2005, the most affected group being women between the ages of 15 and 25. Four million South Africans are expected to have died by 2008."
I shall not get involved in the controversy surrounding the way in which the South African Government are dealing with the problem. Of course, it is a further commonplace that the middle classes throughout Africa will be greatly affected by AIDS and that the leadership in Africa will thus be decimated.
We visited townships in East Rand and Natal, where 90 per cent. of children who were fortunate enough to have completed secondary schooling were nevertheless unable to get jobs. Such township areas consist of about 250,000 people, and in that climate of despair it is easy to see how the problems that we are describing could be exacerbated. It would be helpful if the Minister could comment on the work of the Department for International Development on AIDS. The figures that I quoted epitomise the African problem—a problem that the whole of mankind faces. I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
10.3 am
Mr. Russell Brown: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) on securing this debate and I offer my sincere apologies for missing the beginning.
Like others in this Chamber who are members of the all-party group on AIDS, I was torn between appearing at today's evidence-taking session, which is also taking place tomorrow and on 28 February, or contributing in some way, however small, to this debate. Compared with that of more experienced Members of the House, my contribution will be somewhat limited and will relate narrowly to certain aspects and issues, on which I seek a commitment from the Minister.
As I know from speaking to different organisations about health issues and from considering HIV and AIDS in global terms, people in this country are astounded that, without a shadow of a doubt, in 2001 the problem is not going away; if anything, it is escalating. It can even be put in terms of a missing generation in many African states and it is astonishing that such a thing can happen—it is almost unbearable.
One aspect is not talked about as much as it should be—gay men in this country. I am deeply concerned about what is not taking place rather than what is. The Government's approach to HIV and sexual health is at different stages throughout the country. The Welsh Assembly's sexual health strategy was published in draft

69WH
form about 13 months ago, the Scottish Executive has prepared, but, according to the information that I have received, not published an HIV prevention strategy and, in England, a sexual health and HIV strategy was scheduled to appear late last year. The Northern Ireland Assembly has not produced a separate strategy. However, the HIV strategy of the London national health service is being produced.
Gay men remain the main group affected by HIV in the United Kingdom and make up the majority of deaths, the majority of those living with HIV and the majority of new transmissions. Paradoxically, concern for their needs and lives has often been low on any list of priorities and on occasions, I regret to say, has received scant attention in national and regional planning.
The level of diagnosed infections in gay men has remained remarkably constant at around 1,400 a year. Data show that the average age of those diagnosed has remained the same, showing that new generations of gay men continue to become infected. According to the answers to two recent parliamentary questions, about 70 per cent. of transmissions of HIV in the UK, as opposed to diagnoses that include people infected in Africa, are through sex between men. However, health authorities report that only 24 per cent. of HIV prevention money is targeted at gay men and even that figure is viewed with suspicion.
In October, the UK gay men's health network launched a document called "Ten Questions for UK HIV and Sexual Health Strategies", in which it argues that, although gay men make up the majority of those infected, paradoxically concern for their needs and lives has been a low priority. For instance, while Ministers have set up expert advisory groups for mother-child transmission, for which there is full justification, and also for infection among health care workers, the same attention has not been paid to the much higher rates of infection in gay men.
The network also argues that the social determinants of health are often ignored and that HIV bypasses the health inequalities debate. In many fields of health promotion, the myth that behaviour can be changed solely by the provision of information and/or medical treatment has been discarded, but that simplistic model has persisted for many years. To make real improvements, the true determinants of health inequalities need to be tackled. The continuing social exclusion, inequalities, prejudice and discrimination experienced by gay men must be challenged and legislative as well as long-term cultural changes are required. It is important to consider that seriously in society today.
Concern has been expressed that HIV in gay men has been marginalised as a voluntary sector issue. If the voluntary sector will not consider it, what real hope is there for it to be considered seriously elsewhere? The voluntary sector has an important role to play and can exert an influence through work in schools and so forth.
I seek some commitments from the Minister this morning. I hope that he will give an assurance, if not a guarantee, that the continuing high rate of HIV infection among gay men is at the top of the priority list and that the forthcoming strategy will reflect that. Furthermore, the report of the social exclusion unit on teenage pregnancy shows that a bold and imaginative
70WH
approach is possible to tackle the social determinants of health inequalities. I hope that the Minister will extend that approach to HIV and gay men.
I again apologise to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield for not having been present at the start of the debate and congratulate him on having secured it.
10.11 am
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who is a fellow member of the all-party group on AIDS, on securing this debate. It is long overdue and we are still awaiting the Government's strategy on sexual health—four years is a long time in the AIDS epidemic, which is sweeping the world.
Twenty years ago, or perhaps longer, an Australian medical colleague—a cardiologist—spent a weekend at my house. We were discussing heart transplants and so on, but he said that HIV would be the big news in medicine. He was right, but I did not think so at the time. As the right hon. Gentleman said, sexually transmitted disease was not much talked about 20 or 25 years ago. The clap clinics, as they were affectionately called, were up the back stairs by the mortuary in most hospitals and patients crept in wearing dark glasses and a wig. The terrors of the then known sexually transmitted diseases of syphilis and gonorrhoea had almost been eliminated. I remember whispering and giggling in a corner when I was a student because a grand and pompous old lady was suffering the effects of tertiary syphilis on one of the wards. She did not know that and the consultants would not have dreamt of telling her, nor would they have dared, but that was the way in which sexually transmitted disease was generally dealt with.
That attitude must and is changing and whole departments are now devoted to AIDS alone. A huge amount of time and money in many departments, including cardiology, neurology and immunology, is devoted to patients suffering from AIDS. The rise in tuberculosis, which is a serious public health problem, is largely attributable to the AIDS epidemic. We are discussing a serious business. As the right hon. Gentleman said, 19 million of the world's population are estimated to be HIV positive.
My first trip to Africa was to Uganda, where I naively wondered what type of business was done in the shops that sold different sized rectangular boxes. They were, of course, coffin shops. In the west we have coffee shops; in Africa they have coffin shops. It is a good trade because so many people are dying from AIDS. Furthermore, Uganda has had some success in controlling the number of patients suffering from AIDS because of their excellent education and basic health care programmes. We ignore their experience at our peril because travel is widespread and people go in and out of every country in the world. We are no longer confined to the so-called civilised developed world; people can go anywhere on holiday.
Human beings are, I regret to say, often indiscriminately sexually active, which means that they will pick up sexually transmitted diseases—especially AIDS. We do not know how far AIDS has spread in Asia, eastern Europe and Russia because many of those countries are in denial about the epidemic. AIDS affects the economically active members of the population,

71WH
which makes it different from any other disease that has affected the world. It affects those people whom their country most needs. In the past, diseases have killed babies, the weak, the elderly and people with other diseases. AIDS kills economically active people, which means that it is a great threat not only to developing countries, but to the world.
We are discussing a public health problem, which is an old-fashioned concept. We used to have medical officers who looked after the public health. They were concerned whether water was clean, whether sewers were sound and whether there was evidence of disease spreading through their communities. However, we have lost that concept in Britain—we have become used to diseases being treated by antibiotics or operations. A major proportion of expenditure in the health service should be on public health and the prevention of diseases that affect the community and the economy of the community.
In the UK, we have concentrated on treatment. The drug firms have gone ballistic and have had a wonderful time inventing new drugs. They have done brilliant work inventing some fantastic combinations of drugs that can prolong fitness in a patient suffering from AIDS, so that he or she can go on working, which is important, and to prolong life. However, there is no cure. The great danger is that many people—especially young people—think, "Ah, there is a cure," or, "By the time I get it there will be a cure, so there is no need to worry." We are wrong if we think that there will be a complete cure in the next 10 or 20 years.
Therefore, we must push home the preventive message. When the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was speaking, I mentioned television advertising. I am incensed by British television, which shows sex or sexual activity every evening. Whether it is teenagers grappling with one another in "Neighbours" or the full Monty after the watershed, one can watch sex. Human beings are sexually active; it is nothing to be ashamed of. We would not be here if we were not sexually active because we depend on it for our survival. Young people watch television and believe that to be sexually active is the norm, but where are the antidotes or warnings? There are no warnings about sexually transmitted diseases such as chlamydia, gonorrhoea and AIDS on television.
Where are the warnings about getting pregnant? If we want people to take sex seriously, we must be upfront about it and talk about the downside. Yes, sex is great, yes, sex gives us babies if we want them, but it also produces unwanted pregnancies and, dangerously, diseases that can kill. We should use television more to put over that message.
Oxfam recently launched a campaign against TRIPS—trade-related intellectual property rights. That is the convention that protects patents for the pharmaceutical industries that manufacture drugs so that, it is said, developing countries cannot manufacture them more cheaply at home. A test case is being heard in South Africa soon. Again that puts the emphasis on the treatment, and the real message in developing countries must be prevention. It would cost $2 a day to treat an AIDS patient in a developing country if the drugs were made locally and cheaply. The annual
72WH
budget per person in most developing countries is about $8 a year. Hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong. Where will they get that sort of money? We also need drugs that will prevent vertical transmission from mother to child, but they will be expensive. Wherever one looks in the world, the preventive message is the most important. We must not rely on drugs to solve our problems for us all the time.
Even if the drugs were available in developing countries, where is the basic health structure to deliver them? Those of us on the AIDS group have heard about the complicated business of taking retroviral drugs. The right combination must be taken at the right time of day and then it must be repeated, and this drug cannot be taken with that one. How can we explain that to someone who has had no education, when the nearest health clinic may be 200 miles away? There is no way to deliver the treatment. Again, the preventive message is so important.
I am my party's spokesperson on international development and the Department for International Development is to be congratulated on its work in this area. It took the problem very seriously. I remember as a newly elected Member of Parliament going to talk to it, in 1997, about something that I felt passionate about—the rise of AIDS in developing countries. At that time there was, rightly, an emphasis on malaria: malaria kills millions of people and we had to do something about it. But I have noticed how well the Government have taken that message on board. For example, in 1998 they earmarked a small amount of money for AIDS vaccine research. Now they are putting an enormous amount of money into it, with the international AIDS vaccine initiative, and the Chancellor promised more concessions in his autumn statement last year. I congratulate them on that.
In conclusion, I repeat two messages. First, prevention and the ultimate development of a vaccine against this terrible disease are the only answer, but the vaccine could be 10 years away, which leaves us with prevention, education and the need to spread the message. That is why it is vital that the sexual health strategy is launched soon.
10.23 am
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) on securing this debate on such an important topic. It is also good to hear from him because he brings his experience of government to the debate, and it is important that we hear how difficult it sometimes is in practical terms to persuade the Government machine to move in an area that might be regarded as controversial, but which it is dangerous to ignore. I commend all that my right hon. Friend did during his time in government to ensure that the matter was tackled and that resources were allocated to it. I also add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who battled at a time when it was difficult economically to persuade the Treasury to spend money, but important to do so. It is important to nip an epidemic in the bud and to intervene early.
In common with many hon. Members, I have been greatly moved by the documentaries on the AIDS epidemic in east African states in particular, and the

73WH
devastating impact on their society, especially on children. The documentary with the greatest impact showed children sleeping under cardboard at the side of a road because, not only had their parents died, but they had no living family of their parents' generation. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) emphasised the seriousness of the problem for African society and its economy. The economically active cohort of society is being lost and the African continent is already suffering—it is not attracting the same amount of investment from international corporations and business. Added to that disadvantage comes the dreadful affliction of the AIDS epidemic.
The hon. Lady referred to the impracticality of those countries being able to afford the medication that could help the afflicted. A recent headline case in the newspapers concerned nurses from Kenya coming to work in the west midlands who were found to be infected with HIV. Regrettably, the media did not focus on the right issues. We are taking nurses and trained medical staff from Kenya and other countries that need them. We heard about the role of the Department for International Development and I urge the Department of Health to reconsider. Should we be draining the third world of qualified medical staff'? The Government have said that that is not their intention, but it is still happening.
What about some reverse traffic? Should we not provide more assistance to those countries when they are losing their trained professional help? People in their 30s and 40s are dying from this dreadful disease and their hospitals and medical services are being depleted. There must be something that we can do, as the world's fourth largest economy.
Mr. Brooke: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the announcement last year that special arrangements would be made to provide entry visas for people with particular specialisations has also led to the removal of the condition that those who come here as students should return to their countries on completion of their studies? That also robs the third world of a valuable resource.
Mrs. Spelman: My right hon. Friend has a valid point. Most Members of Parliament meet qualified medical professionals in their surgeries who want to settle here permanently. Members ask themselves whether, by helping them to do so, they are removing a resource from countries that desperately need it. The moral argument should be examined.
The attention of hon. Members has turned from the plight of countries in Africa to the domestic situation. That is important and is doubtless what sparked my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield to secure this debate. Given the fact that the incidence of HIV and AIDS is again rising in the United Kingdom, we should all want to readdress that question. There is certainly no room for complacency. Although the rate of infection in this country has been contained below rates in other European countries—due, I suspect, in no small part to early intervention by the Government of the day—it is once again on the increase.
Like other hon. Members who have contributed to this debate, I want to know what has happened to the Government's integrated sexual health strategy, which
74WH
was initially promised for spring 2000. After a period of consultation, we were told that it would be available in the autumn. A 1999 Department of Health press release states:
"The Department of Health will publish a short Emerging Findings report in January 2000. The report will set out key facts, principles and issues to be addressed. It will provide an opportunity for a wider audience to contribute informally to the development of the strategy. We will publish an HIV/AIDS Strategy Document setting out the action to be taken in spring 2000."
There must be a good reason why that document has been delayed, given the increasing prevalence of the disease.
There are other problems with the existing programme. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster referred to the Mildmay Mission hospital, and I wish to discuss the practical reality for what is the UK's leading centre for HIV and AIDS. Funding from London health authorities has not been forthcoming, so the hospital has been forced to make 10 people redundant and it faces a year-end deficit of £650,000. On 3 November, the Department of Health announced an extra £41 million for the type of work that Mildmay undertakes. Why is that money not flowing through? Why is that specialist centre in such difficulties? Why is it forced to cut services at a time when the incidence of the disease is increasing? The hospital told me that it is difficult to apportion its limited budget between the high cost of combination drug therapies and the specialist supportive rehabilitative care that it offers. If the extra money has been made available, it should by now be flowing through to an establishment such as Mildmay.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park referred to the role of pharmaceutical companies. Surely the Government can put pressure on those companies to make life-saving drugs available—particularly for AIDS sufferers—at a more realistic price, regardless of wealth or nationality. Many such companies are sited in the developed world and some of the most successful are in the United Kingdom. Surely the Government can do something.
On speaking to professionals who work with these drug combinations, I was concerned to discover the difficulties associated with the delivery mechanism. If the drugs are not taken 95 per cent. of the time, they are dramatically less effective. If they are taken less than 80 per cent. of the time, resistance builds up and a patient can become immune and unable to take them. In the end, there is no other treatment for such patients. It is clear that an AIDS patient needs a great deal of support if drug therapy is to be effective. Given the cost of the drugs, ensuring that they are taken in the most effective way is surely a cost-effective use of medical support. I am sure that we can understand why those conditions will make it increasingly difficult to ensure that the drugs are taken appropriately, especially in the developing world, unless more professional help is on hand.
As hon. Members have said, this is a preventable infection. The most important reason for accelerating the delivery of the sexual health strategy must be the need to highlight what can be done to prevent disease. There is much evidence to suggest that the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases is deteriorating. Established diseases that we thought had been contained, such as syphilis and gonorrhoea, are back on the increase.

75WH
Syphilis and gonorrhoea are reappearing throughout the country. There were 30 cases in Manchester in 1999 compared with two the previous year. Taken together, Rochdale health authority and Oldham health authority have seen 54 cases of gonorrhoea in the past year. There is a simple cultural reason to explain those increases—a new generation has begun to experience life. Perhaps younger people think that the predicted AIDS epidemic has not happened and so they have become complacent about the need to use preventive barrier methods of contraception. The rise in other sexually transmitted diseases provides ample evidence that barrier methods are not being used. The increasing use of oral contraception and the Government's recent support for the morning-after pill, which is another oral method, does nothing to stem the tide of sexually transmitted disease.
Dr. Tonge: I think that the hon. Lady will agree that when young people need the morning-after pill it is because they have already had unprotected sex and laid themselves open to the risk of catching a sexually transmitted disease. That is why it is important to attack on all fronts by providing another outlet where education can be made available and warnings can be given.
Mrs. Spelman: Absolutely. The hon. Lady is right to say that the morning after pill is after the event. Unfortunately, it gives the public a reason not to consider prevention before the event. Preventive methods thought through in advance are most likely to stem the tide of infection.
I want to finish by speaking up, as the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) did, for the plight of a generation of young men who, through the absence of a sufficiently vigorous public health campaign, are in danger of losing their lives. I am depressed by the analysis of the Public Health Laboratory Service of the dangers facing that particular group. It states:
"Perhaps most worryingly of all, a substantial number of HIV infections remain undiagnosed. Only about 63 per cent. of gay and bisexual men in 1999 who are HIV positive knew they were infected; among heterosexual men, this figure falls to just 48 per cent."
That lack of information is one of the most worrying aspects of the rising incidence of HIV and AIDS. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield is right to say that we should trust the public with information. As people do not have that information, they may unwittingly infect others simply because they are unaware that they are carriers. We must be grown up about that aspect of the disease, which is something that we have not been in the past.
There is a screening programme for pregnant women. When I was pregnant with the first of my three children. I was asked whether I would be prepared to undergo the test for HIV. Of course, I was glad to do so. I had had a blood transfusion, so I wanted to be sure that I had not contracted an infection that I was about to pass on to my child. I did not know that the test was anonymous, but, although I heard no more and was happy not to know more, women are not subsequently told its result. It is
76WH
important to help the gay community, to whom the hon. Member for Dumfries referred, to prevent the spread of infection.
The nation has grown up with this debate, as a result of good health education campaigns. The Government must introduce their delayed sexual health strategy and reinvigorate this important aspect of the public health agenda.
10.40 am
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to the Minister for making it possible for me to contribute briefly to this debate. I am sorry to have missed the speeches of two former Secretaries of State to whom I was Parliamentary Private Secretary. I had to meet a Minister about a vulnerable constituent.
I want to make three points. First, we should base the discussion on the grounds not only of sexual health but sexual activity. Celibacy is something that we cannot inherit from our parents; we can adopt it and it may be forced on us, but it is not an inherited characteristic. How can we reduce the adverse consequences of sexual activity? We must throw away the language of birth control, family planning and saying, "No" to people, although we may be able to find examples in which that policy has been worth while. We must understand that many people in future generations will do the things that we did in our time. For sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, barrier methods matter more than contraceptive methods. We must be open about that.
Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said, HIV is caused not only by sexual activity. The blood route is what matters in various countries—some of my friends have been exposed to that danger as haemophiliacs or recipients of emergency blood transfusions.
Thirdly, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) made a point about the media. Reasonably, it goes on a lot about sex, but it seldom shows people discussing contraception or the use of barriers during sex. It does not mention the embarrassment felt by people in their early years of sexual activity, when looking for contraception of whatever kind—for an act that is more intimate than sharing a toothbrush. Radio might be an important means by which to overcome embarrassment and on which people might be reasonably explicit. It is no good simply for Simon Bates to present chocolate box romances on Classic FM. People need to talk, not offensively but in detail, about how one can get past desire and embarrassment to safe sexual activity.
10.42 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) on securing the debate, and join hon. Members in paying tribute to his contribution and the lead that he has taken in raising awareness about AIDS, especially in the early years of the epidemic. Some of the quotes that he included in his speech showed just how courageous a stand individuals had to take at that stage, because there was a tremendous amount of hypocrisy and ignorance and a simple unwillingness to face facts. It was easy, in those early days, not to acknowledge the potential scope

77WH
of AIDS and HIV. I pay tribute, too, to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on AIDS.
The national plan formulated by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield to combat AIDS included public health measures, research and service development and very open public education. The campaign of public information was followed by more specific health education directed towards the groups most at risk. The first ever Government-funded campaign, in 1986, had the slogan, "Don't die of ignorance." I am sure that we all remember it, which shows its impact. It broke new ground in raising awareness and providing everyone with basic information on HIV.
The message of that campaign was powerful, as was the scale of media coverage. It included television and posters, and a leaflet containing facts on HIV and AIDS, which was sent to all 23 million households in the United Kingdom. It is widely acknowledged that the United Kingdom remains a low prevalence, low risk country for HIV infection as a result of the early and sustained investment in HIV prevention and health promotion campaigns.
The scale of the AIDS problem in other countries in the new millennium is staggering and of grave concern. The number of people estimated by the joint United Nations programme to be living with HIV and AIDS was more than 34 million at the end of 1999. The vast majority of infected people are in the developing world, which is least able to cope. Countries in sub-Saharan Africa are by far the worst hit, with an estimated 24 million infected. Several Members referred to that, in particular the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who referred to South Africa and the economic impact. When I attended a World Health Organisation meeting in Geneva last year and spoke to a South African Health Minister, I was struck by the economic impact of stripping out a whole generation. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said, the economically active generation is being hit. As a result, we are left with the children, who are still growing up, and the older t generation.
The Department for International Development has made a considerable contribution by working not only with the South African Government—part of the development plan last year was an overall contribution of £11 million from the United Kingdom, and a specific project worth £7.5 million—but with India, where the United Kingdom has contributed £37 million to a project. HIV and AIDS remain one of that Department's key priorities. Last year, it spent £100 million on HIV and AIDS. In a written answer, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development said that she expected that contribution to increase.
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster also referred to hospices, which play an important part. He is right to say that the previous funding structure was far too ad hoc and was not strategic. For that reason, an extra £55 million will be available for care by 2003–04. It is also expected that health authorities will enter not merely annual agreements for funding but three-year agreements, to ensure that support is provided where it is most needed.
78WH
The hon. Member for Richmond Park was right to say that prevention is the most effective way to tackle the disease. She drew attention to other sexually transmitted diseases, because HIV and AIDS should not be seen in isolation. I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), who said that we should not ignore gay men, maternal transmission and the voluntary sector. I hope to be able to reassure him.
Before I outline the direction in which the Government are moving, I make it clear to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) that, in spite of what she said, the Department of Health does not actively recruit nurses from third-world countries. A strategy is in place, and she knows that in the case to which she referred in Wolverhampton, trained nurses were not being recruited. They were not trained when they came. I want to place on the record forcefully that that case should not be misrepresented. Guidelines are in place, of which we are acutely aware. Overseas recruitment by the Government is mainly from countries such as the Philippines. An agreement has also been reached with Spain. No one should get the wrong impression about that.
Mrs. Spelman: There is no misunderstanding. I understand the Department's guidelines, which are clear. The loophole is through nurse recruitment agencies that do not stick to those guidelines. That is where the weakness lies at present.
Ms Stuart: I do not wish to depress the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield. He is right when he says that in campaigns we should trust the people, but as a fellow Birmingham Member of Parliament—I know that the royal borough of Sutton Coldfield has still not come to terms with being part of Birmingham, but it is—he will know that we still face battles to convince the public, not least of the value of initiatives such as the Safe project in Birmingham, in which condoms are handed out to sex workers, which has been extremely effective although sections of the community deeply resent it. That is why it is important for politicians and Governments to stand up and say what is right and to be seen to do so.
On the overall situation and what the Government are doing, in western Europe, the scale of our problem is less than elsewhere, but that is no reason for complacency. We still have an estimated 500,000 people living with HIV. The United Kingdom has fared better than some other countries in Europe: Portugal has seven times our prevalence of HIV infection; Spain has five times; France four times; and Italy three times. Other European neighbours such as Germany and Sweden have managed, like us, to keep HIV infection at a lower level.
Developed countries are more able to afford to take advantage of the development of effective treatments for HIV. Those developments have been both exciting and challenging. Since the arrival of combination antiretroviral therapies in 1996, people with HIV have benefited from a reduction in debilitating infections and failing immunity, which previously characterised the disease. That may be one reason why public awareness has diminished: the number of people who die from HIV has been reduced. We still have a long way to go—the complexities of following the treatment have been mentioned.

79WH
The effects of such treatment are evident also from the changing epidemiology of HIV and AIDS in this country, which shows a 60 per cent. decrease in the number of people progressing to AIDS last year compared to 1994. That decrease is a result of the fact that people with HIV are not progressing to an AIDS-defining illness as rapidly as before. The mortality figures also tell a story, with a 73 per cent. decrease in HIV-AIDS-related deaths recorded last year compared with 1994.
There are people living with HIV throughout the country, but 60 per cent. of them continue to be in the London area, and overall the gay community remains the largest single group affected. However, in 1999, for the first time the number of new HIV diagnoses among heterosexuals was higher than among gay and bisexual men, and that trend has continued. The majority of those infections were acquired abroad—again, the hon. Member for Richmond Park made this point powerfully—usually by people from, or who have visited, countries of high HIV prevalence or risk, such as those in sub-Saharan Africa. The increase in HIV diagnoses among heterosexuals is probably in part the result of initiatives in the past few years that have encouraged people to come forward for testing.
Into the second decade—I think that my speech should say the second millennium—of HIV-AIDS in this country, we cannot afford to drop our guard. We now need a comprehensive strategy that encompasses prevention and education, treatment and care. New generations of young people need a new approach to make them aware—not merely of HIV but of other sexually transmitted infections. That is one reason why we decided to merge the work undertaken in the sexual health and HIV strategies last year. As the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) said, a combination of the two is needed. That joint approach obviously needs careful consultation with key groups, so that both HIV and other sexually transmitted infections receive the detailed and specific attention necessary if we are to make progress in combating the rise in transmissions.
There is disappointment that the strategy is taking longer than was hoped. I am sure that right hon. Members who have served in government will agree that sometimes Ministers share frustration when work does not progress as quickly as expected. I hope that the phrase "is nearing completion"—the "is" is written in italics—provides an escalated reassurance that we will issue the draft document shortly. We are determined to get the message right and ensure that strategy proposals can be implemented. To answer the question about why it has taken so long, on balance, we would prefer to get it right by bringing the two together in a wider consultation. We hope that it will be introduced shortly.
Sir Norman Fowler: Will the Minister be a little clearer? We have heard the word "shortly" before. Can we expect the strategy document to be published in the next few weeks? We have been waiting for it for a very long time.
Ms Stuart: The right hon. Gentleman is tempting me to put a figure on the time, but I say simply that it will come shortly.
80WH
On the important role of HIV prevention activities, it is as important not to exaggerate the risks of HIV for the general population as it is to recognise that those risks have not gone away Sexually active young people have information and health promotion needs and we continue to deliver new campaigns in recognition of that fact.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the effective campaign of the 1980s was right for the time, but that a simple repetition would not be the answer. The new campaigns must be more focused. The recent "Clem and Lydia" television advertisements, which dealt with chlamydia, put the HIV safer sex messages into the wider context of other sexually transmitted diseases. Chlamydia is more common than HIV among young people and presents a more immediate risk.
The large increase in inquiries to the national AIDS helpline and to Health Promotion England's "Lovelife" website show that it is possible to engage young people with the safer sex message. The hon. Member for Richmond Park pointed out that the situation was different 20 years ago, and referred to dark glasses and wigs. Ten years ago, condoms could only be acquired in gents' toilets or through cryptic messages at the pharmacists; they are now to be found on the shelves in Tesco, next to Lemsip and aspirin.
Effective drug treatments have increased life expectancy and improved the quality of life for many with HIV. They have had an impact on HIV prevention work; for example, for some gay men, the duration of the epidemic may have bred a familiarity with the effects of HIV. There is a danger that prevention messages may lose their impact if they become familiar. The challenge for health promotion planners and providers is to develop and deliver sophisticated interventions that engage target audiences, whatever their experiences of HIV. Those must be relevant and based on research into people's behaviour that accurately identifies how people live their lives in relation to HIV.
We shall ask the health development agencies to review and publish evidence-based, effective HIV and sexually transmitted disease prevention and sexual health promotion. The response to those problems must be local. National health promotion work is designed to respond to the changing nature of the AIDS epidemic. For example, health promotion resources are now available for African communities and we are developing, in partnership with community-based groups, a strategic prevention framework that aims to reduce transmission among those communities.
The sustained financial investment in local HIV prevention since the start of the epidemic has undoubtedly contributed to England's low prevalence. We provide the national health service with some £55 million for local work, but need to ensure that prevention services take account of up-to-date information on successful strategies to identify and disseminate best practice.
We are making headway in the reduction of mother-to-baby transmission of HIV. In 1998, we introduced a policy that offers an HIV test to all pregnant women as a routine part of ante-natal care. Most HIV-infected pregnant women accept the offer of measures such as drug treatments and caesarean section to reduce the risk of their babies becoming infected. In 1999, about 76 per

81WH
cent. of pregnant women with HIV in inner London had had their infection diagnosed before delivery, compared with 50 per cent. in 1998. We estimate that that will prevent about 45 infant HIV infections in 1999 alone. Although everyone wants to meet a target of zero children born with HIV, we do not believe that that is possible. However, our aim is to reduce the number of children with HIV by 80 per cent. by 2002.
We have not discarded HIV as one of our major priorities. We are building on the success of some of the campaigns of the past 20 years, particularly the work with mothers and children. I hope that the strategy to be published shortly will reassure hon. Members that there has been no reduction in capital investment or in the Government's commitment to combatting HIV.

Cyprus
11 am
Mr. Stephen Twigg: I am very pleased to have secured a debate on an important subject of long-standing concern. Cyprus has many friends in all parties at Westminster, as I believe will be reflected in our debate.
Before I begin, I draw colleagues' attention to the relevant entries in the Register of Members' Interests.
One reason why it is a great privilege to represent Enfield, Southgate is that it is a multicultural community, of which the Cypriot community forms a major part. I believe that my constituency contains the largest number of people hailing directly or indirectly from the island of Cyprus—both Greek and Turkish Cypriots, living together—and I pay tribute to their contribution to local life. Yesterday, I was grilled by one of the toughest possible audiences—the school council of my old school, Southgate comprehensive. When I go back there I am struck by the large number of pupils from Cyprus—Greek and Turkish Cypriots studying together.
I want to pay tribute to some of the excellent welfare work done locally—my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) and for Edmonton (Mr. Love) are both here today—and, in particular, to the work of the Greek and Greek Cypriot community of Enfield and the Enfield Turkish Cypriot Association, which provide welfare advice, information and support for local people, assistance for those for whom English is not their first language, luncheon clubs and other social, cultural and communal activities. Those organisations and others like them, not only in Enfield but throughout the country, provide an important local voice for those who hail from a Cypriot background.
For me, Cyprus is not simply an international issue or a question of foreign policy. It is a real, local issue of direct concern to thousands of people living in my constituency. The question of Cyprus arises every day that I am in my constituency, whether on the doorstep, visiting schools or at meetings, so I am acutely aware that there are differences of opinions and experience not only between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities but within them: they are lively, democratic communities that enjoy the full cut and thrust of debate.
It is a privilege to have this debate, which is timely, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe is to visit Cyprus next month, and following the sad withdrawal of Mr. Denktash from the proximity talks. I have no doubt that there is enormous frustration in the Cypriot community at the lack of progress towards a just, peaceful and lasting settlement in Cyprus. Such a settlement should respect the human rights of everyone in Cyprus and create a united, demilitarised island with real devolution for both Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities. That would enable people to return to the villages and properties from which they have been separated for almost three decades.
During the general election campaign almost four years ago, I spoke to a teenage boy at my old school who was from Cyprus. He had never been able to go to the village from which his family had come to this country

83WH
and he could not visit his grandparents' graves. All he wanted was to pay that important respect, and it struck me that it was simply a question of dignity—the human side of the tragic events in Cyprus in recent decades.
If progress is to be made in Cyprus, people must sit down and talk. I am wary of drawing parallels between different international situations, but lessons can be learned from Northern Ireland, South Africa and even the middle east. Discussion, dialogue and negotiation are crucial. It is against that background that I want to express my regret and, I am sure, that of all hon. Members at the decision of Mr. Denktash and the Turkish Cypriot leadership to withdraw from the proximity talks. However, I welcome the fact that that withdrawal has attracted criticism from opposition parties and the media in northern Cyprus, as well as—unusually—from the media, the business community and politicians in Turkey. What action are the Government taking to press Mr. Denktash and the Government in Turkey to return to the proximity talks at an early opportunity?
Sir Sydney Chapman: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I apologise that I cannot remain for the whole debate because of another engagement.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the influence that Britain must have on Mr. Denktash. Will he confirm that the new American Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said that the US will remain firmly engaged in seeking a solution? Does he agree that, when the Minister goes to Cyprus next month, he should use his influence—I am sure that he will do so—with the American Administration to ensure that they bring pressure to bear on Mr. Denktash to return to the UN proximity talks?
Mr. Twigg: The hon. Gentleman anticipated the next paragraph of my speech. I had a brief opportunity yesterday to speak to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in advance of his forthcoming visit to the United States. I impressed on him the importance of raising the Cyprus question and telling the new Bush Administration that America has a crucial role to play in getting the proximity talks back on track and obtaining the just and lasting settlement to which the British Government and, I am sure, all hon. Members in this Chamber are committed. Does the Minister agree that America has a pivotal role to play? She has not used her influence with Turkey in the past, but it is vital that she now takes the opportunity to do so.
The desire for progress in Cyprus is common to the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot communities. If there is to be progress, confidence-building measures will be necessary between the two communities. In recent years, there have been several opportunities for Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot people to come together to discuss issues of concern. Two years ago, a group of Chevening scholars—some from the Republic of Cyprus and others from northern Cyprus—who were studying in this country came together in the House to exchange experiences and ideas. I want to pay particular tribute to the Cambridge Cyprus Campaign, which has continued its excellent work to facilitate debate and
84WH
dialogue among young people from the island of Cyprus who are studying in the United Kingdom. As the example of Northern Ireland shows, such dialogue and debate can play a very important part in promoting reconciliation and securing consensus for the just and lasting settlement that we all seek.
In the past 12 months, events in the northern part of Cyprus have demonstrated that there is a lively debate among Turkish Cypriots. Opinion polls in northern Cyprus suggest not only overwhelming support for the northern part of Cyprus joining the European Union, but strong support among Turkish Cypriots for a federal solution to the Cyprus question. Late last year, a poll showed that that option was supported by 31 per cent. of those surveyed. It has been clear for some time that both Greek and Turkish Cypriots want to be part of the European Union.
I want to consider the very important matter of the current discussions on European Union accession. Being part of the European family confers both rights and duties, and that is an important starting point. It is some time since the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case of Mrs. Titina Loizidou. As hon. Members will recall, on an important and central question of human rights, the judges found in favour of Mrs. Loizidou and against the Turkish Government by a margin of 15 to two, but there has been little progress in terms of that Government's response. What are the British Government doing to press the authorities in Ankara to implement fully the terms of the decision reached by the European Court of Human Rights?
Despite his being in the British sovereign base area of administration on the island of Cyprus, Mr. Panicos Tsiakourmas was detained by Turkish forces in December and he appeared in court in Famagusta last week. His case has been raised several times by my hon. Friends the Members for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and for Edmonton. What representations are the British Government making in respect of this important case, which appears to involve a fundamental breach of Mr. Tsiakourmas's human rights?
The European Union provides a real hope that progress can be made in meeting the needs and aspirations of all the people of Cyprus, and the British Government's support for the Republic of Cyprus's application for European Union membership is much appreciated by the Cypriot community in the United Kingdom. As has been said many times, all of us would prefer that a united Cyprus entered the European Union, but the Government's commitment to the view that no power can have an external veto on Cyprus's application is an important one, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reaffirm it today.
President Clerides of Cyprus invited Mr. Denktash several times to provide Turkish Cypriots for the delegation that is discussing European Union accession and several Turkish Cypriot opposition parties have called for Turkish Cypriot participation in those discussions, yet Mr. Denktash has refused. What action are the UK Government taking to press for Turkish Cypriot participation in discussions on Cyprus's accession to the European Union? There is no doubt that, economically, politically and socially Cyprus is ready to be a member of the European Union, and impressive progress has been made in the accession discussions. There is clear majority support for joining

85WH
the European Union among the people of Cyprus, both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, and membership could deliver enormous economic, political and social benefits for all the people. Does the Minister recognise that Cyprus has made real progress over recent months?
The United Kingdom is a guarantor power of the independence of Cyprus, which is a highly valued member of the Commonwealth. Hon. Members have a duty, and the Government a responsibility, to play an active, positive and constructive role in helping to secure a just and lasting settlement that will enable all the people to live together on a united island that respects both traditions. I hope that the Minister will use the opportunity of today's debate and, more importantly, his forthcoming visit to the island, to reaffirm the priority that the Government attach to support for Cyprus's application to join the European Union and for all efforts to secure the just and lasting settlement that the majority of people in Cyprus want, as do hon. Members of all parties.
11.16 am
Mr. Tom Cox: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) on securing this debate. I declare an interest at the outset as chair of the Cyprus group of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
As my hon. Friend has said, Cyprus is of great importance to this country. We are one of its guarantor powers, and it is also a member of the Commonwealth. When I look back over the years since the invasion of the Republic of Cyprus by the Turkish army in 1974, I think of the many debates in which I have taken part and the questions that I and many other colleagues have tabled to successive Foreign Secretaries. As my hon. Friend also said, the great strength of this Parliament is that we are as concerned about the rights and security of Turkish Cypriots as about those of Greek Cypriots. Regrettably, many of our hopes for an honourable settlement have not been realised, and in a debate such as this there must be clear speaking.
One has simply to read the reports of successive Secretaries—General of the United Nations. Whom do they blame for the lack of progress? Mr. Denktash and his friends in Ankara. The proximity talks began a year ago. What is their position now? When did the two sides last meet? When are they expected to meet again? I look to the Minister to be open and frank with us. Has Mr. Denktash stopped the talks? I understand that he has clearly said that, unless the state that he has declared in the occupied area of northern Cyprus is recognised, he will take no further part in the talks. If that is true, what is the Government's view of that attitude? Turkey is a close ally of Mr. Denktash, but in recent months, at both Helsinki and Nice, Turkey has sought membership of the European Union. I am not criticising Turkey for wanting that, but if it really wants to be part of the EU, what constructive role does the Minister expect it to play in the Cyprus issue?
Do we accept some of the comments that have been made by prominent Turkish politicians, including the present Prime Minister of Turkey, who said that there is no Cyprus problem because that was resolved by the invasion of Cyprus in 1974? Irrespective of which party they belong to, many hon. Members do not accept such a statement. It would be interesting to know what the Government think about that statement.
86WH
The current talks started one year ago, with no preconditions. I believe that the many resolutions that were passed at the United Nations should be the cornerstone of any meaningful discussions on Cyprus. Otherwise, why did successive British Governments and others support them? We are now in the 26th year after the invasion of Cyprus—a Commonwealth country, a third of which is occupied by foreign troops. What does the Minister regard as the basis of a settlement? After 26 years, we must have a vision. What is that vision?
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate rightly talked about the role of the United Kingdom Government and the European Union. We must bear in mind the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, of which the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) and I are members. We regularly meet Turkish politicians and we have a close relationship with many of them. They are charming, capable people. When I talk to them about Cyprus, however, they believe that they have no role to play and that it is entirely up to Mr. Denktash to decide what happens.
I do not believe that for a moment. Prominent Turkish politicians repeatedly express their support for Mr. Denktash and describe the system that they support for the occupied area. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that, after all the years since Mr. Denktash set up the so-called independent state, the only country in the world that recognises it is Turkey. When opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate said that the Minister is to visit Cyprus shortly. I welcome that, as, I am sure, will the Cyprus Government and Mr. Clerides. The Minister will go to the north and meet Mr. Denktash. I hope that he will convey clearly the views that are expressed, irrespective of party, in this Parliament.
We want a settlement. We do not accept that, after 26 years, there has not been time to achieve one. We want a settlement under which the rights of both traditions are safeguarded and protected. Turkey wants to become a member of the European Union, but it plays no willing role in trying to reach the settlement that the people of Cyprus, both Greek and Turkish, want. The Minister spoke about the disturbances that have taken place in the north. They did not just happen; they have been going on for a long time.
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. It is always a great pleasure to see the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, because he and many other Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members have always been fully supportive of Cyprus. That is a great strength of this group in the United Kingdom Parliament. Clearly, the Minister will have a lot to say, and I hope that he will be frank and tell us exactly what vision the British Government have, what views he has expressed to Turkish politicians, and what views he will express to Mr. Denktash when he visits Cyprus next month.
11.26 am
Valerie Davey: The Greater Bristol area has a relatively small but long-established Cypriot community, which is almost entirely Greek Cypriot with one or two Turkish members. The newly formed Bristol Friends of Cyprus met recently and was concerned to learn that, in some circumstances, the expression of

87WH
thoughts and ideas in the north could lead to five years' imprisonment and a considerable backlash from extreme right-wing groups.
That has been brought to the attention of more people recently, as a result of the publication in two newspapers of an advertisement by the executive committee of the Turkish Cypriot teachers' trade union, KTOS, 30 members of whose executive are facing up to 150 years' imprisonment if they are convicted. The trade unionists gave their testimony about the advertisement, and other trade unionists were there to support them. The advertisement did not question the sovereignty or integrity of the Turkish Cypriot state, but said "No to Ankara." It stated:
"Ankara: we do not want your money, your package or your civil servants. We do not want to be slaves."
The reaction of right-wing groups has been extreme—using verbal abuse and threats against trade unionists. Indeed, Mr. Denktash has called on the Attorney-General to consider laws to ban the trade unionists from teaching in schools. I understand from a more recent e-mail that the head office of KTOS has been ransacked by the secret police, who have taken all the office equipment. I have contacted the National Union of Teachers, of which I am a member, and I hope that we will show solidarity. I mention that before the Minister's visit, so that, if he is able to speak to those in the north—especially Mr. Denktash—he may question such a denial of freedom of speech.
11.29 am
Mr. Roger Gale: I apologise for not being present for the start of this debate. I was otherwise engaged in receiving a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation. I apologise if I make points that have already been made in my absence.
I am worried about the manner in which the press are being treated in the northern part of Cyprus. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and I visited the area last autumn. We met journalists and learned at first hand the pressures under which they are placed and the fear that they experience in trying to tell the truth—which is what any journalist worth his or her salt would do naturally. The truth is not something that comes easily to the so-called Government of the Turkish republic of northern Cyprus—a Government whom we, of course, do not recognise. My hon. Friend—if I may call him that in the circumstances—the Member for Erdington and I are both members of the National Union of Journalists.
I listened with great interest to the comments made by my colleague and parliamentary friend, the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who referred to the role of the international community, the Council of Europe and the European Union. I did not want to interrupt him, so I did not intervene, but he did not mention the United States in that respect. The US gives a great deal of succour to the regime in Turkey, both literally and metaphorically—literally, in the form of hard cash, and metaphorically through political support. It seems to think that Turkey is the last bastion between east and west against the rampages of Muslim fundamentalism. Personally, I believe that that is a misconception, and that the United States can and should play a greater role.
88WH
The United States of America is not a guarantor power, whereas Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom are, but if the US brought sufficient pressure to bear, the problem could be solved within weeks or months, if not overnight. So far, the problem has not been solved in 26 years. I hope that the Minister will influence his colleagues to make it plain to the new Administration in the United States that they have a role to play, and that, were they to play it, the problem would be solved relatively swiftly.
Everyone says that the Cyprus problem is intractable, but it is not. We are dealing with two communities—Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots—who fundamentally want to live together in peace and harmony. The problems are caused by people outside the island of Cyprus. The communities may have had their differences—and there have been wrongs on both sides in the past—but that is what they want.
We are discussing a long and gross violation of human rights: 26 years of illegal occupation has been tolerated by the Western world and the world community. That flies in the face of successive United Nations' resolutions, but nothing of any practical substance has been done. There have been trade sanctions, but what sanction is in operation when full-page advertisements are placed in the London Evening Standard by British travel companies advertising holidays in northern Cyprus? Citizens of the United Kingdom, who would be genuinely horrified if they understood the politics of the matter, spend good money buying cheap holidays in an area of a country that wants to be part of Europe.
The Loizidou case is well known. Property has been misappropriated and occupied for 26 years. I never enter such debates without remembering my, by now very elderly, constituent George Gerolemou, whose home is still occupied after 26 years. His wife has died and will never see her home again. There are scores of such people in the United Kingdom, dotted throughout the world and on the island of Cyprus. They simply want to go home. That is what we are asking for. When will the Government, the United States and the world community say that we will not tolerate this illegal international action any longer and we intend to do something about it?
11.34 am
Ms Joan Ryan: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) on securing this debate, which is timely given the Minister's imminent visit.
I want to speak briefly on behalf of my constituents. Like my hon. Friend, I have a large number of Cypriots living in my constituency—both Turkish and Greek. They live together, Work together and study together; that does not pose a difficulty. They do not always agree on everything, but they live peacefully together. I am convinced that eventually that can and will be the case in Cyprus. On behalf of many of my constituents, I could echo many of the remarks made in the debate. I talk with elderly Cypriots, who live with the sadness that they cannot return to their homes. They are getting older, and many others have died and will never return to their home. I speak on their behalf, and on behalf of their children who, having lost their parents, want to go back to see their family home and visit family graves.

89WH
It is easy to list such issues, but when they comprise the tragedy with which people live as individuals and as a community, they scar people, and we have a responsibility to do something about it. If I did not have a single Cypriot constituent, it would still be right to speak today because, as the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) said, this is a human rights issue, so we all have a responsibility to speak on behalf of Cyprus. When the human rights of one are threatened, the human rights of all are threatened. Many of us here have stood at the green line and seen and felt the tragedy of that division and the deep sorrow of Cypriots. We do not experience it as they do, but we can empathise when we stand there and see the feeling and hurt.
Cyprus's application to the European Union, and the interest that Turkey has expressed in eventually becoming a member, could still be the catalyst for the settlement that we seek. It must be a settlement based on international law, UN resolutions and the policy of the Government. There is nothing wrong with the policy that we have, or with any of the resolutions—we are all signed up to them, and so is Cyprus, which is fine—but the problem is that nothing happens.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate used exactly the right word when he talked about the frustration of the Cypriot population in both north London and Cyprus. We must try to ease that deep frustration as soon as possible. There have been times when it could not be said that everything that could be done was being done. I ask the Minister to ensure that the Government do everything that they can, on the basis of sound policy. When he visits the island, I hope that he will reassure the Cypriots and the Cypriot Government that we are playing our full role, given our especial responsibility as a guarantor power.
The British Government have been supportive of the Cypriot Government's right to apply to join the EU and have made it clear that no external power has the right of veto over the application, and we must continue to be so. Europe would be the gainer from Cypriot entry. Cyprus meets the qualifications and would be a positive advantage to the EU. I would prefer a settlement to be achieved first, but I want Cyprus in the European Union with a settlement or without, if necessary.
Turkey has expressed an interest in getting more involved with the European Union, and that provides the opportunity to ensure that it is aware of the hurdles standing in the way of a closer relationship. A closer relationship would be an advantage for Europe, but if it is to be truly welcomed, Turkey must remedy certain problems both in Turkey and in Cyprus. We must make it absolutely clear at every opportunity that Cyprus is a major hurdle to a closer relationship between Turkey and the European Union. Will the Minister explain the Government's attitude to the Cyprus application and to Turkey's stated aims concerning the European union?
Britain is a guarantor power, and we have a close and long-standing relationship with Cyprus, which is valued on both sides. Many Cypriots live in England. North London has the largest Cypriot population outside Cyprus, and the borough of Enfield has the largest Cypriot population in Britain. Cyprus is a valued trading partner. Many Cypriots speak English as their second language, and for many Cypriots living here, it is their first.
90WH
We have a responsibility as a guarantor power, and if we look back over the past 26 or 27 years we cannot say that we have always fulfilled that responsibility. We can do more. The Government have a strong and clear policy on Cyprus that is welcome, but we must move from policy to practice. I know that that does not lie entirely in our hands, and I hear what is said about Ankara, Mr. Denktash and America. However, we have a special responsibility and we are in a unique position in being able to facilitate talks.
It is distressing that the proximity talks have foundered, but that was not the result of action or lack of action on the part of the Greek Cypriot representatives. The Greek Cypriot Government and their representatives have gone out of their way to make progress, to work with Turkish Cypriots and to involve them in the application for entry to the European Union. I pay tribute to them for their work in building trust among Turkish Cypriots for a good working relationship throughout the community. The blame for the breakdown of the talks lies firmly with Mr. Denktash, but we must work to achieve peace, a just solution and recognition of human rights under UN resolutions and international law. We must have a better relationship to lead to agreement between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities. I look forward to that and I am pleased that the Government are working to facilitate it.
11.44 am
Mr. Andrew Love: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) on securing this debate. He takes a close interest in Cypriot affairs and has a good relationship with the Cypriot community in his constituency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) said, in north London we have the largest Cypriot community outside Cyprus itself. That is a reflection of the close relationship that has existed between Britain and Cyprus since 1878, and which has continued since Cyprus achieved independence in 1960. We cherish that relationship—indeed, many hon. Members whose constituencies do not contain Cypriot communities take a particular interest in Cyprus and in finding a solution to its continuing division.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's planned visit to Cyprus. Many of us believe that the Cyprus problem cannot truly be understood without visiting the island. On his arrival he will discover that a framework solution has been available since 1974, when the original United Nations resolutions were drafted, and since 1977 and 1979, when high-level agreements were reached. He will also discover that since that time, the UN and the international community have consistently tried to sponsor negotiations. As has been said, the most recent negotiations were brought to a premature end by Mr. Denktash, who refuses to accept the international community's failure to recognise his illegal state.
The Minister will further discover that the sponsored negotiations have not been successfully concluded because the international community has failed to put Cyprus at the top of its agenda. It is undoubtedly true that the international community has not focused on the Cyprus question to the extent that it has focused on numerous other disputes that have occurred in the past 25 or 26 years since the island was invaded. We must

91WH
recognise that the solution lies in Ankara rather than Cyprus itself. In recent discussions with the US Senate, Colin Powell suggested that the United States will take a particular interest in Cyprus. I welcome that because the United States can bring the parties together for fruitful negotiations.
However, negotiations on Cyprus's accession to the European Union can also play a part as a catalyst for bringing together the two communities. As has been said, the main beneficiaries of accession to the European Union would be the Turkish Cypriot community, who have been invited to participate in the negotiations. In the light of the policy that I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will reaffirm today, it is my belief that no third party will veto the final negotiations for Cyprus's accession to the European Community. That will act as a catalyst to bring the parties together to find a solution.
I want to discuss the continued detention in northern Cyprus of Mr. Tsiakourmas, which was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, and is a matter of great concern to the Cypriot community. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that Mr. Tsiakourmas was, in the words of the official investigation, "violently forced" from his car and bundled into another vehicle while driving in the sovereign base area of Dhekelia on 13 December 2000. He was abducted to the Turkish occupied area where he is still being detained.
Mr. Tsiakourmas was travelling in the sovereign base area to pick up Turkish-Cypriot workers who were employed by him on construction sites in the Government controlled area of the island. He has been accused of possession of 1.5 kg of cannabis, for which he was originally remanded in custody for eight days, but he has since been charged with possession with intent to sell. As has been said, a preliminary hearing was conducted on 8 February and his trial is likely to commence on 25 February.
There is additional cause for concern because Mr. Tsiakourmas is a diabetic. Although he has undergone various health checks and was seen by a Hungarian specialist in Nicosia, there remains considerable concern about his deteriorating health. Indeed, he was taken to hospital on 30 January where he has remained. Reports from there suggest that his blood sugar level is dangerously high.
Interestingly, 10 days before Mr. Tsiakourmas was arrested, Mr. Omer Tekugul, a Turkish-Cypriot coffee shop owner, was detained in the sovereign base area on a charge of heroin possession with intent to supply. Mr. Tekugul is currently being tried in Cyprus, and I was interested to note that there have been various attempts by the Turkish-Cypriot authorities to swap Mr. Tekugul for Mr. Tsiakourmas. One must conclude that there was an element of tit-for-tat when Mr. Tsiakourmas was arrested on 13 December.
All attempts to engineer a swap have been wholeheartedly rejected by the Cypriot Government. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, the investigating authorities in the sovereign base area have interviewed witnesses and staged a reconstruction. Their investigation shows that Mr. Tsiakourmas was taken forcibly, his vehicle was left with its engine running,
92WH
lights on and door open, and, perhaps more importantly, the incident occurred well within the sovereign base area. The results of the authorities' forensic examination show that there were no drugs in the vehicle at the time Mr. Tsiakourmas was taken. Furthermore, he has an unblemished record and has never been linked to drugs.
Mr. Tsiakourmas was arrested in the sovereign base area, so he has become the responsibility of the British authorities. I know that the high commissioner, Mr. Clay, has made strong representations to Mr. Denktash. Indeed, Sir David Hannay has made representations to the Turkish Cypriots and to the Turkish authorities in Ankara and in London. I am also aware that the Minister met Mrs. Tsiakourmas and has been brought fully up to date with not only the events but the strength of feeling in Cyprus and the United Kingdom about what happened to Mr. Tsiakourmas.
Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, I want to press the Minister on three main areas. First, there has been some concern about Mr. Tsiakourmas' medical condition. He is a diabetic and has been in hospital since 30 January. We understand from reports from his wife and family, who visit him regularly, that his condition is deteriorating and that he is suffering from considerable depression. What reassurance can the Minister give us that he is being properly cared for?
Secondly, there have been extensive investigations. A report that is with the British authorities goes into considerable detail about the events and about the evidence relating to Mr. Tsiakourmas' innocence. Has that report been made available to the Turkish authorities in order to secure his early release?
Finally, I know that the Government have made strong representations, which I and the Cypriot community welcome, but what further action can the Minister tell us is being taken to ensure that the events that took place in the sovereign base area are followed by the restitution of Mr. Tsiakourmas's freedom and his return to his family in the south of the island?
That case is important because it establishes that the rule of law must apply across the island. It is essential that we, the legitimate authorities in the sovereign base areas, undertake to ensure Mr. Tsiakourmas's release. That will contribute to a better atmosphere in Cyprus. I know that when the Minister goes there he will discover that not only the Cyprus Government but many of the political parties in the Turkish Cypriot community want to foster the good will that exists and develop it into proper negotiations. If we can bring the two communities together with that good will, that could be the catalyst for a process that leads to fruitful negotiations towards resolving the division of the island.
11.57 am
Mr. Mark Oaten: We have had a splendid debate, which has shown an incredible depth of knowledge of the issues from a number of hon. Members with large Cypriot communities in their constituencies. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) for triggering the debate. I know that he has long-held interests in Cyprus, which he referred to in his maiden speech, and his constituents from the Cypriot community should be proud of his continuing efforts to keep raising the issues at Westminster.

93WH
An extraordinary change has taken place over the past 15 to 20 years, and many countries are now desperate to join the European Union. It is a tribute to its work and its role that so many countries now want to be part of that community. It is bizarre that, at a time when so many countries want to join, some in this country would rather turn away from it. Cyprus has been on the waiting list for the past 10 years. A number of hon. Members have spoken this morning of their enormous frustration that it is taking so long for new countries to join. Certainly, the Liberal Democrats regard it as a major aspect of foreign policy to speed up EU enlargement. We want to see Cyprus in that early wave of countries, joining as soon as possible.
There are responsibilities not only for the applicants but for the EU itself. We have not said much about the EU's responsibilities in relation to welcoming Cyprus. The EU needs modernising as well as more democracy and less bureaucracy if it is to be able to welcome not only Cyprus but many of the other countries that want to join. As a pro-European, I am frustrated with the mechanisms in Brussels and, just as the EU accessions are a catalyst to help the applicant countries to change, they must also be a catalyst for serious reform in the way in which Brussels operates. Unless that happens, we will end up in gridlock if many more countries join the EU.
The strong principles that the applicants must put in place are set out in the Copenhagen criteria. I want to spend a few moments celebrating the achievements of Cyprus rather than its problems, as it has gone an extraordinarily long way towards meeting many of the criteria. Let us consider some of the requirements, such as satisfying economic and political conditions, guaranteeing democracy, the protection of minorities and a functioning market economy. It is good news for Cyprus.
The progress report on the applicant countries had a great deal of praise for Cyprus. It said:
"Cyprus is a functioning market economy and should be able to cope with competitive pressure and market forces required within the Union."
On administration, it said that
"Cyprus has further strengthened its administrative capacity"
and cited the example of the shipping industry, where much better systems had been put in place to deal with inspection and safety.
Agriculture is a major barrier for several countries that want to join the EU—especially Poland—but the report stated that Cyprus had made good progress. More needs to be done, but it said that Cyprus was going in the right direction. It also said that Cyprus was making progress on the matters of justice and border controls, which are a worry, because it will have an open border with the enlarged community and it is crucial to get that right. We have spoken a lot this morning about difficulties, but it is worth highlighting the progress that has been made.
In its opening assessment of Cyprus, the November 2000 progress report stated:
"The predominant political problem is the continued division of the island, but over the last year important efforts have been made in the search for a political settlement in line with the Accession Partnership. From the fourth round of proximity talks held in September there were encouraging signs that the two sides were engaging in substantive discussion."
94WH
Sadly, with the decision to withdraw from the talks, that critical progress seems to have been set back—a matter that several hon. Members have raised this morning. What pressure can the Minister bring to bear to ensure that those talks begin as soon as possible?
A further concern is the progress that Cyprus is making on human rights. Again, the Copenhagen criteria are rightly clear and state the need for the
"stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities".
Cyprus has ratified most of the international legal instruments in human rights. We heard this morning about several high-profile problems. The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) asked the Minister endless questions about the non-implementation of the European Court of Human Rights ruling on the Loizidou case. I hope that the Minister can reassure us and say how he plans to raise that matter. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) has referred many times in the past few months to the case of Mr. Tsiakourmas and again raised the matter forcefully this morning, which is another matter that I hope the Minister will raise in future meetings.
I hope that we can move speedily towards getting the talks set up again. There could be enormous benefits for those who live in the northern part of the region. Their income is a third lower than that of people in the south. The pressure that needs to be brought to bear to make the authorities realise that it is in their people's interests for them to join the European Union is a catalyst that must restart the negotiations. Progress must be made on some key human rights issues. Otherwise, such issues and those concerning the divided nation will set back much of the progress that has been made on economics and infrastructure, on which Cyprus is in the leading pack of countries that could join the European Union. I strongly favour Cyprus's joining, and I hope that we shall be able to make progress as soon as possible.
12.4 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) on having introduced this important debate, and all hon. Members on having made such worthwhile and well-informed contributions. I wish the Minister well on his intended visit to Cyprus.
Given the historical perspective, the question of Cyprus is important for all British politicians and political parties. It has long involved all political parties in the House, and like many other contentious international subjects based on partition or division, it evokes passionate debate.
Cyprus is an island with which the United Kingdom has long historic associations. We enormously value Cyprus's membership of the Commonwealth. Many Cypriots of both communities have settled in Britain and greatly enriched our national life. They are supplemented by many thousands of young Cypriots who come to university here.
Successive British Governments have rightly paid close attention to developments in Cyprus over the past 25 years. We have tried to play our part in Britain in doing whatever we can to promote the interests of peace and stability on the island itself and in the region as a whole. We condemned the invasion in 1974, and we

95WH
drafted and secured the adoption of Security Council resolution 541 in 1984, which declared the Turkish Cypriot declaration of independence legally invalid. That position remains today.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, and both his Foreign Secretaries, Lord Hurd and Sir Malcolm Rifkind, specifically raised the future of Cyprus with their Turkish and Greek counterparts. The previous Government appointed the distinguished diplomat Sir David Hannay as our special representative to Cyprus to help bring the two sides together.
We respect the fact that, as guarantors of Cyprus, Greece and Turkey have their own, different views about the status of the island, as do the two Cypriot communities themselves. Our role as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council underlines the importance and dedication of our involvement, especially in view of the personal commitment and involvement of the UN Secretary-General.
The disputes that emerged from the conflict of interests focused attention on Cyprus and the surrounding region. Now, as previously, a settlement is clearly in the interests of both communities on the island. It would also help Greece and Turkey to normalise their relations and would end tragic stories of atrocities and unfairness, displacement from homes and alleged abuses of human rights.
Fortunately, today's debate on Cyprus takes place in a political climate in which there is at least some optimism, in stark contrast to previous parliamentary discussions on Cyprus, which were conducted against a background of discouraging developments. The stand-off over the acquisition of missiles by the Cypriot Government, and the Turkish response, have been succeeded by a new era with greater hope for stability. To some extent, that emerged from the two devastating earthquakes of 1999. The response and generosity of the Greek people to their Turkish neighbours was heartfelt and impressive.
The House has already welcomed the UN initiative announced in September 1998, and resolution 1218, which endorsed it. The UN has begun to try to achieve its aims of reducing tension and promoting progress towards a settlement. President Clerides's decision in December 1998 not to bring the S300 missiles to Cyprus is an example of that, as was the visit of the Greek Foreign Minister to Ankara last year. We now have a series of agreements in the region on tourism, environmental protection, investment and the fight against crime and terrorism. Those are tentative steps, but in the right direction.
In November, the fifth round of the proximity talks was concluded, following a fourth round in New York last September. At that point it was clearly felt that a more substantive phase of the process had been reached with special representative Mr. de Soto. The UN Secretary-General reported to the Security Council that a qualitative step forward had been made. Further progress is now awaited, but we welcome the commitment of the Foreign Minister of Cyprus that the elections in May will be no impediment. We can only
96WH
continue to urge all concerned to go ahead with the proximity talks—a point made clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who said that it was time to move on.
The Conservative, party has strongly supported Cyprus's membership of the EU, and we have also welcomed the decision of the Helsinki European Council in December 1999 to grant Turkey candidate status. More than ever, the EU can have an important role to play, and it would be most unfortunate for the Turkish part of the island if it were to be excluded, as that would not be advantageous to its residents.
The EU is a vessel through which mediation and eventual settlement can be sought between the two opposing sides in the debate. President Clerides has spoken optimistically of the role that the EU can play; he said that he believes that the European factor will play a great role in the achievement of a solution in Cyprus. A settlement will benefit both communities on the island. Everyone wants a resolution to the division, but however desirable that objective may be, it is important that it is not and should not be a condition for EU membership.
Given our close ties of kinship, history and friendship, Britain should continue to do all that it can to ease Cyprus's path into the EU. We welcome the work of President Clerides in this respect, not least his introduction of further market reforms as part of the accession process. The economic success of the Republic of Cyprus has been remarkable tribute to the entrepreneurial energies of its citizens. It is an extraordinary achievement to have developed the sixth largest merchant fleet in the world. We also welcome the Government's decision to renew Sir David Hannay's mandate as the United Kingdom's special representative in the region.
The British position on Cyprus has been clear for many years. Britain's role remains one of offering advice and providing support for the UN operations on the island and the international attempts to mediate between the two sides. Ultimately, only the two communities can decide what is acceptable and what is likely to last. We encourage all sides to participate actively in the negotiations. We believe that the UN's ideas for a bizonal, bicommunal federal Government provide the best possible basis of achieving a successful united Cyprus, with both communities co-operating freely together with confidence in their future and that of their shared island.
12.12 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): This has been an excellent and important debate, and I join the hon. Members for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) and for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) in congratulating all those who have taken part—but of course most congratulations must go to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) on securing the debate. This is the first time that Cyprus has been discussed in an Adjournment debate for roughly a year.
I was reminiscing about when I first met my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate. It was about 20 years ago, when I saw him at the first Labour party conference that he attended. I never believed that he

97WH
would be here and able to speak so passionately on such a subject. He gave a most eloquent speech: one of the best that I have ever heard on the subject. He should be congratulated on the work that he does on behalf of all his constituents—not only those of Cypriot origin—as should all the hon. Members who have spoken.
The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) sadly had to leave for another engagement; and my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) has always participated in debates on Cyprus. Only Rochford district council separates my hon. Friend's appearances in the Chamber today; he is back again in half an hour to talk about Wandsworth prison. He has a busy day, but he has been able to participate as he always does.
It was good to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) about the new group established in Bristol. She raised the issue of EU membership, to which I shall also refer.
The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who was with me for five years on the Home Affairs Committee, spoke passionately and reminded us of the human consequences of the events of 26 years ago. Sometimes when one reads debates and participates in the Chamber, one forgets that the real issue lies with people with real feelings who have suffered greatly, such as the hon. Gentleman's constituent He is right to chide the Government and previous Governments; we need him to remind us of the human tragedy underlying global diplomatic issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) mentioned European Union membership, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love). All hon. Members present have a wide knowledge of the subject. I only wish that I could take them all with me when I visit Cyprus in early March. The hon. Member for West Suffolk wished me well, but I cannot even take him with me, because the taxpayer would not understand. I promise hon. Members that I will report back to them on what I have seen, and that I will talk to them all before I go.
The week of my trip to Cyprus will be something of a Cyprus week for me. I will meet the Cypriot community in north London on 5 March, in a meeting organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), which I hope other hon. Members will attend. On 6 March, we will host a reception in the Foreign Office for members of the community to meet Ministers and Members of Parliament, along with communities from other EU applicant countries who are represented in the United Kingdom. During that week, we will give special attention to Cyprus.
I know that you will chide me if I refer to someone sitting in the Gallery, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the high commissioner for Cyprus is sitting somewhere in this building. She has made an enormous contribution to developing bilateral relationships between Britain and Cyprus. In fact, she is probably in the House of Commons more often than she is in the high commission, ensuring that her country's views are represented at the highest levels. I pay tribute, too, to Edward Clay, our excellent high commissioner in Nicosia, and to the Cypriot community in London.
Cyprus has been an important partner for the United Kingdom, and we have long-standing historical links and strong bilateral ties. The British people have a
98WH
special affection for Cyprus, as shown by the fact that almost 1 million British visitors regularly choose to go there. Some 50 per cent. of the total number of tourists visiting the island come from the United Kingdom. We have close cultural ties and many Cypriot organisations and individuals choose to study here. We have strong economic ties: this country is the number one trading partner for Cyprus, with approximately 11 per cent. of the market share.
It is an interesting and challenging time for Cyprus, which is engaged in two important processes that will determine its future: the United Nations settlement process and the European Union accession negotiations. All Cypriots have much to gain from a successful conclusion to those processes. I urge hon. Members not to assume that, because those processes are at a crucial stage, the Government can wave a magic wand to resolve a situation that, as the hon. Member for North Thanet said, has gone on for 26 years. That means not that we do not want to try but that there is no instant solution. Both processes depend on careful and patient negotiation. The wrong word in the wrong place could have the wrong effect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting asked me to outline our vision, which is clear and conclusive. We want to see Cyprus reunited—that is our vision. We continue to believe that the best basis is a bizonal, bicommunal federation. We also want to see Cyprus in the European Union. A just and lasting comprehensive settlement, which reunites the island, remains our central goal, but it is clear that reunification is not a precondition for EU accession, as was set out in the conclusions of the Helsinki European summit of December 1999. The Foreign Secretary reaffirmed that stance when he met Foreign Minister Kasoulides in London last October. When I visit the island in March, I will carry exactly the same message.
Last year, there were signs of real progress in the UN settlement process. The process, which started in December 1999, carried on throughout 2000. The UN Secretary-General has appealed to all concerned to avoid public comment about the delays and details of the negotiation. We shall ensure that the confidentiality of the process is respected. We welcomed remarks made last summer by the Secretary-General's special representative, Alvaro de Soto, that the change of gear for which we had been hoping had taken place, and that both parties had started to address the substantive issues at the heart of Cyprus's problems.
It is disappointing to consider the negative Turkish Cypriot reaction to Kofi Annan's statement at the end of the last session of talks in November, and the subsequent statements by the Turkish Government and Mr. Denktash that the proximity talks could not continue on the same basis. In our view, the Turkish Cypriots have much to gain from a settlement. We regret that they have not yet responded to Kofi Annan's invitation to the parties to meet him again in early 2001.
If there are misunderstandings, or if clarifications are required, those issues are best resolved through a continuation of the process. We have heard nothing that could justify a refusal to continue with those important talks. We have made it clear to all involved that the United Kingdom continues to give every support to the UN process and the efforts of the Secretary-General and his special representative. We hope for a continuation of

99WH
the process in the near future. We also expect both parties to come to the table in a spirit of give and take, prepared to negotiate a just and lasting solution.
Meanwhile, we will continue to work closely with Greece and Turkey, which have important roles to play in the Cyprus settlement process. Relations between them can do much to create a positive climate. We warmly welcome the moves for closer relations between Greece and Turkey. I want to commend especially the efforts of the Greek Foreign Minister, George Papandreou. We hope that the process of dialogue will continue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton came to see me at short notice to discuss the case to which he drew attention. When I met Mrs. Tsiakourmas in London, in January, I left her in no doubt about our interest in this case, and our concern for her husband's welfare. Other hon. Members have also raised the issue with me. The Foreign Secretary sent a message to Mr. Denktash, and our high commissioner has made strong protests to him about the circumstances of the arrest. The Foreign Secretary also sent a message to Foreign Minister Cem, and we have raised our concerns with the Turkish authorities in Nicosia, Ankara and London. Our high commissioner in Nicosia remains in close contact with the family and the UN concerning the health and welfare of Mr. Tsiakourmas. I understand that the preliminary hearing into his case is currently under way. We will continue to do all that we can to ensure that the case is resolved in a just and satisfactory manner. We share my hon. Friend's concern at the way in which the issue arose, and we have not been silent. We have been very active and will continue to be so.
On the negotiations for Cyprus to join the European Union, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North referred with passion, I can assure her that they are progressing well. Cyprus has now closed 17 of the chapters of the acquis communautaire, and the United Kingdom, and the Prime Minister in particular, continue to champion enlargement. We want to see Cyprus in the European Union as soon as possible. The Prime Minister made it clear during his speech in Warsaw on 6 October last year that the process of accession should be speeded up, and we want to ensure that that happens.
100WH
We want new member states to participate in the 2004 European elections and to have a seat at the table at the next intergovernmental conference, but it is for the countries concerned to reach a conclusion in their negotiations with Commissioner Verheugen. Britain's role is to ensure that people understand that we want new applicants to join as soon as possible. That is why I cannot understand the Conservative party's policy. I do not want to make a partisan point, but those who believe that there should be a referendum on ratification of the Nice treaty would delay considerably Cyprus's accession to the European Union. I shall say no more about that, because I see the hon. Member for West Suffolk stirring in his seat.
In December, the Nice council agreed that we should have a road map for admission. The next 18 months are important, and enlargement will be a key issue under the Swedish presidency, which will want to examine progress at the Stockholm European Council in March. When I go to Stockholm next Thursday, I shall certainly raise the points that have been made today.
We all know that the Cyprus problem is one of the most difficult in the world to solve. That does not mean that the Government are not committed to ensuring a solution. I join the hon. Member for West Suffolk in commending the work of Sir David Hannay, who has a difficult task. I urge hon. Members to keep in close contact with Sir David, because he is keen to meet hon. Members to discuss confidentially what is happening, but they will understand that he cannot discuss the details of the process.
A just and lasting settlement would bring immense benefits to ordinary Cypriots and other countries in the area. Cyprus's continued division is a tragedy that must be overcome to secure a future offering lasting peace, security and prosperity for all. The Government remain firm in their commitment to finding a solution to the Cyprus question and to working with all those involved to achieve that. We must remember that, as we were reminded today by so many hon. Members, all of whom spoke with passion, behind the global negotiations and details are the men and women whom we have all met. They should tell their constituents that the Government really care. The pace may sometimes seem too slow, but officials in the Foreign Office and Ministers want to ensure a just and lasting solution. I hope that all hon. Members will encourage their constituents to meet me on 5 March when I meet members of the community. That will provide a unique opportunity to discuss their concerns with them and I hope that many hon. Members from all parties will participate in that meeting.

Rochford District Council
12.29 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: It is a pleasure and an honour—[Interruption.] I am surprised that hon. Members are leaving the Chamber, because this is an important and significant issue.
You will be aware, Mr. Winterton, that my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark), who shows great integrity in all his activities, has been a champion of Rochford over the years. Unfortunately, he cannot be here today because he is chairing a vital conference on science and the general election, which aims to ensure that science is given appropriate consideration. He greatly regrets his absence and has asked me to apologise on his behalf.
Adjournment debates are used for all sorts of purposes: to promote a cause, to identify insoluble problems and lay responsibility for them on Governments, and to play at politics and blame the Administration for the bad weather. On hearing my arguments, I hope that the Minister will accept that I am doing none of those things, and that the problems faced by Rochford district council are serious and on-going. There is a genuine need to review the matter and to deal with what is one of the greatest injustices that I have encountered since entering this place some 37 years ago.
When constituency boundaries were changed at the last election, four areas were added to my constituency: Rochford, Great Wakering, Barling and the island of Foulness, all of which fall within Rochford district council in the county of Essex. Southend, of course, is a unitary authority that is entirely divorced from Essex. Such is the strength and commitment of the people of Southend that I am sure that they would rejoice at the opportunity to leave not only the country of Essex but the European Union, particularly in the light of the previous debate.
Rochford, however, is a different kind of place. When Southend was negotiating its independence, informal approaches were made to discover whether neighbouring Rochford would like to come along with us. The response was unambiguous Rochford did not want to join any other authority, and if ever it had to do so, the last—the very last—place it would join was Southend-on-Sea. Such disputes have gone on for many years. A wonderful and stimulating reformed sinner established a group of churches in Rochford known as the peculiar people. After achieving so much in Rochford, the group embarked on a missionary venture to Southend, which is five miles a way. However, on arrival they were stoned by the people of Southend and advised that, if it was sinners that they were looking for, they should return speedily to Rochford.
Even today, there are problems such as disputed territories. I had the pleasure of attending a meeting in Rochford two weeks ago, at which the potential of Southend airport was discussed. I was advised that there was no such place and that I must have been referring to Rochford aerodrome. There is even a political difference between the two areas. In May last year, every seat in the Southend, East part of my constituency elected a Conservative councillor. However, after the constituency was extended I did not have a single Conservative councillor in Rochford, although I did
102WH
have one in Great Wakering and Foulness, and in a recent by-election we managed to win one seat in Rochford. You will therefore appreciate, Mr. Winterton, that the marriage was not the easiest of enterprises.
However, since the last election I have done my best to get to know the new areas and to assess their problems and the opportunities that they present. I have been glad to co-operate with borough officials and councillors who represent Rochford, Great Wakering, Foulness and Barling, regardless of political party. Happily, we have an excellent chief executive in Mr. Warren, and excellent officials. In fairness, some of the councillors are also excellent. There is the splendid Roy Pearson, who is a Conservative councillor in Great Wakering; Peter Stebbing, who is a Labour councillor and chairman of the parish council; and Mr. Fox, who is a Labour county councillor.
I found that Rochford had a frightening problem with financing. On studying the figures in detail, I was horrified to discover that it was by far the worst financed borough in Essex and one of the worst in the United Kingdom—11th worst by my calculation. Rochford is a large authority. It includes Rochford, the borough that I represent, as well as places such as Rayleigh, Canewdon, Paglesham, Ashingdon and many other areas, which are ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and others.
What are my grounds for complaint? I know that figures can often be stretched and misrepresented if one refers only to direct Government grants and not to the money that comes from the business rates, and if one fails to take account of population changes and talks up the standard spending assessment as though it were a grant. I have done my best to help the Minister obtain the fairest possible figures over eight years, covering Conservative and Labour Governments, to make it abundantly clear that I am not trying to play politics.
Essex consists of 12 local councils, including places such as Braintree, Uttlesford, Castle Point, Colchester, Tendring, Basildon and Harlow. This year, the standard spending assessment per head—the amount that councils are allowed to spend per head of population—is £75 for Rochford, and it is £78.85 next year. In every other part of Essex the figure is much higher. Our £75 this year compares with £124 in Harlow, £100.93 in Tendring, £93 in Colchester and £95 in Epping Forest. Next year, Rochford's £78 compares with £131 in Harlow, £114 in Basildon, £107 in Tendring and so on. Of course, circumstances vary, but why does it cost almost twice as much to provide the identical services in Harlow as in Rochford? It does not seem right or fair.
Let us forget about total spending and look at the grants that are provided—the external support coming to Rochford. That is even worse. The figure for rate support grant—the money that the Government hand out to local councils—is unbelievable. In 1994–95 Rochford received £21 a head. The Government sent a little cheque to Rochford and said, "That's your money". In 1997–98 that was cut to £15.70 a head, in 1998–99 it was £10 a head and next year it will be £6 a head—down from £21 to £6.
In fairness, it would be misleading to mention only those figures because the Government also hand out a share of the non-domestic rate, which used to be known

103WH
as the business rate. In 1994, the figure was £32.24 a head. What is it now, following the massive cut in the rate support grant and the big increase in prices and inflation? I was shocked to discover that it was £32 in 1999 and that next year it will be £37.55.
If we add up all the money from the Government, the grant and the business rates, the total in 1994 was £53.30 a head. Next year it will be £43.67 a head. I calculate, therefore, that the cash coming to Rochford per head of population over the past eight years has been cut by 18 per cent.
What have been the consequences for Rochford? It has had to exercise the most astonishing caution in its spending. Over the eight years that I have mentioned, under both Conservative and Labour Governments, its budget increased by only 10 per cent., about 1 per cent. a year. During that time, prices have been soaring and the increase in demand for local government services has been astonishing. However, even with a penny-pinching policy on spending, the council has had to force up the rates massively because the money coming from Government has been cut so much. During those eight years, the increase in the rates has been 65 per cent., which is about 8 per cent. a year.
We know that Governments of both parties are never unhappy when local rates go up rather than national taxes, but in the case of Rochford, the ratepayers have been taken to the cleaners. How can the Minister justify an 8 per cent. rise in rates for an area which has had to slash its spending in real terms? Is there any reason why Rochford should be punished in this way? It is not a spendthrift council and it never has been. On looking through the records, I see that it was one of the first councils in Britain to privatise services such as refuse collection, street cleaning, grounds maintenance, leisure management, facilities management and buildings repair and maintenance. It has been so efficient that Lady Thatcher would be proud.
Is it because the residents are fed up with Rochford council? Strangely, despite the miserable treatment that they have had from Governments of both parties, a recent opinion poll showed that it is the highest regarded authority in Essex. In other words, local people think that it is doing a good job despite its difficulties.
Perhaps things have changed for the better with new Labour. I think that the Government will accept that until this year they have not—in fact, they have continued to get worse. In fairness, although this year's grant change is minimal, there has been a 5.1 per cent. increase in SSA, which is the amount that the council can spend.
That sounds good, but the population has increased, so the actual increase per head is only 3.7 per cent. What is most worrying is the extra spending that Government policy is forcing on the local council. Government funding has increased by £168,000, but that must be compared with the additional cost of the council's new responsibilities: £35,000 for the concessionary fares scheme; £30,000 for contaminated land investigations; £46,000 for the benefits verification framework; £69,000 for the external best value inspection and audit; £20,000 for homelessness; £96,000 for recycling, stage 1; and
104WH
£157,000 for additional staffing to meet those responsibilities. Therefore, we are not only back at square one, but a great deal behind.
The council has survived only by utilising balances, securing savings, forcing up the rates and cutting back services. That is not fair and there is a need for an urgent review. Rochford is in no sense an affluent area. Of course, there are some lovely houses and wealthy families, but there is also a fair amount of poverty, deprivation and social need.
I hope that the Minister will think about what I have said today. I hope that she will check the figures I have quoted and examine the total cost. I hope that she will accept that Rochford has been unfairly hammered and deserves a better deal. You will know from your considerable and splendid experience in the House, Mr. Winterton, that I try to explode only when something is very unfair. I have got into lots of trouble, but I hope that the Minister will accept that I am genuinely not trying to play politics. The problem has worsened under Governments of both parties. Rochford has had an unfair deal and I wonder if the Minister could think about a way of giving it a fairer deal. That would be reasonable and it is something that should happen quickly. I thank the hon. Lady for listening so patiently. I am only sorry that the hon. Members who were talking about the problems of Cyprus did not realise that Rochford has big problems that demand equal attention. I hope that the Minister will think about what I have said.
12.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) for giving us the opportunity to debate the local government settlement as it applies in Rochford in the coming year. I pay tribute to the way in which he is looking after the interests of his constituency, particularly those new areas that he has acquired since the general election. He has put a great deal of effort into getting to know them.
I accept the genuineness of the hon. Gentleman's position and the way in which he has tried to pursue the issue as he sees it. I cannot agree with all he said, but I accept that he is approaching the matter in a neutral, non-party political way and that he is concerned for the interests of the people of Rochford. Before I go into any detail—some matters are technical as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged—I must place the issue in the context of the local government revenue expenditure as it has panned out over the past few years.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that, in the context of the 2000 spending review, when considering the settlements for local authorities, we have genuinely tried—and succeeded—to reverse the position of local authorities generally in terms of the amount of cash going in. Our priority has obviously been education and social services. Shire districts, such as Rochford, depend principally on another section of the settlement—the environmental, protective and cultural services block. It does not receive funding for educational services because it does not provide any.
This year's settlement alone provides a real increase of just under 2 per cent. in the provision of services within that block. Local government as a whole—and

105WH
Rochford, in particular—will know that provision in that area has stood still because of a lack of funding for many years. In real terms, since 1997, there has been a 14 per cent. increase in funding to local authorities compared with a 7 per cent. cut in the, four years before 1997–98. In the overall context, there can be little argument that we are providing greater levels of investment, and there is general agreement that the settlement provides welcome improvements in the money going to local authorities. It should mean that most local authorities can settle their council tax rise at a lower level this year, as they have done during the past two years.
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wants to know the details for Rochford. The current position for this year is that Rochford will receive £3.418 million in general grant, which is an increase of 3.9 per cent. The first point to note is that that is comparable with the average for shire districts. Indeed, it sits exactly at the average for shire districts, which is a 3.9 per cent. increase in general grant. The total SSA increase for the next financial year is just more than £6.1 million, an increase of 5.1 per cent. That is higher than the average increase in SSA for shire districts. The average SSA is 4.6 per cent. Rochford's SSA for the environmental, protective and cultural services block, its main source of funding, increased by 5 per cent. compared with the average for shire districts of 4.5 per cent.
In the context of shire districts as a whole, Rochford is not doing too badly for the next financial year. However, I understand that the hon. Gentleman is worried about Rochford's funding over a longer period. It is a fact, as he said, that, from 1995–96 to 1998–99, there was a pattern of decline in the total standard spending assessment received by the district. I will not deal with the pattern before the 1998–99 settlement as it was the province of the previous Government, although I understand that there were methodological changes affecting Rochford and that the decrease was not due to data.
The decrease in 1998–99 occurred because of a methodological change that was undertaken at the request of, and with the consent of, the local government community. In the first settlement that we introduced, we had to change the deprivation indices used in the district services environmental, protective and cultural services block methodology because they were not representative of the amount of deprivation in an area and were widely criticised throughout local government.
Before that year, that block had included two composite indices of deprivation, known as the economic and social indices, which were shown to be statistically correlated with the need for higher expenditure in deprived areas and had, therefore, been used as proxies, to skew SSA allocation towards those deprived areas. Concern was expressed about the validity of some of the variables contained in the indicators in measuring deprivation. Two of the indicators, in respect of homelessness and temporary and non-permanent accommodation, were heavily criticised as being too loosely defined, and more dependent on local authority spending decisions than on actual need in an area.
Extensive consultation was done on the issue, and we reviewed the indicators used in those two indices. As a result, with consensus and consultation, two new indices
106WH
were developed that were found to have a much better statistical correlation than the previous ones. They were introduced into the district services EPCS block in 1998–99. Because they were new, they produced a slightly different SSA distribution. Indeed, the change was intended to establish a better fit between the indices and deprivation.
It is true that Rochford was one of the authorities that lost rather than gained following the introduction of those new indices, which were largely responsible for the 4.3 per cent. SSA reduction that Rochford experienced that year. However, since then, Rochford's SSA has increased each year. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's claim that that has only happened this year, but I appreciate that the increase may not be as fast as he would like. The main reason for the increase is that the Government have been able to put more resources into local government generally.
We should consider the years subsequent to the methodological change that affected the area. During 1999–2000, in the next settlement, the SSA increase was 1.2 per cent., and would have been higher but for data changes—that is, Rochford lost some aspects of population. In 2000–01 and 2001–02, there were no SSA methodological changes that affected shire district councils because we had stated that, during the three-year review of revenue grant distribution, no methodological changes would be made. In 2000–01, Rochford's SSA increase fell slightly, by 0.6 per cent., due to data changes—there were changes in the population groups fed into the formula—and to larger than average decreases in measures of deprivation. This year, Rochford benefits substantially, due to a larger than average increase in population—1.3 per cent. compared to a national average of 0.5 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned two specific issues. He considered funding in terms of spending per head in Rochford compared to other parts of Essex and the country and spoke about what he said were extra spending requirements in Rochford. As I have explained to the hon. Gentleman in correspondence, many spending pressures and measures of social deprivation are used in the SSA formula. Rochford has a level lower than the Essex average on virtually all the indicators, such as housing benefit, morbidity, mortality, overcrowding and income support claimants. Rochford has fewer of those problems in its population than other parts of Essex, and that is why it receives a lower SSA than its Essex neighbours. Although Rochford has its share of less affluent areas, the borough as a whole has less deprivation than its neighbours as measured by those indicators. Harlow, for example, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, has three times the rate of housing benefit claimants of Rochford. Tendring has approximately twice the unemployment rate of Rochford. Those figures highlight the differences in cost pressures between the boroughs. That explains the differences in spending per head: other parts of Essex face higher cost pressures to meet the needs of the population.
The hon. Gentleman also contrasted the increase in Rochford's SSA for the next financial year with various items of what he calls extra spending that he argues are being forced on the council by Government policy. Although central Government may lay down standards or outcomes that we want to achieve, we rarely direct

107WH
local authorities to achieve those results in only one approved way with one specific level of expenditure. It follows that it is a central feature of the local govt funding system that most funding is not ring-fenced for a particular purpose, but paid in the form of general grant. Increases in funding for new responsibilities are usually included in the general grant and it is up to local authorities to decide how they will deliver the better services that we all want.
I acknowledge that the SSA formula can never match exactly the circumstances of each local authority; some will feel that they have done well and others that they have done not so well. The hon. Gentleman may think that Rochford falls into the second category, although I should tell him that during the long consultation period, Rochford made no representations to me about any aspect of the proposed settlement. Until we reached the final settlement, we did not hear from Rochford about any fears about the proposed level of funding.
I assume that the figures given by the hon. Gentleman for cost pressures facing Rochford are council estimates. It is for councils to assess individually how best to meet the pressures on them and the needs of their local residents. I have no way of knowing whether the estimates that he cited are reasonable, but in any case it is for the council to decide how to spend the money that it has been given. We are confident that nationally we have provided sufficient resources to meet the costs of any new responsibilities. Those sums are generally included in the block—for example, we have estimated the increased costs of the statutory minimum concessionary scheme that the hon. Gentleman mentioned as being £54 million, which has gone to local authorities as additional money in the block.
The settlement for Essex is also relevant, because Essex provides services directly to the people of Rochford. For the forthcoming year, the total grant for Essex—general grant and ring-fenced grant—will increase by 7.3 per cent., together with additional spending money.
Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
Ms Hughes: I am in my last minute, and although I do not like to say no to the hon. Gentleman, I must draw to a conclusion. I understand his points but I also believe that Rochford has had a fair settlement in the context of the general increase in funding for local authorities that we have tried to provide.
Sir Teddy Taylor: If the Minister has time, would it be possible for her to visit Rochford? The people of Rochford would be grateful, and I am sure that it would be of great benefit.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I am sure that the Minister has heard that. We must now move on to the next debate.

Wandsworth Prison
1 pm
Mr. Tom Cox: I welcome the opportunity to open this short debate on Wandsworth prison, which is in my constituency. I have visited the prison many times over the years, and have had debates in the House and asked many questions about it. It is an old building, and over the years there have been changes in the role that it plays in the prison system. At present, the prisoner roll at Wandsworth is 1,300 inmates.
Over the years, the prison has often been criticised, sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly. I have read several times the report on the prison by the chief inspector of prisons for England and Wales. I am talking not about the Wandsworth prison of yesteryear but about the prison that I have seen on my visits, and the prison that my right hon. Friend the Minister and I saw when we visited it in the latter part of last year.
Last week, the press and television gave great coverage to the speech made by the Director-General of the Prison Service, Martin Narey, at the Prison Service conference 2001. He was highly critical of many aspects that still exist in the prison system. He is right. I know it, and my right hon. Friend the Minister knows it. What did the director-general say about Wandsworth? He said that Stephen Rimmer, the governor,
"has empowered an alienated staff, producing striking attitudinal change and as a result has made massive improvements, symbolised for me by the transformation of the segregation unit. I must be the first Director General for some time to await a Wandsworth report with optimism."
I welcome those comments, as do the Prison Officers Association and the board of visitors. In Stephen Rimmer, a young man, the prison has a constructive, progressive and fair governor. Those qualities are reflected in everything that he does as governor and in his dealings with officers and inmates in the day-to-day life at the prison. I have seen him at work, using those skills, on visits to the prison.
I also warmly congratulate the prison officers at Wandsworth. Their work is difficult and sometimes dangerous, but they do an excellent job. They show good will and are totally committed to the changes taking place. The board of visitors and the chairman, Mr. Akerman, deserve great credit for their time and commitment, week by week, in the prison. As I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister would agree, the board of visitors spends many hours each week in the prison. That is work that no Home Office, under any Government, would be able to do, in terms of either time or cost. I am sure that that applies to prisons throughout the country.
I have commented on Martin Narey's remarks. When the chief inspector of prisons reported in December 1999, there were 88 recommendations, which were translated by the prison into a 147-point action plan. All those action points have been taken up and are either completed or in the process of being completed. That has been done with the full support of the governor, prison officers and the board of visitors.

109WH
Those of us who take an interest in prisons know that the worst aspect for prison inmates is the time that they spend in their cells. To Wandsworth's credit, it has increased the number of hours per week that inmates are out of their cells, and that applies to all prisoners. More provision has been made for exercise, association and phone calls. As we all know from our daily lives, making a phone call to family or friends is crucial.
The role played by each of the prison wings and their inmates, be they short-term or long-term prisoners, has been enhanced. The induction system for inmates entering prison has been improved, and programmes are being developed for resettlement and advice on housing and employment opportunities on leaving prison.
Each month, the governor, Mr. Rimmer, meets prisoner representatives from each of the prison wings for a general discussion of prison issues, and he should be commended for that. The gym, which as we all know can be popular with men in prison, is now open at weekends, which is greatly appreciated. The governor and his staff have revised the prison's incentive and earnings schemes, which are, again, a matter of great importance to someone serving a prison sentence.
When the next inspection of the prison takes place, I am sure that striking comments will be made about the major changes that have taken place in the operation, care and structure of what was the segregation unit. Family visits have been introduced to keep families together during difficult times. As we all know, if a loved one is in prison, enormous stresses and strains can be placed on the family relationships.
I am also delighted to be able to say that Wandsworth has excellent prison officers, both men and women, some 11 per cent. of whom come from an ethnic minority background, although they were born here and this is their home. I warmly welcome that, as, I am sure, does my right hon. Friend the Minister. The prison has an excellent race relations organisation, and the officer responsible for it does a wonderful job. All those developments are supported not only by the governor, who, to his credit, initiated many of them, but by prison officers and the board of visitors.
Another important development has taken place at Wandsworth, as in other prisons. There are
"Sustained challenges to unacceptable behaviour—5 staff currently suspended, 2 sacked, everyone fully aware that any violence or threat of violence to prisoners (or colleagues) will not be tolerated under any circumstances".
That is the stated policy of the governor, and I am sure that we all welcome it warmly.
As we all know, circumstances can change if the commitment is made. That commitment for change has, as I briefly outlined, been made at Wandsworth prison, which looks to the future and the way forward. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister is also committed to that, but the future will not just happen: it must be planned and financed. The prison operates on a tight budget. What will the budget be this year, and will the staff and governor be asked to make any cuts in their budget for the coming year?
When I last visited the prison, I attended the monthly meeting of the board of visitors and we discussed various issues. Much has been done concerning education, but much more could be done. We all know that, sadly, men and women who are sent to prison often
110WH
have poor educational ability, but if that can be improved, their whole lives start to improve, not only while they are in prison but when they leave. I believe, as does the board of visitors, that education must be a top priority in prisons. It costs about £19,000 a year to keep someone in Wandsworth prison, and if education facilities are provided to help people to find employment, the chances are that they will not return to prison. Wandsworth wants to develop its education facilities. How does my right hon. Friend expect that aspect of Wandsworth's continuing development programme to progress?
Asylum seekers are now a major issue. Some 500 asylum seekers will be housed in prisons throughout the country because of immigration irregularities. I understand that there will be 60 at Wandsworth, which will cause pressure and strain on the system, as it already houses some 250 foreign nationals. Asylum seekers should not be put in prison without proper facilities, because they will have special needs. Asylum seekers may have broken immigration rules, but they are not convicted criminals and it is crucial to learn from my right hon. Friend what funding will be available for the extra stresses, strains and responsibilities that Wandsworth prison will be asked to take on.
Prisoners used to be housed in police cells, and successive Home Secretaries said that that was not a problem. However, there was indeed a problem, and in time the practice was stopped. I speak in friendship and with a desire for the progress to which my right hon. Friend is committed, but I do not believe that this aspect of policy has been properly thought through or properly funded.
Another matter that concerns us greatly in Wandsworth is category C prisoners. Wandsworth currently has about 480 such prisoners, many of whom are waiting to be moved to other prisons. The governor has told me that category C prisoners often have to wait 12 to 18 months before being moved. My right hon. Friend's Department must examine the matter and find out why there is a delay in moving them.
At present, some 210 inmates are working in Wandsworth. The hope is that during this year there will be opportunities for another 200 to work. That can only be welcomed. We have improved the safety of inmates and reduced self-harm through the national pilot scheme. That, too, can only be warmly welcomed and again is fully supported by all sections of the staff and the board of visitors.
As I have said, Wandsworth prison has changed greatly, and all the changes have been supported, but one issue remains: staffing levels. That may apply not only to Wandsworth but to many other prisons in London and this part of the country. As my right hon. Friend knows, there are serious problems of staff recruitment and retention. I should be interested to hear what he thinks can be done about that.
I am grateful for the opportunity to have this short debate, which outlines the changes that have taken place: changes that, as I have repeatedly said, have been supported by the governor, the POA and the board of visitors. I am glad to have been able to put on record the support for the efforts that the governor has made, and will continue to make, to make Wandsworth one of our model prisons.
1.16 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) brings to this subject a lifetime in the House of championing the cause of Wandsworth prison and, at the same time, of constantly challenging that institution to improve its game. His tribute to the governor, the staff and the work being done there is therefore all the more valuable, because he is a not uncritical friend of that institution or, quite properly, of the Prison Service.
We have had an opportunity to hear of the gains made in Wandsworth recently in improving regimes, conditions, management and industrial relations between the management and the staff, and all credit goes to those who have been responsible for bringing about those improvements. My hon. Friend rightly singles out the governor, Stephen Rimmer. I would add a word of recognition for the Prison Officers Association chairman, Richie Keller, who has demonstrated commendable qualities of leadership.
You will know, Mr. Winterton, that to bring about change in an institution is no easy matter. It requires determination and resolve as well as a willingness to face and speak some unpalatable truths. That has happened in Wandsworth, and we should reflect on the lessons that the Prison Service can learn about how best to bring about change. Although we have seen marked improvements at Wandsworth, there is no room for complacency in the Prison Service. That is why the director general made the speech that he did at the recent Prison Service conference.
On Wandsworth's immediate future, I assure my hon. Friend that it will have to make its fair contribution to the efficiency savings that the service as a whole must make. Discipline has led to improved management across the service. Wandsworth can expect to gain from the additional resources that the Government are putting into prison education. Today, the Minister for Education and Employment, Baroness Blackstone, and I launched a major joint initiative for Wormwood Scrubs—another improving institution that has had its problems—involving her Department and mine. New resources amounting to some £17 million over three years will be invested in prison education.
Prison education is linked specifically to addressing the numeracy and literacy deficits that affect inmates throughout the prison system. Some 60 per cent. of inmates have numeracy and literacy deficits that disqualify them from 94 per cent. of jobs. We are putting new resources at the disposal of prison education in order to improve basic numeracy and literacy skills. Those resources also form part of a custody-to-work initiative to help inmates make the transition from a custodial to a community context, so that on leaving prison they have a hope of finding gainful employment. Whether they have an actual job to go to or an appointment for one, former inmates will have the backup of the Employment Service and, where necessary, of the further education establishments in the area to which they are returning. Wandsworth will benefit from that concerted effort.
Wandsworth will also benefit from our additional investment in prison health care. Given that this issue is dear to your heart, Mr. Winterton, you will know that it has long been neglected. However, with the full support
112WH
and co-operation of colleagues in the Department of Health, we are tackling it in a manner that requires the national health service and the prison health service to work together for the first time in a coherent and focused way to ensure that prison health care receives the necessary investment in personnel and resources.
Importantly, there must be through-care from the prison health service into the wider mental health service. There are far too many in our jails whose main problem is one of mental health. Throughput from prison health care into mainstream NHS mental health facilities is particularly important. There will be new, additional moneys to enable Wandsworth to improve conditions, the quality of health care and the environment of its health care centre. Moreover, there will be additional resources for mental health care and psychiatric care, and for the introduction of community psychiatric workers who will work on the wings. That is good news for Wandsworth, and is in addition to the £16 million that it is due to receive.
The good work that Stephen Rimmer has started must continue and my hon. Friend and I had the opportunity to see that in action during our visits to the establishment. Central to that is the involvement of the wider community, including the board of visitors, to which my hon. friend rightly paid tribute, and voluntary sector organisations that introduce programmes into prisons. I saw one recently that dealt with the unresolved issues that many prisoners and others suffer in terms of their relationship with their parents and which may have contributed to their offending. Innovative and challenging approaches from the voluntary sector and the prison officers are important and contribute to protecting the public by reducing reoffending. We want to build on that with mentoring and with closer community links between local businesses and prisons to aid resettlement. There will be a continuing need to ensure that Wandsworth develops those links with the wider community.
I want to refer to two matters on which Wandsworth will continue to be challenged. It must bear its fair share of the increased number of immigration detainees in prison. The Government are determined to increase the number of immigration offenders and failed asylum seekers who are removed from the United Kingdom. That is our duty to the people we serve and to the maintenance of confidence in the integrity and reliability of the immigration and nationality system. That means that we must hold a number of immigration detainees in Wandsworth prison.
I assure my hon. Friend that, in the longer term, we intend to reduce the use of prisons for holding such detainees. In the meantime, higher levels of absconding make it necessary to detain people in prison and we are determined to maintain our capacity to do so. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office will ensure that the immigration and nationality directorate puts in place the services that are necessary to meet the special needs of that inmate population, including interpreters and immigration service surgeries.
I commend the work being done at Wandsworth, not least by Mr. Hindpal Singh Bhui who won the Butler trust award, to ensure the welfare of foreign national inmates. That work has been of enormous value and we want immigration detainees to benefit from it.

113WH
Wandsworth is an improving jail and the commitment and dedication of staff and management alike and the active involvement of my hon. Friend and the local community will ensure that that continues. The service as a whole can learn lessons from Wandsworth, which continues to play its part in meeting the challenges that face the service. It is a good-news story and I hope that it receives the coverage that it deserves. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for enabling the debate to take place.

Flood Defences (South Devon)
1.29 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: I want to discuss sea defences and flooding in the west country because, in the past year, global warming and changes in the weather pattern have seriously affected the communication corridors linking the entire south-west with the rest of Britain.
The railway embankments between Exeter and Tiverton Parkway have collapsed, particularly at Cowley bridge and Stafford bridge, as a result of river flooding closing the main railway line from Exeter to the rest of the country. I have been one of the passengers who have been regularly bussed along what are already congested roads to reach my destinations. What is the point of spending two and a half hours on a train to be turfed out at Taunton railway station and put on a bus that travels along the M5? We may as well go by bus all the way from Victoria coach station, which is about a quarter of the price of the railway fare.
A few weeks ago, a landslip closed the main line at Teignmouth. An 80-tonne boulder and 10,000 tonnes of cliff rubble had to be removed from the railway track before the mainline track could be re-opened. As for Dawlish on the main railway line, for many years the sea defences have been under threat with spring high tides damaging the rail embankment and destroying the track. Over the past couple of months, the main line between Penzance, Plymouth, Bristol and London has been closed, either because of floods outside Exeter, cliff slip around Teignmouth or the constant battering of the sea at Dawlish Warren. That is a regular occurrence, not an isolated incident. The number of times that I have jumped on a bus, having started my journey on a train, is too many to recall.
More recently, storm damage at Slapton sands has closed the A379, a road that links the two communities of Kingsbridge and Dartmouth. That latest catastrophe drives home the long-term problems presented by global warming, particularly the predicted rise in sea levels. It is clear that any long-term solution to global warming will come too late to halt the dramatic change in weather patterns and the predicted rise in sea level. Expert opinion suggests that for every 3 ft rise in the sea levels, more than 500 ft of foreshore could be lost in areas such as Slapton. The consequences for south Devon of such a rise, coupled with a switch from the prevailing south westerly winds, the easterly gales and other changes, could sever the existing mainline rail link outside Exeter, at Teignmouth, Dawlish, Tiverton and places between. Some road networks could be severely disrupted, too.
For at least a decade, it has been my view that an alternative rail route between Exeter and Plymouth is long overdue. Those with a branch-line mentality—and they are numerous—are shortsighted in suggesting that all that is needed is a rail bypass of Dawlish and Teignmouth. A more radical and ambitious vision would see a new line running along the A38 with a tunnel through Haldon hill. Provided that the track is there and that First Great Western is allowed to operate at the speeds it would like, it would make a journey time of two and a half hours between London and Plymouth. We must link Plymouth to London by rail in that time.

115WH
An alternative would be to rebuild the Okehampton line to Plymouth, which was removed during the Beeching cuts. I am not hung up about where the new railway line goes, but it must go somewhere other than along such a wonderful tourist track that was built many years ago, when Brunel had the vision to lay a track to Penzance. Small-minded people whinge about making Newton Abbot and Totnes stations less important, because they will be bypassed by the new line. They are incapable of seeing the bigger picture. There is no other option if the west country is to survive as a major player. Bristol to Plymouth should be an important business corridor, as London is to Bristol, and that could be the case if it were not for the lack of vision and the branch-line mentality. Communities could be built along the road and the rail infrastructure with employment opportunities close by. In the meantime, planners persist in building doughnut rings of executive homes around what are already poorly served communities and small market towns.
On 11 and 12 January this year, something significant happened. Easterly storms coincided with spring tides to devastate a section of the A379 at Slapton sands near Strete Gate, undermining the foundations of some of the two-mile stretch known as the Slapton line and cutting off communities in my constituency as well as connections between Kingsbridge and Dartmouth. Local historian, Anne Born, explained that the shingle barrier is about 1,800 years old. The road or "the line", as it is called, was probably so named when the turnpike was created in 1856 and was originally a walkway across the sand ridge. The first artificial road surface was based on faggots or reeds and was metalled in about 1920, at first with a dry bound macadam road and later a bitumen road.
The beach was used as a practice ground for the Normandy landings. Three thousand people in the area were evacuated at the end of 1943 to make way for 15,000 troops arriving for battle exercises. A 20 ft obelisk was erected by the American Government beside Slapton beach as a tribute to those who gave up their homes for the war effort and to commemorate those who sadly died during those exercises. The monument has had to be dismantled following the storm as a temporary measure as the sea had undermined its foundations.
To the landward side of the line is Slapton Ley. It is the largest fresh water lagoon in south England. The ley is an important wildfowl habitat in winter in which rare flowers and lichens flourish. Slapton Ley and the ridge were designated as a site of special scientific interest, reflecting both their biological and geological characteristics. It is also a nature reserve. Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the district council, the county council and the Whitley Trust—the owner of the site—have a duty to protect that habitat and English Nature is a consultee.
Not only is the site of historical and ecological significance, but it is important economically and socially for the region and that cannot be underestimated. As the Coleridge Association of Parish Councils said:
"We didn't realise how important the road was until we lost it!"
116WH
Those sentiments have been echoed by Dartmouth town council and the parishes of Slapton, Stokenham, Stoke Fleming and Strete. In spite of all the representations that have been made, all the talk of partnerships, the Liberal Democrats' lovey-dovey approach that we should get together and sort out the problem, the steering groups and the advisory forums that have been set up, the road is still closed. At a time when rural communities are being encouraged to diversify away from traditional ways of earning a living, people and goods cannot get about. When we consider that the holiday season is looming, the problem could not have come about at a more difficult time for the tourist industry.
The situation cannot be permitted to go on any longer, but what has happened so far is like a farce. I recognise, however, that everyone is well intentioned and that all the public authorities are doing their best. We have had parish meetings, district meetings, county meetings and public meetings. Because of the SSSI status of Slapton Ley, English Nature is involved, as is the Environment Agency.
The Slapton Ley field centre then threw a spanner in the works when it suggested a policy of managed retreat, on the basis that King Canute found that there was no stopping the sea. The centre is highly regarded for its work, but its initial studies suggest substituting for the road cycle tracks, picnic areas and other green tourist features that the Liberal Democrats consider to be "simply splendid". That will result in fewer, more discerning visitors—but not the hoi polloi who are preferred by the Tories and the Labour party. It has not gone down well with local businesses or the tourist centre.
What is worse is that the leader of the county council has been wheeled in. Poor Mr. Greenslade's feet have not touched the ground; he is being wheeled round by all the Liberal Democrat prospective parliamentary candidates to see floods, sea defences and coastal retreats. My impression was that initially he was well disposed towards the managed retreat—they could have picnic areas, cycle tracks, and so on—but he has now turned round and said, "No, we've got to reopen the road"; but the road remains closed. If the sea had destroyed the two mile road between Torcross and Strete Gate on other occasions, perhaps a policy of managed retreat would have been a more serious candidate for discussion, but as the last storms to create such havoc were more than 20 years ago, there is an overwhelming desire for two-way traffic to be reinstated as soon as possible.
Thankfully, the Devon county council officer injected some sense into the debate when he acknowledged that we need to get our priorities straight. He rightly pointed out that
"sending an endless pot of money to defend every inch of coastline whatever the cost was not an option"
but he added
"keeping coastal settlements that are fundamental to our local economy is where we ought to put our efforts in, and if our pot of money isn't big enough we have to go to Central Government to get more".
To make matters worse, the Liberal Democrats are doing their level best to exploit the situation politically, showing special concern ahead of the elections: popping

117WH
up in every picture; chucking out press releases at a rate of knots; and suggesting, of all things, that Europe could save the A379—as if Europe has anything to do with it. As the Liberal Democrats are the party of the single currency and a federal Europe, one can understand why they dragged the only Liberal Democrat MEP for the area down to view the place. He has come down, as has the leader of the Liberal Democrats in the county; everybody is down there. The only snag is that the road is still closed.
Heaven knows why Europe has been involved. Giles Chichester, the MEP, told me that he looked at the matter years ago and that no European money is available. He explained that Slapton is unlike Venice—we probably understand that—because it is not a city sinking into the mire. The road at Slapton is the responsibility of the county council, not Europe: the council must find the solution, which is surely not beyond the wit of man today.
We have some strange goings on involving the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey)—I do not blame him for not being in his place, because he did not know that I intended to mention him. According to a Liberal Democrat press release, he intends to call on the Government for coastal funding. Surprise, surprise, questions appeared on the Order Paper asking for money for coastal funding. I wonder whether those questions were drafted by the hon. Gentleman or by the Liberal Democrat prospective parliamentary candidate for my area. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman sent the questions to the Table Office or whether she sent them there. The Minister probably does not know the answer to that, because I do not. However, some strange things are going on.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. If the Table Office accepted those questions, they must have been in order, and they must have been submitted by a Member of the House. It is important to put that on the record.
Mr. Steen: Of course they have been correctly submitted, Mr. Winterton. The point is that once the written question is signed by the Member of Parliament, anyone can send it in.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I must also tell the hon. Gentleman that if he makes an allegation against another hon. Member, as I perceive him to have done, he is obliged to give him notice. I hope that he understands that.
Mr. Steen: Enough public money has already been wasted on achieving nothing—everyone involved is publicly funded. The Coast and Countryside Service is publicly funded; the Slapton Ley field centre receives public funds; English Nature is publicly funded; Devon county council is publicly funded; South Hams district council; the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Environment Agency are publicly funded. An enormous number of people are involved, all funded by the taxpayer.
The communities do not want a massive granite structure—a sea defence-to try to deflect the sea at Start bay. If they did, the district council would of course
118WH
approach MAFF, but no one to whom I have spoken wants that unique, beautiful bay spoilt in such a way. Meanwhile, the county council has put up limestone boulders along the seaward side of the stricken road that are interacting chemically with the sea water, attracting some criticism. I wonder why they bothered to shore up the track when that is not what is needed. They said that they could not open the single track to heavy road vehicles because it would sink—but what about opening it to light vehicles?
It is common knowledge that the road has been reduced to half its width and seriously undermined. It is worth noting that, despite all the meetings between county engineers and other interested parties, no further progress appears to have been made to reopen the road from a month ago. Although Rome was not built in a day, I cannot believe that the Italians or the French would not have found a speedier solution.
The electorate want their road back. I have received endless letters from people at Slapton, Torcross, Dartmouth, Chillington and Strete, and from businesses such as the Torcross Gallery, the Park West holiday bungalows, Roxborough house hotel and the proprietors of the esteemed watering hole called the Start bay inn, which does a good plate of fish and chips. The new owners of the Tradesmans arms, which is also doing well, wrote to me as well. All my correspondents despair about what is happening—or, rather, what is not happening.
On 26 January, I asked the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he would assess the impact on tourism of the Slapton-Start bay road remaining closed during the summer of 2001. He replied that no decision had been taken on whether the closed section of the road between the monument and Strete Gate would remain closed for the summer. Is that still the case on 14 February? Will the Minister give the House some idea as to the timetable for reopening the road, and what the cost of stabilising measures might be?
The parliamentary answer provided on 6 February referred to joint meetings with relevant agencies discussing draft shoreline management plans. What has come of those discussions, and will they make any difference? What are the serious long-terms options if a new road is built next to the old one? I am told that no planning permission is needed for that option. However, the snag is that the road will fall into the sea at the next spring high tide, so the option is, sensibly, not being canvassed. The best idea so far is to build a 150 ft loop back from the present line, but planners, English Nature and the landowners must give approval.
Meanwhile, as Richard Kennell of Chillington said in a letter to the Dartmouth Chronicle on 9 February,
"The loss of the coast road will cut trade in half and has serious implications, not only for travel and emergency services, but all businesses along the route."
The A379 is a vital link between Kingsbridge and Dartmouth. It is a recognised route of great scenic beauty, attracting much-needed tourist trade to an area hard pressed by the decline of agriculture and fishing. Local businesses rely heavily on passing trade to survive. The closure of the A379 above Blackpool sands a few years ago started the decline of local businesses, several of which have closed. The closure of that stretch of road forces motorists to use inadequate back lanes with few

119WH
passing places. The lanes were an attractive feature of the area, but the erosion of the high banks after prolonged rain and increased traffic has turned it into a mud bath. There is a real danger to life and limb, as Mr. and Mrs. Green told me with regard to Gara Mill, which is on that backwater route.
The emergency services cannot get to places within the proper response time. Those sharing the services of neighbouring communities, such as schools and doctors' surgeries, are under tremendous pressure. The closure creates a long and complex journey of an extra 20 miles. The notion that the road should not be reopened beggars belief. If we do not have a serviceable two-track road by Easter, how will charabancs get across the bay in the summer? It is imperative that transport should flow again as soon as possible between Torcross and Strete.
There is a simple solution: call in the Army. They should cease live firing on Dartmoor for a few weeks and throw their engineering expertise into creating a lifeline for the communities of south Devon. They could build a Bailey bridge overnight; if they did that in Bosnia, why not in Slapton? That would provide access for traffic in both directions which could be open by Easter. The permanent solution may take years to materialise, but the military solution could alleviate the problem.
I cannot impress on the House how important the road is to the communities involved. Any further prevarication, however well intentioned, verges on a dereliction of duty towards rural communities that are fighting for survival.
1.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Robert Ainsworth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing this debate about an issue that concerns his constituency. I recognise that he is worried about transportation problems in south Devon caused by the damage to the A379. On the night of 11–12 January, exceptional weather conditions in the form of an easterly gale, coinciding with high tides, caused severe damage to the A379 Slapton line. About 250 m of the road were reduced to a single lane. It is appropriate to pay tribute to those who carried out the emergency work in difficult and dangerous conditions. If it had not been carried out, it is highly probable that the shingle ridge would have been breached and the road completely lost. I understand that the work, including the provision of rock armouring, cost Devon county council close to £150,000. However, in spite of those efforts, the road remains closed while the conditions remain unsafe and until an appropriate solution can be found to allow it to reopen.
The context in which any decision can be taken on the future of the Slapton line is complicated. The shingle ridge and Slapton Ley, which it retains, lie within the South Devon area of outstanding natural beauty and heritage coast. The area is also a designated site of special scientific interest, as the hon. Gentleman said, and a national nature reserve, in recognition of its biological and geological importance. The site is owned by the Whitley Wildlife Conservation Trust, which in
120WH
turn leases it to a field studies centre that operates the Slapton Ley field centre and manages the national nature reserve. The site is extensively used for educational courses and research, and is probably one of the best documented in Great Britain. Schedule 9 to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 sets out a formal procedure that requires statutory undertakers, including local highway authorities, to obtain English Nature's approval before undertaking work affecting an SSSI.
I understand that some conservation interests criticised the emergency actions to protect the Slapton line, considering that they interfered unacceptably with the prevailing coastal processes. They remain concerned that measures to reinstate or replace the A379 should not adversely affect the SSSI or the NNR. However, following a meeting between the county council, the district council, the conservation bodies, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Environment Agency, those initial criticisms have diminished, with the greater awareness of the road's importance to the community's social and economic well-being.

The Slapton line provides a vital communication link between the settlements east of Kingsbridge and west of Dartmouth and is a popular route for tourists and visitors throughout the year. It is identified as the emergency alternative route to the A3122/A381 between Kingsbridge and Dartmouth, should that be blocked. I know that business and community interests in the severed communities have expressed considerable concern about the disruption and loss of trade, as well as the inconvenience and damage caused by increased use of the surrounding minor road network.
Clearly the county council's immediate concern is to reopen the road for safe use by traffic as quickly as possible but in a way that causes as little damage as possible to the special features of Slapton Ley. It is also apparent that a permanent solution is an ambition that can be achieved only in the long term. Given the complexity of the issues involved, considerable research will be needed to inform the design and the decision-making process, including assessments of present and projected coastal processes, the impact on the natural environment and economic considerations. Such research could take between two and three years, and it is unlikely that a new permanent road would be in place within less than five years.
Devon county council is therefore urgently seeking a long-term solution and, in the interim, a temporary scheme that will serve the local community's needs and have the least damaging affect on the SSSI and the nature reserve.
Mr. Steen: Will the Minister give way on that point, or is he pushed for time?
Mr. Ainsworth: I am pushed for time, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
Although a distinction is drawn between the maintenance of coastal defence works and the maintenance of the highway—particularly in terms of the responsibilities of public bodies and funding sources—in the determination of a long-term solution, they are closely interrelated. South Hams district council has discretionary powers to undertake coastal

121WH
protection work and apply for coast protection funding from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, while the county council takes responsibility as the highway authority.
There are advantages to both authorities working in partnership to secure an appropriate long-term solution. To that end, a meeting between the two was held on Friday 2 February, where it was recognised that considerable research would be required, which would probably entail the employment of consultants at significant cost. There is a need to identify possible funding sources, both national and European. It was agreed to establish three groups to develop a long-term solution. I welcome the decision of both authorities to work closely to develop a long-term solution and to engage the local community.
On the issue of an interim solution—the hon. Gentleman majored on that—Devon county council has examined various options. Reopening the existing road as a single lane stretch with passing bays and temporary traffic lights has been ruled out because of the storm damage to the ridge on the seaward side. At its meeting on 12 February, Devon county council resolved to seek the necessary approvals, which include planning consent and/or assent under schedule 9 of the 2000 Act, for the construction of one of three options for a short-term solution to reopen the road.
The first option is a scheme that allows for realigning the road by moving the carriageway up to 25 m from the edge of the existing carriageway That would be sufficient distance from the area subject to erosion to give a reasonable expectation of at least five years' use, but without the need for extensive and expensive coastal protection works, which would be strongly resisted by English Nature and the landowners. The county council will continue to pursue an application for planning permission for that scheme, which will be accompanied
122WH
by an environmental impact assessment, in the hope that the consent of English Nature and the landowner will be forthcoming.
The second option is a lateral extension of the existing carriageway to provide a two-lane carriageway, including rock armouring or equivalent coastal protection works. The county council considers that those works would be a permitted development and would not require planning permission.
The third option is a lateral extension of the existing carriageway, but without the rock armouring or other coastal protection works. The views of English Nature and the landowners are awaited on all three options.
It seems clear that the county council's immediate concern is to reopen the road as quickly as possible because of its importance to the local community and economy, and its role as an emergency route.
Mr. Steen: Will the Minister investigate whether the Army can help? Nobody has yet considered bringing it in, it is located on Dartmoor and it would enjoy a real-life challenge.
Mr. Ainsworth: I am certain that if a solution can be agreed, the county council will look for help wherever it is available. The agreement of the landowners and English Nature will be needed, so I cannot see there being an immediate solution. In my view, the county council should be commended for the speed of its emergency action and for its partnership working to develop a long-term solution that takes account of the area's biological and geological importance.
I am aware of the meetings with Railtrack and I shall try to get back to the hon. Gentleman at a later date on the rail issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

HEALTH

  Variant CJD
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will make an announcement on compensation for victims of variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease. [150839]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are committed to constructing a compensation scheme that is effective and properly meets the needs of those affected. Discussions are under way with the legal representatives of the families affected. In the meantime we will be making interim payments of £25,000 when regulations have been put in place to ensure the payments are not taken into account in the calculation of income-related social security benefits and are exempted from the provisions of the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997. We intend to present this legislation to Parliament as soon as possible. Details of the full compensation package are still under consideration.

  Communication Aids
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response he plans to make to the recent Scope report, "Speak for Yourself?, concerning communication aids. [150078]

  Mr. Hutton
  The report is a detailed and very valuable assessment of the importance of communication aids for disabled people and we are studying its recommendations carefully.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  North Korea
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on UK aid to North Korea. [150311]

  Mr. Mullin
  The UK has provided humanitarian assistance in North Korea by channelling modest and well-targeted contributions through UN agencies and international non-governmental organisations—over £2.5 million since 1998. The programmes we support have primarily focused on agricultural rehabilitation and food security. In addition, the UK share of humanitarian assistance to North Korea through the EC was approximately £0.5 million in 1999–2000.

  Our engagement with North Korea through provision of humanitarian assistance has been instrumental in opening the country up to external influences. It has allowed us to maintain a dialogue with the North Korean authorities on issues of concern such as human rights abuse, the misappropriation of aid, and the problems of
  132W
  access faced by agencies working in the country. We will continue to work through the EU and with the international community as a whole to encourage a process of transformation in North Korea.

  Brahimi Report
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about the Brahimi report. [149875]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Brahimi report makes a number of fundamental recommendations on improving the way the UN and the international community tackle peacekeeping, conflict prevention and peacebuilding, and on clarifying the mandates of UN agencies involved in tackling crises and conflict situations. The UK is very supportive of the Brahimi report and is working with the UN and other member states to take rapid and decision action on its speedy and effective implementation.

DEFENCE

  Shipwrecks
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to place the consultation document on the protection of sunken military vessels in the Library. [150689]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have today placed a copy of the consultation paper in the Libraries of both Houses.

  A copy of the consultation paper has been sent to those hon. Members who have shown an interest in the subject of the protection of military maritime graves.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if members of the armed forces who received multiple vaccines in preparation for deployment during the Gulf War, but were not deployed, are eligible to participate in the Gulf veterans medical assessment programme. [150260]

  Mr. Spellar
  Yes. The Gulf veterans medical assessment programme is open to all present and former Service personnel or Ministry of Defence civilians who believe that their health has suffered as a direct result of the Gulf conflict.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Television Reception
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he takes to ensure that publicly funded projects do not cause disruption of television reception for neighbouring households during building works and after completion. [149668]

  Janet Anderson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is responsible for the Planning Policy Guidance note 8 on telecommunications development in England. This includes advice on the potential in any development to
  133W
  interfere with television reception. The Scottish Executive are responsible for such planning policy issues in Scotland.

  BBC
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will ask the BBC to publish figures indicating the(a) funding of and (b) audience figures for (i) BBC Choice, (ii) BBC Knowledge and (iii) BBC 24 hours since their inception. [150213]

  Janet Anderson
  The BBC has published figures showing their spending on each of these channels in the Corporation's Annual Report and Accounts every year since they were launched. Audience figures are published independently by BARB, the Broadcasters' Audience Research Board Ltd.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what permission was sought by the BBC from his Department in launching(a) BBC Choice, (b) BBC Knowledge and (c) BBC 24 hours. [150212]

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Total

  Discretionary spending on Government measures

  200

  200

  1,270

  2,730

  4,390

  8,800

  Net cost of earnings uprating

  —

  140

  500

  1,380

  1,570

  3,580

  Extra spending above earnings uprating

  200

  60

  770

  1,360

  2,830

  5,220

  Notes:

  1. Our measures included the above-inflation increase in the basic State Pension, the Minimum Income Guarantee, Winter Fuel Payments and concessionary TV licences for those aged 75 and over.

  2. It is assumed that the date at which uprating of basic State Pension by earnings begins is April 1998.

  3. Costs are net of income-related benefits. Gross costs have been estimated by the Government Actuary's Department. Income-related benefit offsets are estimated using the Policy Simulation Model.

  4. The cost of linked benefits, particularly widows'/bereavement benefits, is excluded.

  5. The definition of earnings used for uprating is the average earnings index, seasonally adjusted, in the three months to July in the preceding year.

  6. The costs are shown in 1999–2000 prices and are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  Maternity Grant
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many mothers in Yorkshire and Humberside received maternity grant in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000 to date; and what the value of the grant was in each of these years. [149438]

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

  Maternity Payment (MP) and Sure Start Maternity Grant (SSMG) awards for the Benefits Agency's Yorkshire area directorate

  £

  Financial year

  Application type

  Number of awards

  Amount awarded

  1996–97

  MP

  13,437

  1,361,110.55

  SSMG

  0

  0.00

  Total

  13,437

  1,361,110.55

  1997–98

  MP

  12,839

  1,301,124.37

  SSMG

  0

  0.00

  Total

  12,839

  1,301,124.37

  1998–99

  MP

  13,512

  1,366,846.65

  SSMG

  0

  0.00

  Total

  13,512

  1,366,846.65

  134W
  Janet Anderson
  BBC Choice and BBC News 24 were approved in principle in March 1997 and BBC Knowledge in January 1998. Specific approvals were given for the carriage of these new services on digital terrestrial television digital satellite and digital cable in February 1998, Ma) 1998 and October 1999 respectively.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pension-earnings Link
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will calculate the extra cost if state retirement pensions had been linked to earnings since 1997. [149082]

  Mr. Rooker
  If our policy had been only to link the basic pension to earnings we would have spent £5.2 billion less over a five-year period. Instead we will have spent an estimated £3.5 billion extra in the five years since 1997–98 as a result of our discretionary measures for pensioners. This is over £5 billion more than uprating the basic state pension by earnings since April 1998.

  Further details arc in the table.

  Maternity Payment (MP) and Sure Start Maternity Grant (SSMG) awards for the Benefits Agency's Yorkshire area directorate

  £

  Financial year

  Application type

  Number of awards

  Amount awarded

  1999–2000

  MP

  12,950

  1,312,264.05

  SSMG

  2

  300.00

  Total

  12,952

  1,312,564.05

  2000–2001

  MP

  1,415

  144,100.00

  SSMG

  9,038

  2,071,767.00

  Total

  10,453

  2,215,867.00

  Notes:

  1. These figures are for the BA Yorkshire area directorate which comprise the following districts—South East Yorkshire, Rother and Dearne, Sheffield, Bradford and Keighley, Calderdale and Kirklees, Wakefield, East Yorkshire, Leeds and North Yorkshire.

  2. Sure Start Maternity Grant replaced the Social Fund Maternity Payment from 27 March 2000 for confinements/adoptions on or after 11 June 2000. The Social Fund Maternity Payment was £100 per child and the Sure Start Maternity Grant was initially £200 per child. This was increased to £300 for babies due, born or adopted from 3 December 2000. The amount of the SFMP or SSMG is reduced on a pound for pound basis by any savings over£500 held by an applicant or partner (£1,000 for applicants aged 60 or over).

  3. Figures for year 2000–2001 are for April to December 2000 only.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Yorkshire and Humberside received the Disability Working Allowance during the last year of its existence. [149440]

  Mr. Bayley
  Disabled Persons Tax Credit replaced Disability Working Allowance on 5 October 1999.

  In Yorkshire and Humberside there were 2,458 claimants in receipt of Disability Working Allowance at some time during the period 6 October 1998 to 4 October 1999. Of these, 2,130 were awards made during this period.

  Note:

  Figures show number of claimants rather than claims, as a person may have more than one award during the year.

  Source:

  100 per cent. count of Disability Working Allowance claims.

  Fraud
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary I of State for Social Security what progress he has made on his PSA target of reducing losses from fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance. [150793]

  Mr. Rooker
  In 1998 we set a PSA target to reduce fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance by 10 per cent. by March 2002. Provisional estimates show that the Department is likely to have met this target some 18 months earlier than anticipated. However, the Department has now set a more demanding target of reducing losses through fraud and error by 25 per cent. by March 2004 rising to 50 per cent. by March 2006.

  State Pension
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost to the Exchequer of increasing the basic state pension to £92 for a single person and £138 for a couple, Liking into account(a) savings in regard to (i) the Minimum Income Guarantee and (ii) other benefits payable to pensioners and (b) the consequent increases in receipts of tax revenue. [147606]

  Mr. Rooker
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 February 2001, c. 700W]: The information is in the table.

  Cost of increasing the basic state pension to £92 for a single person and £138 for a couple

  £ billion

  2001–02

  Gross total

  8.4

  Minimum Income Guarantee savings

  1

  Other income related benefit savings

  0.8

  Total income related benefit savings

  1.8

  Tax yield

  0.8

  Total net cost

  5.8

  Notes:

  1. All costs are given in £ billion to the nearest £100 million.

  2. Gross costs are estimated by the Government Actuary's Department.

  3. Income related benefits savings are estimated using the Policy Simulation Model.

  4. The tax effects are estimated by the Inland Revenue.
  136W
  5. Costs are given excluding widows and bereavement benefits whose rates are linked by law to the rate of basic Retirement Pension. Including them adds £200 million to the net costs.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much in the form of export credit guarantees has been made available for each year since 1992 to(a) the Hinduja Group and (b) subsidiaries of the Hinduja Group. [149696]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 9 February 2001]: No export guarantees have been issued to the Hinduja Group nor, as far as ECGD is aware, to any of its subsidiaries.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which members of the Hinduja family he has met since 3 May 1997; where such meetings have taken place; and for what purpose. [149839]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 2 February 2001,Official Report, column 336W, to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and the Weald (Miss Widdecombe).

  Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many modified sub-post offices there are and how many are run by interim sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. [150259]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that at the end of the third quarter of its current financial year, there were 655 modified sub-post offices. Of these, 33 were, at that date operated through temporary agents as a result of the resignation or termination of contract of the previous agent. In all such cases, the Post Office seeks to avoid any break in service and to ensure that standards of service are maintained until a new permanent agent can be appointed.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post office closures there were in the third quarter of 2000; and how many closures there were in total up to the end of that quarter in 2000. [148213]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 1 February 2001]: 135 sub-post offices closed in the third quarter of the financial year 2000–01. Between April and December 2000 closures totalled 434, of which four are permanent following consultations under the Code of Practice. The figures reflect a snapshot position on one single day and many of these closures will be of a temporary nature only. The Government recognise that this is a serious issue for the communities concerned and a range of measures will be implemented in the near future to address it. Recent research by the Post office into the reasons for sub-postmasters' resignations makes clear that personal circumstances, such as retirement and health, are the main reasons for resigning. Fewer than 10 per cent. cite financial reasons.

  Science Funding (North-West)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will break down the funding allocated to the North West for science in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000, by each major project. [146684]

  Dr. Howells
  A detailed breakdown of funding allocated to the North West by the Research Councils cannot be provided without disproportionate cost as the information is not held centrally in the format requested.

  Steel Imports
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much steel was imported into Britain in 2000; where it was imported from; where most of it was used; and if he will make a statement. [150249]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 13 February 2001]: Imports of finished steel products in 1999 and the first 11 months of 2000 were as follows.

  UK Imports of steel industry products

  Tonnes

  Region

  1999

  2000 (January to November)

  European Union

  Austria

  57,765

  77,479

  Belgium

  632,005

  598,770

  Denmark

  59,540

  49,075

  Finland

  223,063

  177,827

  France

  836,679

  712,908

  Germany

  1,353,337

  1,251,444

  Greece

  9,322

  20,021

  Irish Republic

  89,958

  89,381

  Italy

  301,440

  281,359

  Luxembourg

  54,638

  61,633

  Netherlands

  589,298

  452,202

  Portugal

  2,428

  2,837

  Spain

  374,353

  385,020

  Sweden

  494,291

  320,897

  United Kingdom1

  27,388

  222,611

  Total European Union

  5,105,505

  4,703,464

  Other Western Europe (not EU)

  601,234

  471,458

  Eastern Europe and CIS

  454,725

  829,004

  North Africa

  29,990

  34,421

  Central, East and South Africa

  80,353

  117,021

  West Africa

  15

  1,569

  North America

  64,943

  75,968

  Central and South America

  100,024

  70,240

  Near and Middle East

  1,651

  5,669

  Other Asian countries

  402,310

  388,724

  Australasia and other Oceania

  36,841

  35,499

  Unallocated

  7,093

  —

  Total

  6,884,681

  6,733,037

  1 Re-imports of steel that has been sent out of the UK for further processing.

  Notes:

  No statistical information is available on the subsequent use of these imports.

  Source:

  Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau.

  Digital Television
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to introduce rules to require the inclusion of a digital tuner in new television sets; and if he will make a statement. [148270]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have no plans to introduce rules requiring the inclusion of a digital tuner in new television sets. EU competition rules could preclude such requirements being made on a unilateral national basis.

  Annexe VI of the Directive on universal services and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks stipulates that all television sets sold in Europe should have at least one open interface socket permitting the connection of a digital receiver.

  The Government have recently announced a White Paper on enterprise, skills and innovation entitled "Opportunity For All in a World of Change" which outlines its plans for digital television.

  Family-friendly Employers
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of employers with a policy of allowing reduced working hours for fathers have(a) fewer than 20 employees, (b) 100 employees or less, (c) 200 employees or less and (d) more than 500 employees. [150109]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 13 February 2001]: A survey commissioned by the Department for Education and Employment in 2000 reports that 40 per cent. of fathers in workplaces Employing between five and 24 staff said that their employer would allow them to reduce their hours for an agreed period of time at reduced salary. Corresponding figures were 30 per cent. for those employees in workplaces employing between 25 and 99 employees, 34 per cent. in workplaces between 100 and 499 employees and 35 per cent. in workplaces employing more than 500 employees.

  Liquefied Petroleum Gas
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many firms in the UK manufacture LPG cylinders for the automotive industry; and how many cylinders were made in each year since 1995. [150197]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  No UK manufacturers of LPG cylinders for the automotive industry have been identified, no record of UK manufacture of LPG cylinders could be located since 1995.

  Departmental Initiatives (Pendle)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what initiatives embarked upon since May 1997 have benefited Pendle; and if he will make a statement. [149913]

  Mr. Caborn
  Pendle has benefited from the Department's employment rights policies, which include the national minimum wage, the working time directive, part-time working regulations and improved maternity leave.
  139W
  In the North West region, the Department's policies have also contributed to a growth in employment by 107,000 and a fall in unemployment by 63,000, and to reductions in youth employment by 75 per cent. and long-term unemployment by 54 per cent.

  Departmental Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was spent by his Department's Ministers on drinks and entertainment in 2000. [146371]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: The total spent by Ministers' offices on drinks and entertainment in the financial year 1999–2000, including the costs of some official DTI functions, was £19,834.

  Miners (Compensation)
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the accessibility of existing test centres for health compensation claims for former miners in the Leicestershire and South Derbyshire coalfields. [149616]

  Mr. Hain
  Claimants in the Leicestershire region are most likely to attend centres in Coventry, Nottingham or Cannock. For claimants in the South Derbyshire region, the centres at Nottingham, Mansfield and Chesterfield are usually suggested. To date, these centres have assessed through the full Medical Assessment Process, MAP, over 1,300 claimants, with a further 511 appointments made.

  Show

  Invitation received by

  Attended by

  Beef 2000

  Joyce Quin

  —

  Cereals 2000

  Elliot Morley

  Elliot Morley

  Cheshire County Show

  Nick Brown

  Elliot Morley

  CLA Game Fair

  Nick Brown and Elliot Morley

  Nick Brown and Elliot Morley

  Devon Show

  Joyce Quin

  Joyce Quin

  Driffield Show

  Nick Brown

  —

  East of England Show

  Nick Brown

  —

  Essex Show

  Nick Brown

  —

  European Dairy Farming Event

  Nick Brown

  Joyce Quin

  Great Yorkshire Show

  Nick Brown

  Elliot Morley

  Kent Show

  Joyce Quin

  Joyce Quin

  Lincolnshire Show

  Nick Brown

  Nick Brown

  National Fruit Show

  Nick Brown

  —

  Royal Bath and West Show

  Nick Brown

  Baroness Hayman

  Royal Highland Show

  Nick Brown

  Nick Brown

  Royal Norfolk Show

  Nick Brown

  Elliot Morley

  Sheep 2000

  Nick Brown

  Elliot Morley

  South of England Show

  Baroness Hayman

  Baroness Hayman

  South West Dairy Show

  Nick Brown

  Joyce Quin

  The Royal Show

  Nick Brown, Joyce Quin, Baroness Hayman and Elliot Morley

  Nick Brown, Joyce Quin, Baroness Hayman

  The Royal Smithfield Show

  Nick Brown

  Nick Brown, Baroness Hayman and Elliot Morley

  The Royal Welsh Show

  Nick Brown

  Nick Brown

  Three Counties Show

  Baroness Hayman

  Baroness Hayman

  Westmorland Show

  Joyce Quin

  —

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minster of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met his counterparts in(a) France and (b) the Czech Republic; and if he will make a statement. [145921]
  140W
  Claimants are usually asked to attend a test centre within a 25–mile radius of their residence. However, claimants are given the option to attend a different centre if a more suitable time is available. For those claimants who are not able to travel to a centre, and have a letter from their doctor, Healthcall carries out home visits.

  Export Controls Bill
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made by his Department on the publication of the draft Export Control Bill. [149904]

  Dr. Howells
  Work is continuing to prepare the draft Export Control Bill for publication and the Government will publish the Bill as soon as it is ready. It is not possible at this stage to give a precise date but we hope to be in a position to publish the Bill within the next few months.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agricultural Shows
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the agricultural shows this year(a) to which (i) he and (ii) other Ministers in his Department have received invitations and (b) which shows (i) he and (ii) each other Minister has attended. [144323]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 February 2001]: The table details the agricultural shows for which invitations were received, and which were attended by MAFF Ministers during 2000.

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I meet Jean Glavany regularly at EU Agriculture Council. I last met him for a formal bilateral discussion, in London, on 26 June 2000. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State met Jan Fencl on my behalf on 5 July 2000.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 10 January 2001,Official Report, column 562W, on GM crops, if the Government definition of GM agriculture is restricted to commercial agricultural activities. [147885]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]: Any assessment of the impact of GM agriculture on farmland values, which was the subject of the hon. Member's previous question, would need to consider the impact of commercial cultivation. Only limited GM crop trials are currently taking place in the UK.

  Agriculture (Employment and Production)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what(a) assumptions and (b) projections of agricultural employment and production levels apply to the Government's long-term strategy for agriculture. [150245]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 13 February 2001]: The Government's long-term agriculture strategy takes account of the changing economic circumstances facing the sector, including trends in employment and production levels. The underlying economic analysis is summarised in a MAFF publication "Strategy for Agriculture: Current and Prospective Economic Situation", which is available in the Libraries of the House, and associated MAFF working papers produced in March 2000. The key policies underpinning the strategy will be subject to economic evaluation.

  Agrimonetary Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Government have made representations at the EU level on the need for a replacement for the agrimonetary compensation system. [150247]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 13 February 2001]: The Council's agrimonetary regulations cover currency movements to the end of 2001 and provide for compensation which could extend over the next three years. No member state has pressed for a replacement at the present time.

  England Rural Development Programme
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the impact on funding of the ERDP if the modulation of agriculture subsidies at the stated percentages yields significantly less than the amounts expected. [150248]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 13 February 2001]: The funds raised through modulation of agriculture subsidies will be monitored closely throughout the life of the England Rural Development Programme.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if ERDP funding is subject to annual ring-fencing arrangements similar to those that apply to the money announced in March 2000 for pig farmers. [150329]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 13 February 2001]: No.

  Small Business Service
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what an initial consultation visit by the Small Business Service consists of. [150332]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 13 February 2001]: An initial consultation visit under the Farm Business Advice Service, which is being delivered for MAFF by the Small Business Service, is conducted by a Farm Business Adviser (FBA) and lasts approximately half a day. The FBA will look round the farm and discuss with the farmer the way the business is run and managed, financial matters and the aspirations for the business of the farmer and his/her family. Information required to undertake a business health check and to prepare a current farm balance sheet will be collected, which the farmer will normally have been forewarned to have ready, to help the FBA prepare an action plan following the initial visit. The FBA may also collect data to benchmark business performance. During the visit or on a subsequent visit the FBA might use the specially developed Connect CD to illustrate the options open to the farmer.

  In every case FBAs will tailor the service provided to meet the needs of the individual farmer.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the cost of the Small Business Service's agricultural activities have been to date; and how these costs have been met. [150331]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 13 February 2001]: Expenditure to date on the Farm Business Advice Service which is being delivered for MAFF by the Small Business Service(SBS) through Business Link outlets is £1,053,092. Business Links will be submitting invoices to cover the costs they have incurred delivering the service, over the period since its launch, at the end of February. All costs will be met from moneys allocated to MAFF under the Action Plan for Farming. Any funds allocated to this service for this financial year and not spent will be carried over to next year.

  Farmers do have access to the full range of other small business support services provided by the SBS, but the costs involved are not separately identified.

  Krebs Report
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his oral statement of 1 February 2001,Official Report, column 519, if all 10 triplets are running as specified in the Krebs report. [150330]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 13 February 2001]: As I informed the House on 1 February 2001, Official Report, column 519, all 10 triplets are in place. Initial proactive culling has been carried out in seven of them. Surveying is in progress in the other three, which are due to be proactively culled later this year. This is in line with the timetable set by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, which is overseeing the trial.

  Over-30-months Scheme
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the level of payments made through the OTMS in each year of the scheme's existence. [150244]
  143W
  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 13 February 2001]: The table shows actual OTMS expenditure for financial years 1996–97 to 1999–2000 and the forecast expenditure for 2000–01.

  £ million

  Purchase costs

  Disposal costs

  Total

  1996–971

  670

  188

  858

  1997–981

  288

  144

  432

  1998–991

  264

  116

  380

  1999–20001

  265

  129

  394

  2000–012

  265

  136

  401

  1 Outturn

  2 Forecast

  Pesticides
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) the national rules concerning data requirements in respect of applications for the approval of pesticides that were in place in 1990 and (b) amendments to the rules made since then, including the dates of such amendments; and if he will place copies of the rules and amendments in the Library. [149356]

  Ms Quin
  In 1990, the UK national rules on data requirements concerning applications for the approval of pesticides were set out in the "Data Requirements for Approval under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986" issued in October 1986. Amendments to the rules made since then include: in June 1992 a major addition in the form of Part One of "The COPR Handbook"; in December 1996, this was incorporated into "The Registration Handbook"; and in April 1999 the issue of a Volume II (last updated in December 1999) to the Registration Handbook.

  In June and December 2000, revised electronic versions of Part One, Part Two and Part Three of "The Registration Handbook" were placed on PSD's website www.pesticides.gov.uk as "The Application Handbook" and "The Data Requirements Handbook". Part Four of "The Registration Handbook" is under revision, but is currently available only as hard copy.

  Copies of these documents (including printouts of those available electronically) have been placed in the House Libraries. "The Registration Handbook", "The Application Handbook" and "The Data Requirements Handbook" are in their most up to date form, incorporating all the amendments made to them. Copies of all of the original pages superseded by these amendments could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  I will write to the hon. Member with further details and place copies of my letter in the Libraries of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Flags
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if it is the(a) policy and (b) practice of Her Majesty's Government to fly the flag of the country
  144W
  of a visiting Head of State (i) over and (ii) on a flag pole within, the precincts of a building which is being visited by a Head of State (1) officially, (2) privately and (3) who is temporarily resident in Northern Ireland. [150307]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government's policy and practice is to comply with the Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 which state that where a Government building is visited by a foreign Head of State during an official visit, the flag of that Head of State's country may be flown in addition to the Union flag, where a second flag pole makes this possible.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the special advisers working for him will relinquish their posts when the next general election is called. [149312]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 13 February 2001,Official Report, column 130W.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01, (i) his Department's total spending on advertising campaigns, (ii) the cost of each individual advertising campaign and (iii) the criteria that were established to gauge the effectiveness of each campaign; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of each campaign based on these criteria. [142712]

  Dr. Reid
  The information requested is outlined as follows:

  Year

  £

  1996–97

  135,938.07

  1997–98

  477,726.16

  1998–99

  887,303.00

  1999–2000

  330,630.95

  2000–01

  44,804.71

  Although these figures incorporate the total publicity/ advertising budget, there was an on-going campaign during the period in question, the mood/referendum campaign, which culminated with the May 1998 Good Friday Agreement referendum.

  The criterion used to evaluate the effectiveness of the campaign was the response in voter turnout when compared to other recent votes.

  For example, the average turnout in Northern Ireland constituencies at the May 1997 general election was 67.42 per cent. while the turnout for the referendum was 81 per cent., a 20 per cent. increase. An on-going assessment of the campaign, which was carried out by the advertising company, showed the general public to be very aware of the choices they faced, proving the effectiveness of the campaign itself.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions on which(a) Ministers and (b) officials received (i) formal and (ii) informal representations concerning Iran from (A) the Hinduja brothers and (B) their representatives and representatives of their companies since 2 May 1997. [148385]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: It is not the normal practice of the Government to release details of meetings or discussions by officials with private individuals or companies. The Foreign Secretary, accompanied by an official, discussed India and Iran with GP Hinduja before and after the Foreign Secretary's visit to India in April 2000. The discussion focused on commercial opportunities for UK business in both countries. There was no mention of the question of nationality.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to amend the Foreign and Commonwealth Office departmental expenditure limit/running cost limit for 2000–01. [150691]

  Mr. Wilson
  The information is as follows:Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class VII Vote I, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office departmental expenditure limit for 2000–01 will be increased by £42,289,000 from £1,210,333,000 to £1,252,622,000 and the running cost limit has been increased by £1,797,000 from £531,982,000 to £533,779,000. This is the net effect of:

  (i) a transfer of £16,000 to the Ministry of Defence (Class VI, Vote 2), in respect of our final contribution to the grant-in-aid to the Atlantic Council of the UK;

  (ii) an increase of £5,441,000 in respect of an adjustment for Overseas price movements;

  (iii) a transfer of £1,920,000 to the Cabinet Office (Class XVII, Vote 2) for drugs assistance programmes;

  (iv) a transfer of £880,000 to the Cabinet Office (Class XVII, Vote 2) for revisions to charging regime;

  (v) an increase in both running costs and appropriations in aid of £1,248,000 in respect of increased receipts from OGD's;

  (iv) a transfer of £32,000 from BBC monitoring service to the Cabinet Office (Class XVII, Vote 2);

  (vii) an increase in both running costs and appropriations in aid of £5,300,000 to reflect an increase in our VAT recovery forecast;

  (viii) a decrease of £5,500,000 in both capital expenditure and A-in-A for FCO Estates Rationalisation;

  (ix) a PES transfer of £1,500,000 to the MOD representing the FCO's contribution to the enhanced package for the Sierra Leone Army;

  (x) a PES transfer of £168,000 from the War Pensions Agency to cover the costs of medical examinations for overseas pensioners;

  (xi) additional provision of £39,808,000 on Section B for UK contributions to United Nations Missions in the former Yugoslavia (includes UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo) and the former Soviet Union, United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Iraq), United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observer Mission, United Nations Mission for the Referendum on Western Sahara, United Nations Transitional Authority in East Timor, United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone, United Nations Observer Mission in
  146W
  the Democratic Republic of Congo, United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea, the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the European Community Monitoring Mission and Western European Union Police Mission in Albania. This is partially offset by an increase of £344,000 in appropriations-in-aid in respect of non-baseline peacekeeping and by £10,761,000 from Section E, General VAT Refunds;

  (xii) The supplementary estimate is also required to note an increase in Section C, to reflect PES transfers of £46,000 to the Cabinet Office (Class XVII, Vote 2) and £52,000 to the Cabinet Office (Class XVII, Vote 1);

  (xiii) The supplementary estimate is also required to note an increase of £1,998,000 of Section D, in respect of an adjustment for Overseas Price Movement for the British Council.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the average cost of suspension of(a) a case worker and (b) a teacher investigated for child abuse in the last three years. [149429]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have been asked to reply.

  Decisions as to whether an employee is to be suspended, and consideration of the costs of suspension, are matters for employers to consider when faced with allegations of serious misconduct that may necessitate management inquiries. Employers are not required to provide the Government with analysis of the costs of any suspensions of employees. As such, there is no information held centrally about the average costs of suspensions involving social services caseworkers or teachers who are the subject of investigations following allegations of child abuse.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Fireworks
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the subject of pollution from the use of fireworks over the last Christmas and New Year period; and if he will make a statement. [148168]

  Mr. Hill
  I am not aware of any such representations. I have had a letter from a Member concerning noise from fireworks over the holiday period.

  Levels of air pollution measured by the national monitoring network remained low throughout this time in most parts of England. There were two occasions when levels of particles (PM10) at roadsides were recorded as moderate—on 23 December in central London and on 30 December in Bury in Greater Manchester. These incidents are most likely to have been caused by motor vehicle emissions during stable atmospheric dispersion conditions. Any contribution to the levels of those pollutants from the ignition of fireworks are likely to have been small. The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland sets objectives for the main air pollutants. The objective for particles allows for the 24-hour mean to be exceeded no more than 35 times a year. In part, this is to provide for annual

  147W
  events such as bonfire night and other festivals where fire and fireworks form part of the celebration. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment announced that we shall consult on proposals for a new objective for particles later this year.

  Crematoria
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to investigate flue gas emissions from crematoria to ensure they meet the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and if he will make a statement. [148304]

  Mr. Hill
  Emissions of various pollutants are already regulated and monitored by local authorities under Part I of the 1990 Act.

  In addition, we have been working with the Federation of British Cremation Authorities since 1999 on the issue of mercury emissions from crematoria. We have commissioned monitoring of mercury in the vicinity of a crematorium in the West Midlands and we know that the federation has recently arranged for mercury monitoring to be undertaken at a number of crematoria. Once we have the necessary information on which to base a decision, we will decide whether to include a limit for mercury emissions from existing crematoria in statutory guidance on the Best Available Techniques Not Entailing Excessive Cost.

  European Maritime Safety Agency
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his Department's policy is concerning the proposed establishment of a European Maritime Safety Agency, with specific reference to the issue of tanker traffic in the Minch; and if he will make a statement. [149428]

  Mr. Hill
  We support the stated aims of the EMSA to the extent that it could provide a source of technical expertise to review the operation of existing maritime safety directives and scrutinise the case for any additional regulation. We consider that, to the extent that it improves performance across the Community, it could contribute to enhancing safety and reducing pollution risks. However, we do have concerns about the risk of Commission centralism, and take the view that member states would have to have effective control of the Agency.

  The EMSA would not replace met members states' national maritime agencies, which would continue to exercise their existing responsibilities. For the UK the relevant national agency is the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA).

  There has been an internationally agreed recommendation on navigation in place for the Minch since November 1993, by which all laden tanks over 10,000 gross tonnage are requested not to pass east of the Outer Hebrides, through the Little Minch and North Minch, except because of stress of weather or any other case of "force majeure". Responsibility for implementing this recommendation rests with the MCA.

  The current position in respect of traffic through the Minch is that although there has been apparent increase in the number of vessels, based upon the year-on-year increase in reports received by Stornoway Coastguard
  148W
  Station, Coastguard personnel believe that the actual number of vessels shows no significant change. The apparent increase continues to be attributed to vessels that have previously been unaware of the reporting scheme but are now actively participating.

  However, the number of laden tankers over 10,000 gross tonnage using the Minch route remains low and only 18 were recorded during 2000. In the majority of these cases, the reason given by the vessel's master and accepted by the MCA was forecast adverse weather in the deep-water route to the west of the Outer Hebrides. Where there appears to be no justification for using the Minch, MCA contacts the vessel's operators for an explanation.

  On occasions where large laden tankers do use the Minch, the Minch Emergency Towing Vessel (ETV) endeavours to escort such laden tankers to minimise any risk involved. At present, the ETV is on station in the Minch during the winter months only (October-March), but, with effect from October 2001, there will be ETV cover all year round.

  With the phased introduction of automatic identification systems (AIS) under the revision of Chapter V of the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention, all tankers on international voyages must have such equipment fitted not later than the first annual safety equipment survey after 1 July 2003, unless they are scheduled to be scrapped within two years of the implementation date. This requirement should further enhance the level of reporting in this particular area.

  Park Homes Working Party
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the Government's response to the recommendations of the Park Homes Working Party; and if he will make a statement. [149750]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  We have consulted on, and are considering, the recommendations of the Park Homes Working Party. We will give our response to the recommendations in due course.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the governmental inquiry into Mr. Douglas Andrew's role in the privatisation of New Zealand's steel industry in respect of the involvement of Mr. Andrew of the Civil Aviation Authority in advising the Government on the future of the National Air Traffic Services; [149597]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 5 February 2001, Official Report, columns 382–83W, if he will publish the minutes and notes of any working groups run by his Department on the economic regulatory and licensing regime for the NATS public-private partnership in which Mr. Douglas Andrew has participated; [149599]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 5 February 2001, Official Report, columns 382–83W, for what reasons Mr. Douglas Andrew has held meetings with the three potential partners during the bidding process; [149598]
  149W
  (4) pursuant to his answer of 5 February 2001, Official Report, columns 382–83W, what steps were taken by the Government to satisfy itself that Mr. Douglas Andrew was the most appropriate person for reappointment in 2000 as the head of the Civil Aviation Authority's economic regulation group. [149596]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Before reappointing Mr. Andrew in April 2000, the Government satisfied themselves as to his track record as a member of the Civil Aviation Authority. They saw, and continue to see, no reason to make further inquiries about Mr. Andrew's career prior to joining the CAA.

  Mr. Andrew's meetings with the bidders for the role of strategic partner in the public-private partnership for National Air Traffic Services were to enable the bidders to discuss questions about the future economic regulatory process.

  The working groups run by my Department, to which I referred in my earlier answer, were integral to the provision of advice to Ministers on the public-private partnership, and it would not be appropriate to publish the minutes.

  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consideration he is giving to selecting a strategic partner for the PPP for NATS on the basis of not-for-commercial-profit. [149848]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Bids for the NATS PPP were received by the Government on 31 January 2001 from the three consortiums who were invited to submit offers in November 2000. These are NIMBUS, NOVARES and The Airline Group. These three bids are currently being assessed against the evaluation criteria provided to them in November 2000 and against the Government objectives for this PPP. The evaluation criteria and the Government objectives do not preclude any bid from being on the basis of not-for-commercial-profit.

  Animal Waste Incineration
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if a Regulatory Impact Assessment will be undertaken before new standards and controls are introduced in respect of emissions from(a) incinerators of animal waste and (b) pet crematoria. [150010]

  Mr. Hill
  A Regulatory Impact Assessment was undertaken of the then proposed Waste Incineration Directive, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has since commissioned a study by ADAS Consulting to assess more accurately how many small animal carcase incinerators are in operation. A preliminary Regulatory Impact Assessment was issued by MAFF last November for the draft EU Animal By-Products Regulation. In addition, AEA Technology has been commissioned by MAFF to measure emissions at a representative sample of small animal waste incinerators to provide a firm basis for determining proportionate standards. MAFF will be making available the two studies when they are completed, subject to commercial confidentiality considerations.
  150W
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the environmental benefits and disbenefits of using different fuels to incinerate animal waste. [150007]

  Mr. Hill
  None to my knowledge. The AEA Technology study referred to in the previous answer will examine incinerators using different fuels.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what communications his Department has had with National Industrial Fuel Efficiency Services Ltd. concerning the development of UK standards for emissions from small incinerators of animal waste, in the context of the European Union Waste Incineration Directive and proposed animal waste directive; and if he will make a statement. [150008]

  Mr. Hill
  None to my knowledge.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to ensure that the pet crematoria industry is not economically damaged by EU measures. [150009]

  Mr. Hill
  Partly at the UK's behest, the adopted Waste Incineration Directive (2000/76/EC) excludes animal carcases from its scope.

  As regards the current draft EU Animal By-Products Regulation, it is our aim in the negotiation of this regulation to secure requirements akin to those in the Waste Incineration Directive for animal carcase incinerators on premises where there is an incineration capacity of over 50kg/hr, and proportionate, less stringent, requirements where the incineration capacity is smaller. The Association of Private Pet Cemeteries and Crematoria will be among the interested organisations consulted during the negotiation of the regulation.

  Leylandii Hedges
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans to control leylandii hedges and the proposed timetable for their implementation. [150070]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  In August last year, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment announced our commitment to introduce legislation that would give local authorities powers to deal with complaints about problem hedges, including leylandii. Although it was not possible to make provision for such a Bill in the Queen's Speech, the issue is being taken forward as a private Member's Bill by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). The High Hedges Bill was introduced on 17 January and is due to have its Second Reading on 9 March.

  Strategic Planning Expenditure
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the levels of spending on strategic planning per head of population in(a) Staffordshire and (b) each other county of England (i) in the current year and (ii) in each of the last three years. [150016]
  151W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Local authority expenditure on strategic planning is not separately identified in any of the returns made by local government to central Government, so we are unable to provide the information requested.

  Powershift Programme
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 26 January 2001,Official Report, column 732W, on eligibility criteria for the Powershift programme, what meetings Ministers in his Department have had over the past 12 months with vehicle manufacturers to encourage them to manufacture production line gas vehicles; what other measures his Department has taken in pursuit of his objective; and what the response has been from the vehicle manufacturers. [150000]

  Mr. Hill
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer on 7 February 2001,Official Report, columns 535–36W.

  Planning
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will codify the way in which the requirements for developments in guideline areas are brought to the attention of planning committees. [149645]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  This is an operational matter for local planning authorities' own discretion. The Local Government Association's "Probity in Planning" includes guidelines for officer reports to planning committees. This advises that relevant points will include a clear exposition of the development plan, site-related history, and any other material considerations.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how breaches of codes of conduct on relationships between planning officers and(a) applicants and (b) planning consultants are recorded. [149641]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  There is no centrally-prescribed method for recording breaches of codes of conduct. However, the Local Government Ombudsman's guidance note "Devising a Complaints System" gives advice to local authorities on conducting an internal investigation of a complaint, including the recording of its outcome. Breaches of codes of conduct may also be the subject of investigation and formal report by the Local Government Ombudsman.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to(a) clarify and (b) amend the rules by which application dates are determined in planning cases; [150005]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the rules by which an application date is determined following pre-application discussions in planning cases. [150006]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  It is for applicants to decide when to make a formal planning application to the local planning authority. This may or may not follow pre-application discussions. All applications made to an authority are recorded in that authority's planning register. The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 requires local planning authorities to give an applicant notice of their decision within eight 152W
  weeks of receipt of a valid planning application. However, the applicant and the local planning authority may agree in writing an extended period for determining the application, unless the applicant has already given notice of appeal to the Secretary of State. We have no plans to amend the existing provisions.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the scope that planning officers have for interpreting the provisions relating to guideline areas without the permission of elected representatives. [150027]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Under section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, all planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan for the area unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended, provides for planning applications to be determined by an officer on behalf of the council, in accordance with clearly stated and published rules. Elected members decide the policies in the development plan and determine the framework of other policies, standards and guidance within which applications are considered. Elected members also set the terms of any delegation agreement, including the circumstances in which an officer's delegated power to make a decision may not be exercised. The Local Government Association's "Development Control: Delegation Arrangements" advises that common exceptions to delegated powers will be applications which are contrary to the policies in the development plan for the area and contrary to approved council policies.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to give objectors in planning cases non-judicial alternative forms of appeal. [149903]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We have no current plans to do so.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to reduce the number of signatures required for a petition in planning cases in low density areas. [150019]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  There is no prescribed number of signatures that constitutes a petition for planning purposes. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities are required to take into account relevant representations made to them within the time limit specified. It is for authorities to decide what weight to give to such representations, having regard to the circumstances of the particular case.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will(a) allow objectors to apply for costs when participating in planning appeals and (b) increase and standardise the timescale for objections to be submitted in planning cases. [150029]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  (a) Fundamental to the working of the planning system, including planning appeals, is the fact that each party meets its own expenses. Thus parties to planning appeals going to inquiry normally meet their own costs. However, the Secretary of State has the power

  153W
  to order one party to pay another's costs where one party has behaved unreasonably and has caused another to incur unnecessary expense as a result.

  (b) Streamlined statutory procedures for handling planning appeals were introduced in August last year following public consultation. These require other parties to submit their comments or statements of case to the Secretary of State in the same timescale within which local planning authorities and appellants submit their statements. The operation of the new procedures is being monitored but we have no current plans to change them.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will require local authorities to place a time limit on pre-application discussions between planning officers and applicants or their representatives. [150024]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  This is an operational matter for local planning authorities' discretion.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to(a) prevent planning committees from being held in holiday periods and (b) permit objectors to make closing statements at planning appeals. [150020]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  (a) We have no plans to do so. This is an operational matter for individual local authorities to determine.

  (b) The statutory rules for handling planning appeals prescribe the arrangements for parties making statements at hearings or inquiries. The rules already make provision for closing statements by objectors in particular circumstances but inspectors have discretion to allow them in other circumstances. DETR Circular 5/2000 "Planning Appeals: Procedure (Including Inquiries into Called-in Planning Applications)" provides guidance on the procedure at hearings and inquiries.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out carbon dioxide emission projection figures for(a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003, (d) 2004, (e) 2005, (f) 2006, (g) 2007, (h) 2008 and (i) 2009 on the same basis as is used for the preparation of figures for Table 1 in Section 2, Chapter 1 of the final Climate Change Programme, Cm 4913. [149872]

  Mr. Meacher
  Data for 2005 are published in Table 1 in Section 2, Chapter 1 of the final Climate Change Programme. Data for intermediate years are not available because the UK energy model makes projections at five yearly intervals. Intermediate years may be constructed by interpolation, but this does not add additional information and can be misleading because emissions in individual years are affected by statistical factors, including the weather and the economic cycle.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason the figures relating to carbon dioxide emissions and carbon dioxide emission projections in Table 1 of Section 2, Chapter 1 of the final Climate Change Programme, Cm 4913, differ from those in Table 1 of Section 2, Chapter 1 of the draft Climate Change Programme. [149869]
  154W
  Mr. Meacher
  The carbon dioxide emission estimate for 1990 is from the UK emissions inventory and is given as 168 million tonnes of carbon in both the Climate Change Programme and the draft Climate Change Programme. The projections for years 2000, 2010 and 2020 compare as follows:

  Million tonnes

  Year

  Climate change programme

  Draft climate change programme

  2000

  154.3

  152.2

  2010

  153.8

  156.3

  2020

  160.7

  164.7

  Most of the differences reflect revisions to UK energy projections made following the consultation process described in Energy Paper 68 (see section 1.2, page 8). The main factor influencing the projection for 2000 is a lower expectation of nuclear output together with a higher coal burn. In subsequent years higher power station emissions are outweighed by lower emissions from industry and refineries. Industrial emissions are projected to be lower than previously estimated partly due to lower estimated emissions from offshore activity. Projected emissions from land use change have also been revised downward slightly because of methodological improvements and minor updates resulting from emissions data in the latest greenhouse gas inventory. Provisional data on actual emissions in 2000 will be available in March.

  Air Liberalisation
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made in the negotiations with the United States on air liberalisation. [149855]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Negotiations with the previous US Administration did not lead to an agreement. We will be pressing the new Administration to liberalise the market on terms which deliver a fair balance of opportunity to the airlines of the two sides, bringing the benefits of increased competition both to the consumer and to the wider UK economy.

  A6 Bus Lane
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the A6 bus lane in Loughborough since its introduction. [150021]

  Mr. Hill
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Tim Matthews, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Andrew Reed, dated 14 February 2001:
  The Transport Minister, Keith Hill, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the bus lane on the A6 in Loughborough.
  This was introduced in an experimental basis in March 1999. Our assessment of the scheme is very positive: there have been improvements in bus journey time reliability and car journey times at the height of the morning peak and a reduction in maximum queue lengths. Although the proposal was generally well received there were some objections. We are trying to resolve these before deciding whether or not we should make permanent arrangements for its operation and enforcement. We hope that will be around April.

  155W
  If you require any further information in the meantime please contact David Smith, the Project Sponsor for this scheme. His telephone number is 0121 678 8054.

  Central Railway (Freight Line)
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the Government's policy is on the proposals by Central Railway for a new direct freight line to Europe from the north-west; if he will publish the advice that he has received from the Strategic Rail Authority on this matter; and what discussions have taken place with Central Railway about the proposed line. [149840]

  Mr. Hill
  Central Railway has requested the Government's support for the approval of its scheme through a hybrid Bill but the company has not yet submitted details of its proposals.

  The SRA is to undertake a review of Central Railway's proposals. This will examine the project in the context of our 10-Year Plan objectives and the SRA's own strategy for freight. I will follow the review with interest and make a further statement in due course, taking into account the SRA's findings.

  A3, Hindhead
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the UVA consultants' report on the Hindhead A3 tunnel. [150305]

  Mr. Hill
  The consultant's report on the A3 Hindhead study is currently with the South East England Regional Assembly and was presented to its plenary meeting today. It will then be for the A Assembly to make recommendations to Ministers. And decisions on the way forward will be taken in the light of these recommendations.

  Biocidal and Cosmetic Products
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his policy is on the discussion paper produced by the Environment Directorate of the European Commission on the interface between the Biocidal Products and Cosmetic Products Directives; what timetable has been proposed for consultation on this paper; and if he will place a copy of the paper and the Government's response in the Library. [148713]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]: The European Commission is currently drafting a document in order to clarify the borderline between the Biocidal Products Directive and the Cosmetics Directive. An expert working group that includes experts from member states (including the UK) and industry has discussed it. The working document is being modified and a final version has yet to be put formally to member states for comment. It is anticipated that member states will discuss a final draft next month.

  With regard to the scope of the Biocidal Products Directive, the UK policy is to encourage the European Commission to bring forward proposals concerning the interface with other Directives so that products are
  156W
  regulated under the most appropriate regime, and those required to comply with European legislation are clear about which legislation applies to their products.

  Once the working document has been lodged with us it will be placed in the House Library.

  Flood Plains
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consideration his Department has given to the implications of construction on flood plains on the south coast; what his assessments are of the increased risk of flooding from such construction; what preconditions have been imposed to guarantee the satisfactory disposal of sewage, wastewater and groundwater resulting from the construction of new housing estates and service roads; and if he will make a statement. [150117]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Policy INF1 in the draft Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9) states that:"Development should be guided away from areas at risk or likely to be at risk in future from flooding, or where it would increase the risk of flood damage elsewhere".

  The draft RPG advises that management proposals for the costal zone will also need to reflect strategies agreed between relevant bodies for flood defence. Shoreline management plans now exist for the whole of the south coast. These contribute towards the necessary understanding of coastal processes to inform the planning system in its assessment of flood risk and construction.

  The revised draft of Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 25 "Development and flood risk", published on 6 February, states:
  "those proposing particular developments are responsible for: providing an assessment of whether any proposed development is likely to be affected by flooding, whether it will increase flood risk elsewhere and of the measures proposed to deal with these effects and risks. It is then for the local planning authority, advised as necessary by the Environment Agency, to determine an application for planning permission taking account of all material considerations".

  The draft guidance also advises that, in reviewing sites at risk of flooding when preparing local plans, local planning authorities should review both existing and possible future allocations of land for development against the risk-based criteria set out in the sequential test in the draft PPG.

  The disposal of sewage, wastewater and groundwater resulting from the construction of new houses and service roads can be material considerations in the determination of applications for planning permission and should also be taken into account in preparing development plans. The draft PPG 25 advises on the need for close liaison between local authorities, the Environment Agency, sewerage undertakers and prospective developers to encourage the use of sustainable drainage systems and minimise the impacts of their discharges on receiving watercourses. In addition, the Government consulted in 2000 on amendments to Part H of the Building Regulations, proposing a number of amendments related to sustainable drainage. There are also proposals to reduce the risk of

  157W
  sewer flooding by the use of the anti-flood valves and pumps from basement connections and buildings in low-lying areas.

  Tugs
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the level of UK emergency towing provision; and if he will make a statement. [150658]

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recommendations he has received from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency on the all year round siting of an emergency towing vessel in the Pentland Firth; and if he will make a statement. [150401]

  Mr. Hill
  A review of UK emergency towing provision has now been completed by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and recommends that the current winter-only arrangements for UK provision in the South West Approaches, Dover Strait, Minch, and Fair Isle should be increased to all-year-round cover. I have accepted this recommendation.

  The new arrangements will start from 1 October this year, with the exception of the Dover Strait, which will commence earlier on 1 April. The Dover Strait provision builds on the partnership arrangements introduced last year with our French maritime colleagues.

  The report also considered emergency towing provision for the Irish Sea and St. George's Channel area. Although the report concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support an emergency towing vessel for the area on an all-year-round basis by the UK alone, it recommends that provision could be made in partnership with the Government of Ireland. I have accepted this recommendation, dependent upon the Irish Government providing an emergency towing vessel in which the UK Government can share. A dialogue will be maintained with the Irish Government.

  These improvements to the UK emergency towing vessel provision are good news for the safety of the UK environment and the seagoing community, and demonstrate this Government's commitment to preventing maritime pollution.

  Copies of the review report have been placed in the House Library.

  Ports
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) number and (b) percentages of UK ports are owned by (i) Associated British Ports and (ii) Hutchinson Whampoa Europe Ltd.; and what percentage of the UK port trade each of those companies carried out in each year from 1995. [150264]

  Mr. Hill
  There are more than 650 ports in the UK, of which about one fifth are commercially active. Associated British Ports (ABP) currently owns 23 ports and Hutchinson Whampoa (Hutchinson Ports (UK) Ltd.) owns three ports.
  158W
  It is estimated that ABP ports accounted for about 21 per cent. of all UK port tonnage in 1999 and Hutchinson Whampoa about 7 per cent. It is not possible to provide accurate figures for earlier years.

  Coalfields Regeneration Trust
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the funding of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. [150625]

  Mr. Prescott
  I am today announcing additional funding for the Coal fields Regeneration Trust in England of up to £45 million over the three years to March 2005. This reaffirms the Government's support for the coalfields communities and the excellent work of the Trust.

  The Coalfields Regeneration Trust is a key element of the Government s long-term programme to bring about the physical, social, economic and environmental regeneration of our coalfields.

  The Trust provides supports for local community projects. It also sponsors projects, targeted on workers displaced from mining-related industries, who have been unemployed for a long time and who face particular disadvantages in getting back to work. It has an important role to play in community capacity building, providing a forum for good regeneration practice to be exchanged across the coalfield communities. The Trust is actively building partnerships with local, regional and national agencies and reaching out to the private sector.

  With this addition funding the Trust will be able to maintain and develop further its key role in combating poverty, debt and social exclusion in the former coalfield areas.

  Chester Sweet Insurance Holdings
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the cost to the Policyholders Protection Board of the financial collapse of Chester Street Insurance Holdings; and if he will recompense those who believed they were covered under employers liability insurance by policies held by Chester Street Insurance. [148917]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  This is a matter for the Policyholders Protection Board. I understand that it is working with the provisional liquidators and Chester Street Insurance Holdings, which is currently assessing the information available about existing and potential claims.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal for Disabled People
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of eligible applicants for the New Deal for Disabled People will be excluded in order lo provide a control group for comparative purposes: on what basis they will be selected; and how long the period of exclusion would be before they became eligible for the programme. [147736]
  159W
  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]In pursuing a very innovative New Deal for Disabled People it is important to evaluate how effective the programme is in bringing people on incapacity benefit into work. The most robust methodology available is one based on random assignment and this will be used to evaluate the NDDP national extension. Once the programme is established one in five clients who register with job brokers will be allocated to a control group and have their eligibility deferred. The deferral period will last for 12 months, after which time members of the control group will be invited to take part in the NDDP extension.

  The control group will be selected entirely at random. During the deferral period, individuals in the control group will continue to have access to Employment Service programmes, including specialist disability employment programmes, where they meet the eligibility criteria.

  Exam Markers
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the availability of exam markers for next summer's public examinations. [147861]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]: All necessary steps are being taken to ensure a sufficient supply of examiners. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is monitoring the awarding bodies closely to ensure that the system will deliver I his summer's results on time. The awarding bodies' examiner recruitment exercise is well under way. The exact number of examiners needed will not be known until April, when entries have been made.

  Student Loans and Debt
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment at what point of net income in tax year 2000–01 a graduate repays more in old-style mortgage loan than in new-style income-contingent loan. [149799]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 13 February 2001]Assuming a student loan debt of £5,000 and repayment of a mortgage-style loan over a five-year period, a graduate liable to repay a mortgage-style loan would repay more of that loan each year until annual gross pay of £21,111 was reached. Repayment thresholds for both types of loan are based on gross pay, not net.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average amount of student debt was in each of the last five years. [149454]

  Mr. Wicks
  Data from the Department's Student Income and Expenditure Surveys show that the average debt of full-time students in higher education in the UK was £840 in 1995–96 and £2,530 in 1998–99, after their savings had been taken into account. The debt figures include student loans, commercial loans and overdrafts as well as informal loans from family and friends. Data for the intervening and more recent years are not available from the survey.
  160W
  Since 1998–99 students entering higher education have been eligible for income-contingent student loans. These are interest-free in real terms and repayment is linked to income so that graduates repay only when they can afford to do so.

  Students (Social Background)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will provide a breakdown of the social backgrounds of(a) university applicants and (b) university students for each of the last five years. [149455]

  Mr. Wicks
  The available information on full-time students, as given in the following table, covers only those who apply for full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS); data on the family background of students applying for part-time courses are not held centrally.

  UK domiciled applicants and accepted applicants via UCAS to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses in the UK

  Thousand

  Year of entry

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Applicants

  Professional

  49.9

  48.4

  47.0

  46.5

  45.8

  Intermediate

  139.0

  150.3

  147.3

  144.8

  144.7

  Skilled non-manual

  43.0

  49.6

  47.1

  47.1

  48.1

  Skilled manual

  58.2

  60.7

  58.9

  58.5

  57.2

  Partly skilled

  28.3

  32.2

  31.0

  30.8

  31.7

  Unskilled

  7.0

  7.9

  7.3

  7.5

  7.3

  Unknown

  39.4

  49.2

  51.0

  53.5

  54.3

  Total

  364.9

  398.3

  389.6

  388.7

  389.1

  Accepted applicants

  Professional

  39.3

  39.6

  38.5

  38.9

  38.8

  Intermediate

  105.0

  117.4

  115.6

  115.7

  117.7

  Skilled non-manual

  31.3

  37.3

  35.6

  36.3

  37.8

  Skilled manual

  40.9

  44.8

  44.2

  44.5

  44.4

  Partly skilled

  19.9

  23.5

  22.7

  23.1

  24.2

  Unskilled

  4.9

  5.6

  5.3

  5.5

  5.5

  Unknown

  27.1

  35.0

  36.6

  39.1

  40.3

  Total

  268.3

  303.3

  298.2

  303.1

  308.7

  Student Employment
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of students had term-time, part-time jobs during each of the last five years. [149458]

  Mr. Wicks
  Data from the Department's Student Income and Expenditure Survey show that about half of full-time higher education students had term-time jobs in 1995–96 and in 1998–99. Data for the intervening and more recent years are not available from the survey.

  A Further Education Funding Council survey of students in further education colleges undertaken in the summer of 1998 found that 73 per cent. of young full-time students (aged 16 to 18) and 41 per cent. of older full-time students worked during term-time.

  Supply Teachers
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement
  161W
  on his Department's decision to exclude positions occupied by supply teachers on a 12–month contract from the definition of teacher vacancies for the purposes of form 618G. [149819]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 9 February 2001]The definition is exactly the same as that used by the previous Administration. It allows sensible comparisons to be made over time—and gives an accurate picture of where schools have vacancies that are either unfilled or covered by short-term supply staff.

  Classroom Assistants
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of the additional 20,000 full-time equivalent classroom assistants which the Government have funded were recruited in 1999–2000; what his projection is for recruitment levels in 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [149880]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  An additional 24,000 education support staff have been recruited in schools since 1997, 11,000 in the last year. Against the target of 20,000 full-time equivalent teaching assistants between 1999 and 2000, between January 1999 and January 2000 over 9,000 full-time equivalent teaching assistants had been recruited. Schools have the funding to recruit more assistants and figures for January 2001 will be available later this year.

  Aiding Communication in Education Centre
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he plans to announce funding proposals for the Aiding Communication in Education Centre (North). [149522]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 8 February 2001]The Department for Education and Employment funds both the Aiding Communication in Education (ACE) Centre (North) and the Aiding Communication in Education (ACE) Centre Advisory Trust through the British Education Communications and Technology Agency.

  We are currently working with the ACE Centre (North) to support its transition to charitable status. We will continue to support the valuable work of these centres in providing services for children and young people who use communication aids.

  Paid Educational Leave
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what take-up there has been of the entitlement to paid educational leave for 16 to 17-year-olds since it was introduced; what the estimated cost has been to(a) state and (b) private employers; and if he will make a statement. [149611]

  Mr. Wicks
  This information is not collected centrally. The right to time off for study or training is employment legislation which protects and encourages 16 and 17-year-old employees who have not already achieved level 2 qualifications as defined by the regulations. At the end of 1999, there were an estimated 100,000 16 and 17-year-olds in England in employment but not qualified to level 2, and not working towards a level 2 qualification.
  162W
  Evidence from our initial evaluation (DIEE Research Report RR221 "Time Off for Study or Training: Preliminary Evaluation of the Implementation of the Employment Right") suggests that the right has stimulated activity to promote training to young people, and has had a positive effect on recruitment into modem apprenticeships, but this remains difficult to quantify.

  Higher Education Staff
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the increase in the productivity of higher education teaching staff since 1997. [149922]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Quality Assurance Agency assesses the quality of teaching in higher education institutions; and the research assessment exercises of the Higher Education Funding Council for England look at both the volume and quality of research. However, there is no direct measure of the productivity of higher education teaching staff.

  Select Committee Report
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what information(a) he and (b) Ministers in his Department received on the contents of the Education and Employment Select Committee's report on access to higher education, and the proceedings of the Committee prior to the publication of the report. [150055]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]In accordance with usual practice, Departments had access to the report from 11.00 am on 6 February 2001, under embargo until 00.01 on 8 February, when it was published. We received no prior information on the contents of the report.

  Funding Allocations
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the proposed levels are of(a) core funding for education business consortiums in 2001–02, (b) funding for work experience and (c) funding for teacher placements; and what the level of funding of education business partnerships through TECs was in 2000–01. [150063]

  Mr. Wicks
  Core funding of £23 million has been allocated for education business link (EBL) activity in 2001–02. The funding will go via the Learning and Skills Council (LSC), which will contract with consortiums in each of the local LSC areas for delivery of education business links. Of this £23 million, £9.8 million is for work experience placements for Key Stage 4 pupils; and £1.8 million is for professional development placements for teachers. In addition, the LSC will be able to make allocations from its discretionary local initiatives fund (£90.3 million in total) to support EBL activity.

  It is estimated that in 2000–01 training and enterprise councils (TECs) provided discretionary support of £17 million in total to EBL organisations. In addition, DfEE provided core funding through TECs for Key Stage 4 work experience (£9.8 million) and teachers' professional development placements (£1.8 million).

  Further Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how he plans to encourage and develop a sectoral response to issues in further education raised by the Further Education National Training Organisation's recent Skills Foresight report. [150079]

  Mr. Wicks
  My Department will discuss the Skills Foresight report with representatives of the further education sector.

  We have already announced extra funding of £50 million in 2001–02 and £100 million in 2002–03 for further education teachers' pay. Proposals for using the money are expected to include improved pay and career structures for high calibre teaching staff. We have also announced our plans to require all new entrants to the FE teaching profession to gain an appropriate qualification, to boost continuing professional development for all staff, and to support increased training for prospective and serving college principals. This will be supported by up to £80 million from the FE standards fund for 2001–02.

  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students in further education colleges in(a) Halton (b) Cheshire and (c) England and Wales failed to complete their courses in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99 and (iii) 1999–2000. [150293]

  Mr. Wicks
  Data for further education colleges are only readily available for 1997–98 and 1998–99 for FEFC-funded students in England and are contained in the following table.

  FEFC-funded students in FE sector colleges in England 1997–98 and 1998–99

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Withdrawn students1

  Total students

  Withdrawn students

  Total students

  Halton District2

  4,744

  22,647

  4,327

  21,894

  Cheshire3

  6,143

  41,233

  5,925

  41,826

  England

  367,817

  2,578,272

  350,063

  2,342,671

  1 Those students who do not continue to attend at the end of the qualification or the end of the teaching year (31 July), whichever is sooner (includes all programmes of at least 12 weeks in length).

  2 Halton District includes Widnes Sixth Form College and Halton College.

  3 Cheshire includes West Cheshire College, Warrington Collegiate Institute, Macclesfield College, Mid Cheshire College of FE, Priestley College, Reaseheath College, Sir John Deane's College, South Cheshire College.

  Source:

  Individualised student record (ISR) 31 December 1998 (1997–98, IDR13); 31 December 1999 (1998–99, ISR 16).

  Unique Pupil Numbers
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 7 February 2001,Official Report, column 579W, what arrangements will be made to allocate unique pupil numbers to pupils in England who (a) commence their
  164W
  education in the non-maintained sector and (b) move between maintained and non-maintained sectors during their school career. [150086]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department is discussing with the Independent Schools Council the possibility of the unique pupil number (UPN) system being extended to pupils in independent schools, although no decisions have yet been taken. For as long as it remains the case that UPNs are allocated only to pupils in the maintained sector:(a) pupils who commence their education in the non-maintained sector will not during that period have a UPN, but will be allocated one by the first maintained school they enter;

  (b) pupils who move between maintained and non-maintained sectors during their school career should be allocated a UPN at the beginning of their first spell in the maintained sector and retain that for each subsequent spell, even though the UPN will be inactive during intervening periods in the non-maintained sector. There is inevitably a risk in these cases of the thread being lost, and new UPNs being allocated to pupils who already have one. However, the central pupil database described in my earlier answer, 7 February 2001, Official Report, column 579W, (ref. 148383) will, once established, be able to provide LEAs and schools with a "tracing service" for lost UPNs.

  Teaching Standards (Leeds)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of teaching was identified as being(a) satisfactory or better, (b) good or better, (c) very good or better and (d) excellent in Ofsted reports published on (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in Leeds LEA in each of the last four years. [150106]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This is a matter for Ofsted and I have therefore asked HM Chief Inspector of Schools, Mike Tomlinson, to write to my hon. Friend and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  New Deal for Schools (Great Yarmouth)
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the schools in the Great Yarmouth constituency which have received funding under the New Deal for Schools since May 1997, indicating the sums involved in each case. [150188]

  Jacqui Smith
  The following table shows those schools in the Great Yarmouth constituency which have benefited from investment through the New Deal for Schools programme, which commenced in 1997–98. These allocations formed part of the £16.793 million investment made in schools in the Norfolk local education authority under the New Deal for Schools programme. In total, since 1997, Norfolk local education authority has received some £55.559 million of funding for capital investment in school buildings.
  165W

  New Deal for Schools—allocations for schools in the Great Yarmouth constituency

  Year/school

  Project

  Grant awarded (£)

  1997–98

  Included within an LEA wide package:

  Science and technology facilities

  11,482,000

  Greenacre First and Middle

  Herman First

  Included within an LEA wide package:

  Toilet improvements

  Alderman Swindell First

  Herman First

  1998–99

  LEA wide package involving 72 schools

  Replace deficient heating systems

  22,398,880

  1999–2000

  Stradbroke Community First

  Replacement of school

  1,249,138

  2000–01

  Included within a 60 school package:

  Asbestos removal

  Caister-on-Sea Middle

  2968,405

  Included within a 14 school package:

  Structural repairs

  2769,455

  Peterhouse First

  Peter house Middle

  Included within a 128 school package:

  Renewal of mechanical plant

  23,467,642

  Great Yarmouth VA High

  Greenacre First and Middle

  Hopton CE First

  Oriel High

  Peterhouse First

  Waveney CE First

  Included within a 113 school package:

  Electrical works

  21,169,185

  Caister-on-Sea First

  Edward Worlledge Middle

  Great Yarmouth High

  Greenacre First and Middle

  Hillside First

  John Grant School

  North Denes Middle

  St. George"s First and Nursery

  1 Local education authorities (LEAs) were not required to specify individual project costs for phase 1 of the NDS programme, so the amount shown is the total allocation in that year to the Norfolk LEA. Norfolk local education authority holds project level information.

  2 Denotes total allocation made to package projects covering more than one school. Norfolk local education authority will be able to provide detailed information as to the value of projects at schools which have benefited from these allocations.

  Staffing Costs
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total cost of, and proportion of, total education budget spent, on employing(a) teaching and (b) non-teaching staff in each local

  1998–99

  Education authority

  Teaching staff £000

  Teaching staff as a percentage of net current expenditure

  Non teaching staff1 £000

  Non teaching staff1 as a percentage of net current expenditure

  201

  City of London

  521

  20.9

  588

  23.6

  202

  Camden

  38,667

  43.2

  19,862

  22.2

  203

  Greenwich

  62,356

  48.9

  17,242

  13.5

  204

  Hackney

  48,935

  43.2

  18,875

  16.7

  205

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  29,162

  42.6

  12,303

  18.0

  206

  Islington

  43,787

  43.4

  21,354

  21.1

  207

  Kensington and Chelsea

  19,513

  38.7

  9,247

  18.3

  208

  Lambeth

  37,506

  37.8

  22,982

  23.1

  209

  Lewisham

  66,820

  51.1

  18,631

  14.2

  210

  Southwark

  52,665

  42.8

  29,350

  23.9

  211

  Tower Hamlets

  73,289

  50.3

  29,112

  20.0

  212

  Wandsworth

  31,854

  36.6

  18,607

  21.4

  213

  Westminster

  38,347

  45.3

  14,525

  17.2

  301

  Barking and Dagenham

  46,216

  52.0

  15,063

  17.0

  302

  Barnet

  60,794

  48.5

  19,868

  15.8

  166W
  education authority in England in the last financial year. [150192]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is set out in the table for 1998–99, the latest year for which data are currently available.
  167W

  1998–99

  Education authority

  Teaching staff £000

  Teaching staff as a percentage of net current expenditure

  Non teaching staff1 £000

  Non teaching staff1 as a percentage of net current expenditure

  303

  Bexley

  49,961

  54.9

  13,484

  14.8

  304

  Brent

  38,715

  40.8

  15,240

  16.1

  305

  Bromley

  34,807

  44.2

  12,719

  16.1

  306

  Croydon

  62,614

  49.7

  24,294

  19.3

  307

  Baling

  52,795

  45.9

  18,828

  16.4

  308

  Enfield

  63,506

  49.8

  20,010

  15.7

  309

  Haringey

  60,287

  48.6

  22,337

  18.0

  310

  Harrow

  45,014

  48.5

  15,279

  16.5

  311

  Havering

  49,745

  57.2

  16,154

  18.6

  312

  Hillingdon

  31,756

  44.7

  12,988

  18.3

  313

  Hounslow

  56,696

  53.9

  18,468

  17.6

  314

  Kingston upon Thames

  23,472

  48.2

  8,210

  16.9

  315

  Merton

  36,014

  50.6

  10,764

  15.1

  316

  Newham

  75,152

  49.9

  19,237

  12.8

  317

  Redbridge

  63,739

  54.7

  16,225

  13.9

  318

  Richmond upon Thames

  32,002

  51.3

  9,029

  14.5

  319

  Sutton

  31,650

  51.1

  13,008

  21.0

  320

  Waltham Forest

  52,795

  48.3

  18,417

  16.8

  330

  Birmingham

  256,467

  50.6

  90,494

  17.9

  331

  Coventry

  82,641

  53.2

  27,026

  17.4

  332

  Dudley

  66,751

  54.0

  16,540

  13.4

  333

  Sandwell

  71,757

  51.1

  23,006

  16.4

  334

  Solihull

  52,121

  55.9

  14,618

  15.7

  335

  Walsall

  58,638

  52.2

  15,255

  13.6

  336

  Wolverhampton

  61,517

  52.7

  18,600

  15.9

  340

  Knowsley

  40,286

  49.8

  12,346

  15.3

  341

  Liverpool

  110,061

  49.2

  34,026

  15.2

  342

  St. Helens

  44,193

  52.6

  11,084

  13.2

  343

  Sefton

  70,789

  52.8

  19,200

  14.3

  344

  Wirral

  78,411

  53.7

  21,263

  14.6

  350

  Bolton

  65,238

  54.0

  17,333

  14.3

  351

  Bury

  41,151

  54.5

  11,457

  15.2

  352

  Manchester

  108,357

  50.4

  34,988

  16.3

  353

  Oldham

  63,476

  55.1

  16,805

  14.6

  354

  Rochdale

  49,108

  53.1

  13,259

  14.3

  355

  Salford

  55,811

  54.0

  14,594

  14.1

  356

  Stockport

  62,776

  53.4

  15,233

  13.0

  357

  Tameside

  49,345

  54.3

  11,634

  12.8

  358

  Trafford

  38,509

  49.8

  9,162

  11.8

  359

  Wigan

  76,651

  55.9

  15,720

  11.5

  370

  Barnsley

  46,598

  53.4

  12,044

  13.8

  371

  Doncaster

  71,604

  53.3

  19,188

  14.3

  372

  Rotherham

  67,135

  55.5

  16,814

  13.9

  373

  Sheffield

  106,203

  54.2

  33,031

  16.9

  380

  Bradford

  126,557

  56.6

  43,134

  19.3

  381

  Calderdale

  32,317

  48.3

  10,803

  16.1

  382

  Kirklees

  88,973

  51.5

  26,808

  15.5

  383

  Leeds

  165,032

  52.1

  55,686

  17.6

  384

  Wakefield

  73,559

  55.4

  21,124

  15.9

  390

  Gateshead

  45,955

  52.6

  11,352

  13.0

  391

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  61,954

  49.4

  16,936

  13.5

  392

  North Tyneside

  45,254

  53.9

  10,794

  12.9

  393

  South Tyneside

  38,429

  53.8

  9,112

  12.8

  394

  Sunderland

  73,890

  57.0

  16,571

  12.8

  420

  Isles of Scilly

  711

  54.0

  139

  10.6

  800

  Bath and North East Somerset

  35,434

  51.6

  9,706

  14.1

  801

  City of Bristol

  79,044

  50.8

  28,447

  18.3

  802

  North Somerset

  39,996

  51.1

  11,686

  14.9

  803

  South Gloucestershire

  56,342

  53.7

  15,508

  14.8

  805

  Hartlepool

  22,307

  51.6

  6,273

  14.5

  806

  Middlesbrough

  38,115

  58.2

  11,381

  17.4

  807

  Redcar and Cleveland

  34,942

  50.8

  9,393

  13.7

  808

  Stockton-on-Tees

  45,387

  53.4

  12,484

  14.7

  810

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  59,508

  51.3

  18,517

  16.0

  811

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  68,761

  53.0

  17,125

  13.2

  812

  North East Lincolnshire

  38,658

  51.5

  11,566

  15.4

  813

  North Lincolnshire

  36,703

  51.8

  10,309

  14.6

  815

  North Yorkshire

  133,155

  56.3

  25,966

  11.0

  816

  York

  35,863

  53.4

  8,330

  12.4

  820

  Bedfordshire

  82,767

  54.0

  27,112

  17.7

  168W 169W

  1998–99

  Education authority

  Teaching staff £000

  Teaching staff as a percentage of net current expenditure

  Non teaching staff1 £000

  Non teaching staff1 as a percentage of net current expenditure

  821

  Luton

  40,015

  48.9

  12,591

  15.4

  825

  Buckinghamshire

  93,240

  49.8

  28,543

  15.2

  826

  Milton Keynes

  35,219

  46.6

  14,156

  18.7

  830

  Derbyshire

  134,593

  52.8

  38,475

  15.1

  831

  Derby

  41,776

  48.5

  13,518

  15.7

  835

  Dorset

  70,401

  49.7

  21,538

  15.2

  836

  Poole

  19,628

  48.2

  5,529

  13.6

  837

  Bournemouth

  20,170

  43.4

  7,824

  16.8

  840

  Durham

  116,644

  52.9

  31,488

  14.3

  841

  Darlington

  22,012

  53.3

  5,716

  13.8

  845

  East Sussex

  94,547

  51.8

  26,522

  14.5

  846

  Brighton and Hove

  45,622

  50.6

  14,058

  15.6

  850

  Hampshire

  222,757

  51.3

  72,733

  16.7

  851

  Portsmouth

  33,169

  47.8

  12,376

  17.8

  852

  Southampton

  43,913

  51.4

  15,060

  17.6

  855

  Leicestershire

  136,701

  55.2

  37,083

  15.0

  856

  Leicester

  77,201

  54.4

  22,184

  15.6

  857

  Rutland

  3,092

  33.8

  1,290

  14.1

  860

  Staffordshire

  181,975

  55.9

  45,205

  13.9

  861

  Stoke on Trent

  52,023

  50.6

  15,360

  14.9

  865

  Wiltshire

  59,413

  46.2

  18,361

  14.3

  866

  Swindon

  31,257

  51.1

  8,587

  14.0

  867

  Bracknell Forest

  21,960

  51.8

  6,002

  14.1

  868

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  27,402

  52.9

  7,824

  15.1

  869

  Newbury

  29,222

  56.1

  6,365

  12.2

  870

  Reading

  19,754

  44.5

  6,584

  14.8

  871

  Slough

  20,306

  46.4

  7,037

  16.1

  872

  Wokingham

  34,137

  56.9

  7,939

  13.2

  873

  Cambridgeshire

  91,793

  48.0

  31,063

  16.3

  874

  Peterborough

  31,040

  49.5

  11,038

  17.6

  875

  Cheshire

  147,665

  51.6

  38,717

  13.5

  876

  Halton

  30,699

  52.4

  7,895

  13.5

  877

  Warrington

  44,400

  58.2

  10,084

  13.2

  878

  Devon

  130,551

  51.9

  35,651

  14.2

  879

  Plymouth

  57,701

  54.1

  15,011

  14.1

  880

  Torbay

  24,844

  51.7

  6,341

  13.2

  881

  Essex

  166,308

  45.9

  56,764

  15.7

  882

  Southend

  18,765

  46.8

  7,022

  17.5

  883

  Thurrock

  22,195

  50.7

  6,672

  15.2

  884

  Herefordshire

  34,364

  53.3

  8,064

  12.5

  885

  Worcestershire

  109,779

  54.1

  26,185

  12.9

  886

  Kent

  207,349

  47.1

  75,331

  17.1

  887

  Rochester and Gillingham

  49,860

  52.0

  16,091

  16.8

  888

  Lancashire

  262,922

  51.8

  70,032

  13.8

  889

  Blackburn

  37,585

  52.9

  11,589

  16.3

  890

  Blackpool

  28,397

  53.5

  7,392

  13.9

  891

  Nottinghamshire

  167,345

  52.8

  48,445

  15.3

  892

  Nottingham City

  56,939

  47.9

  19,672

  16.5

  893

  Shropshire

  58,051

  53.3

  14,430

  13.2

  894

  The Wrekin

  28,827

  49.1

  9,043

  15.4

  908

  Cornwall

  102,228

  51.0

  25,683

  12.8

  909

  Cumbria

  87,797

  48.9

  27,457

  15.3

  916

  Gloucestershire

  74,728

  47.1

  24,557

  15.5

  919

  Hertfordshire

  212,267

  53.8

  61,002

  15.5

  921

  Isle of Wight Council

  29,058

  51.6

  8,598

  15.3

  925

  Lincolnshire

  94,990

  48.1

  26,522

  13.4

  926

  Norfolk

  153,116

  56.4

  39,740

  14.6

  928

  Northamptonshire

  124,693

  53.0

  31,027

  13.2

  929

  Northumberland

  72,714

  53.6

  17,360

  12.8

  931

  Oxfordshire

  120,747

  52.1

  33,759

  14.6

  933

  Somerset

  98,827

  52.4

  31,455

  16.7

  935

  Suffolk

  155,685

  57.7

  32,794

  12.2

  936

  Surrey

  163,754

  49.9

  54,842

  16.7

  937

  Warwickshire

  100,014

  52.9

  28,911

  15.3

  938

  West Sussex

  156,561

  54.2

  39,873

  13.8

  All local education authorities

  10,249,066

  51.4

  3,069,342

  15.4

  1 Non teaching staff expenditure covers education support staff, premises-related staff, administration and clerical staff

  170W

  Professional Footballers
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received regarding the evasion of work permit regulations by overseas footballers wishing to play professionally in the UK. [150257]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 13 February 2001]The Department has received no representations regarding the evasion of work permit regulations overseas footballers wishing to play professionally in the UK.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions his Department has had with other Departments relating to the evasion of work permit regulations by overseas footballers wishing to play professionally in the UK. [150258]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 13 February 2001]The Department has had no discussions with other Departments relating to the evasion of work permit regulations by overseas footballers wishing to play professionally in the UK. The Home Office is responsible for deciding whether overseas nationals may enter the country to work based on the passport they hold or whether they require a work permit.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  House of Lords Appointments Commission
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council how many people are employed by the House of Lords Appointments Commission; how many are on fixed-term contracts; and what the annual running costs of the Commission is. [146277]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I understand that the Appointments Commission employs no one directly. It is supported by a small team of civil servants, none of whom is on a fixed-term contract. Its budget for running costs for 2000–01 is about £300,000.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  House Stationery
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee how many hon. Members have been requested to make payments for prepaid House of Commons envelopes which have not been used in accordance with the rules of the House; and how many hon. Members have been ordered to make such payments following complaints since May 1997. [150348]

  Mrs. Roe
  Supervision and enforcement of the regulations for the use of House stationery and post-paid envelopes are a matter for the Serjeant at Arms. I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lord Levy
  Mrs. Gillian
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the business interests that Lord Levy would be required to register were he a Minister. [145326]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: Lord Levy is not a Minister.

  Council Housing (London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans the Government have to increase the supply of council housing in London. [148807]

  The Prime Minister
  We are almost doubling the budget for development of new social housing in London over the next three years with total planned expenditure of £1 billion. We are also helping key workers to purchase homes in London and other high house price areas through our new Starter Homes Initiative.

  Ministerial Code of Conduct
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Government will amend the Ministerial Code of Conduct in line with the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. [148660]

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Government will amend the Ministerial Code of Conduct in line with the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. [148780]

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Government will amend the Ministerial Code of Conduct in line with the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. [148782]

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Government will amend the Ministerial Code of Conduct in line with the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. [148779]

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Government will amend the Ministerial Code of Conduct in line with the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. [148788]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's response to the sixth report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, published in July 2000 (Cm 4817), set out my position on amendment to the Ministerial Code.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister if the special advisers working(a) in his Private Office, (b) in the Policy Unit, (c) in the Strategic Communications Unit, (d) in the Research and Information Unit, (e) in the Social Office and (f) under a dispensation granted by an Order in Council in May 1997 will relinquish their posts when the next general election is called. [149276]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer provided to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 13 February 2001,Official Report, column 130W.

  Official Histories
  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister if any further official histories have been commissioned. [150690]

  The Prime Minister
  I have appointed Dr. Terence R. Gourvish, Director of the Business History Unit of the London School of Economics and Political Science, as an official historian to write the official history of the Channel Tunnel.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Education
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the Government's plans to improve prison education and training. [150463]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have today made a joint announcement with my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Education and Employment, establishing a new partnership between the Department for Education and Employment and the Prison Service. From 1 April this new partnership will be responsible for securing improvements in the education, training and resettlement of prisoners.

  Our plans for the partnership are outlined in "Improving Prisoners' Learning and Skills", published today, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to ensure that employers are aware of the provisions enabling overseas students to work while studying in the United Kingdom, with particular reference to overcoming difficulties where such students apply for work before they have been issued with a national insurance number; and if he will make a statement. [150077]

  Mrs. Roche
  Information about the eligibility of overseas students to take employment is available on the Home Office and Department for Education and Employment websites, and in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate information leaflet on overseas students.

  Essex Constabulary
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on(a) total number of new recruits who have joined Essex police and (b) total number of police officers who have retired from the Essex constabulary between 1 April 2000 and the latest date for which figures are available. [148700]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 6 February 2001]: Between 1 April 2000 and 30 September 2000, 103 officers joined Essex police; 97 of these were in the rank of constable. During the same period 53 officers retired from the force. The force's total wastage for this period amounted to 80 officers.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the special advisers working for him will relinquish their posts when the next general election is called. [149315]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 13 February 2001,Official Report, column 130W.

  Staffordshire Constabulary
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) uniformed police constables, (b) uniformed police sergeants, (c) uniformed police officers above the rank of sergeant, (d) police detective constables, (e) police detective sergeants and (f) police detectives above the rank of sergeant, there were in the Staffordshire constabulary (i) in May 1997 and (ii) at the latest date for which figures are available. [148154]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 7 February 2001]: Information on police service personnel numbers is collected twice a year in March and September. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary collects information annually on 31 March about the number of officers deployed to different functions.

  The information on detective numbers has been provided by Her Majesty's Inspectorate. The inspectorate made changes to its classification system for different police functions in 1999–2000. It is not therefore possible to identify from the new classification the number of officers that would have been classified as Criminal Investigation Department (CID) under the old rules and who are now recorded under other classifications. The change in classification accounts for some of the reduction in CID strength. The information in the tables has therefore been provided on the basis of non-CID officer numbers and CID officer numbers for March 1997 and March 2000.

  Staffordshire police (i) Non-CID officers (full-time equivalent)

  31 March 1997

  31 March 2000

  Constables

  1,415.5

  1,518.7

  Sergeants

  285.2

  289.2

  Other ranks

  157

  131

  Staffordshire police (ii) CID officers (full-time equivalent)

  31 March 1997

  31 March 2000

  Constables

  268.4

  153.6

  Sergeants

  59

  45.8

  Other ranks

  26

  19

  Mobile Police Stations
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what specific role mobile police stations will play in reducing crime; if they will replace(a) officers on the beat and (b) high-speed police cars; and if he will make a statement. [149452]
  175W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  A number of forces are using mobile police stations for increased visibility and accessibility, to reduce fear of crime, to enhance policing in rural areas, and as mobile custody units.

  I strongly support this, and other, imaginative initiatives taking their place alongside beat officers and police vehicles as part of an overall approach to meeting local policing needs.

  North Yorkshire police
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement reconciling the figures for numbers of North Yorkshire police in(a) the answer of the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), of 18 January 2001, Official Report, column 352W, and (b) the recent press statement made by North Yorkshire Police Authority. [148953]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  At 30 September 2000 North Yorkshire police had 1,293 officers.

  The Chief Constable of North Yorkshire police has advised me that for March 2002 the force projects that it will have increased its numbers to 1,420 police officers. This figure was announced by the force in its press statement of 9 January.

  This increase includes 43 officers to be recruited through the Crime Fighting Fund. 60 officers to be recruited through the Rural Policing Fund, the remainder being part of normal planned force recruitment.

  Police Expenditure
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the levels of spending on police services in(a) Staffordshire and (b) each other county of England (i) in the current year and (ii) in each of the last three years. [148296]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is set out in the table.

  Police force net expenditure in England 1997–98 to 2000–01

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Avon and Somerset

  152,673

  162,726

  174,336

  181,210

  Bedfordshire

  58,570

  61,778

  63,611

  66,426

  Cambridgeshire

  68,681

  73,432

  75,052

  79,244

  Cheshire

  104,005

  107,098

  113,280

  114,576

  City of London

  57,893

  60,350

  57,852

  58,947

  Cleveland

  75,426

  81,295

  85,256

  85,600

  Cumbria

  61,709

  62,532

  64,786

  67,400

  Derbyshire

  95,641

  100,064

  105,590

  110,819

  Devon and Cornwall

  155,435

  166,330

  175,055

  182,873

  Dorset

  69,727

  73,117

  76,957

  80,996

  Durham

  75,166

  74,673

  79,662

  85,775

  Essex

  157,487

  156,822

  167,969

  184,485

  Gloucestershire

  58,633

  62,862

  65,755

  68,695

  Greater Manchester

  353,319

  354,171

  374,804

  400,004

  Hampshire

  180,791

  186,661

  197,483

  202,527

  Hertfordshire

  93,011

  95,068

  104,448

  120,945

  Humberside

  106,220

  112,571

  113,944

  119,900

  Kent

  174,211

  175,577

  186,261

  193,127

  Lancashire

  169,275

  177,310

  182,004

  190,181

  Leicestershire

  98,789

  102,790

  107,262

  110,150

  Lincolnshire

  66,184

  66,664

  69,378

  75,725

  Merseyside

  224,327

  240,267

  248,414

  257,114

  Metropolitan

  1,676,617

  1,716,425

  1,838,888

  1,837,571

  Norfolk

  80,222

  80,543

  87,182

  91,514

  Northamptonshire

  64,605

  67,057

  69,148

  73,076

  176W

  Police force net expenditure in England 1997–98 to 2000–01

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Northumbria

  195,092

  205,270

  212,704

  218,387

  North Yorkshire

  71,840

  75,344

  78,178

  83,750

  Nottinghamshire

  120,556

  127,018

  129,465

  134,302

  South Yorkshire

  166,027

  167,159

  176,007

  181,054

  Staffordshire

  110,264

  116,231

  127,000

  126,964

  Suffolk

  63,676

  66,096

  70,506

  74,061

  Surrey

  90,976

  91,425

  100,094

  120,130

  Sussex

  157,631

  161,847

  165,564

  172,513

  Thames Valley

  210,333

  209,675

  227,020

  236,952

  Warwickshire

  51,003

  52,015

  55,164

  59,011

  West Mercia

  107,788

  113,755

  111,446

  125,700

  West Midlands

  360,129

  368,608

  381,484

  395,102

  West Yorkshire

  281,745

  277,994

  286,088

  304,125

  Wiltshire

  58,535

  68,811

  69,823

  71,981

  England total

  6,524,212

  6,719,426

  7,074,920

  7,339,912

  Source:

  The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Police Statistics Actuals for 1997–98 to 1999–2000 and Estimates for 2000–01

  Prison Governors
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those prison establishments in which there have been changes at governor level, including changes involving those acting as governor for one month or more, over the last five years, the date upon which each such change took place, the name of the governor leaving and the name of his or her replacement in each case. [147561]

  Mr. Boateng
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Police Officers (Hertsmere)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have been available for duty in the Hertsmere police division in each year since 1992. [150048]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]: I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that before the boundary changes with the Hertfordshire constabulary on 1 April 2000 Hertsmere was part of the Barnet division. It is not possible to identify separately the number of police officers who policed Hertsmere.

  I am told by the Chief Constable of Hertfordshire that for the financial year 2000–01 the Hertsmere division has an establishment of 139 police officers. On 31 January 2001 the actual number of officers available to police Hertsmere was 131 officers.

  Naturalisation Applications
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if it is his policy for a record note to be kept of representations made by Ministers about an individual application for naturalisation; [149579]

  (2) if it is his policy that a note recording the interest of (a) a Minister and (b) an hon. Member in an individual application for naturalisation should be placed on the relevant case file. [149573]
  177W
  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 8 February 2001]: Correspondence from any source about individual applications for naturalisation would be recorded on the relevant case file or on an associated file.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at what level within his Department an application for naturalisation is normally determined. [149578]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 8 February 2001]: The level at which naturalisation applications are determined varies according to the nature and complexity of the case. The majority, however, are decided by administrative officer caseworkers.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria govern whether an application for naturalisation is referred for personal determination by(a) the Secretary of State and (b) a Minister. [149574]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 8 February 2001]: Applications are referred to Ministers if they are likely to be controversial or sensitive or if they raise complex issues or questions of security. Whether the Secretary of State will decide an application will depend on the circumstances of the individual case, although he will see referrals where the key issue is one concerning security.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the systematic detention of asylum seekers coming directly from their country of origin or an unsafe third country with the 1951 UN convention on refugees and the 1999 UNHCR guidelines on applicable criteria and standards relating to the detention of asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement. [149548]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]: Detention of asylum seekers is used as a last resort and no one is detained simply because he or she has claimed asylum. However, detention may be appropriate in the following circumstances; in order to establish identity or basis of claim; where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the subject will fail to comply with the terms of temporary admission or release; or where removal is imminent.

  Unaccompanied children are detained only in the most exceptional circumstances. We are therefore satisfied that our detention policy is consistent with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees criteria.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) by what criteria the applications of asylum seekers are judged by the Government; and if he will list them; [149919]

  (2) on what basis an individual asylum seeker is judged to be (a) an economic migrant and (b) a refugee. [149917]

  Mrs. Roche
  All asylum applications, regardless of the applicant's nationality, are considered in accordance with the criteria set out in the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees. To qualify for asylum a person must be outside his/her country of nationality and have a well founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social 178W
  group or political opinion. Those who meet these criteria are granted asylum; those who do not meet the requirements of the 1951 convention may nevertheless be granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom if there are exceptional compelling humanitarian reasons why they should not be required to leave.

  Those who do not qualify for asylum or exceptional leave to remain and have no other basis on which to remain are required to leave the United Kingdom. The process for considering an asylum claim does not involve us taking a view on whether an applicant is an "economic migrant"

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what means the United Kingdom Government ensures the welfare of asylum seekers who are not permanently admitted into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [149918]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 introduced new support arrangements for asylum seekers. Under these new arrangements all new eligible destitute asylum seekers may be supported by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS). This support is mainly in kind and includes accommodation where requested. Asylum seekers whose claims have been finally determined as unfounded are not eligible for NASS support. However, families with children under the age of 18 will be supported by NASS until they leave the country.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the process by which decisions are made on the applications of asylum-seekers in the United Kingdom, including the reference to the officials who are responsible for the decisions. [149920]

  Mrs. Roche
  All applications for asylum are considered by specially trained officers in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office.

  The officers consider applications against the criteria set out in the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees; each claim is examined individually on its merits. The caseworking officers have access to detailed country assessments to support them when considering asylum claims.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to send the result of the decisions on asylum for(a) Mr. M. (HO Ref: RV 181199167) and (b) Mr. A. (HO Ref: A522615). [149758]

  Mrs. Roche
  (a) Mr. M. will shortly be invited to attend an interview in Liverpool during the week commencing 5 March. A decision will be made as soon as is practicable thereafter.

  (b) Mr. A. was granted indefinite leave to remain on 12 February and will shortly be notified of this decision.

  I am sorry for the delay in informing my hon. Friend's constituents of the progress of their cases.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of asylum applicants who have been refused refugee status or exceptional leave to remain sought to appeal against that decision in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [150047]
  179W
  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]: The information is not available in the form requested. In the year 2000, there were 78,180 initial decisions to refuse asylum and exceptional leave to remain. Also in the year 2000, there were 46,190 appeals lodged with the Home Office. However, these appeals will not all necessarily relate to decisions made in the same year. These figures are subject to revision.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken for asylum applicants to receive an initial decision on their asylum application is; and if he will make a statement. [150046]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]: Although 2000 statistics are not yet available, the average time taken to reach an initial decision in December 2000 is estimated to have been 13 months.

  Graffiti
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to issue new guidelines to spray-paint manufacturers and retailers to encourage them to minimise sales to minors who intend to use the spray for graffiti. [149603]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have no plans to issue guidelines on this issue.

  Leicestershire Police Authority
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in

  Recorded crime Cheshire

  Year ending

  Offences

  March 1997

  March 1998

  March 1999

  March 2000

  September 2000

  Total violent crime1

  4,496

  4,733

  7,623

  6,645

  6,400

  Burglary in a dwelling

  7,423

  6,248

  5,925

  5,379

  5,518

  Theft from vehicle

  8,667

  8,076

  7,492

  7,582

  7,667

  Theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicle

  6,095

  5,311

  4,955

  4,594

  4,776

  Criminal damage (including arson)

  11,755

  11,219

  11,596

  12,627

  13,050

  1 Includes violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery

  Police Expenditure
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 January,Official Report, column 490W, on police expenditure, what the change in central Government expenditure on policing was in total and in real terms in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [148583]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 9 February 2001]: The information is set out in the table.

  In my previous reply of 22 January 2001, Official Report, column 490W, the percentage change in real terms for net expenditure by police authorities in 1995–96 compared with the previous year should read "-0.3 per cent", not 0.3 per cent.
  180W
  post in Leicestershire police authority in each year between 1996–97 and the last year for which figures are available. [150023]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is set out in the table. The latest figures available are those for 30 September 2000.

  Leicestershire Constabulary

  Year1

  Number of police officers

  1996–97

  1,949

  1997–98

  1,983

  1998–99

  1,993

  1999–2000

  1,993

  2000–012

  2,010

  1 As at 31 March

  2 As at 30 September 2000

  Crime Statistics (Cheshire)
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the level of(a) violent crime, (b) theft of vehicles, (c) thefts from vehicles, (d) house burglaries and (e) vandalism was in Cheshire in each year from 1997 to 2000. [149662]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The details covering this period are given in the table. Owing to the change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, direct comparisons cannot be made between the data for before and after this date. However, for England and Wales as a whole, it has been estimated that the change in counting rules increased the number violent of crimes counted by 83 per cent., thefts of and from vehicles by 1 per cent., all burglaries by 0.1 per cent. and criminal damage by 5 per cent.

  Government provision 1990–91 to 2003–04

  Police SSA £ million

  Home Office provision £ million

  Total £ million

  Percentage change in real terms

  Government provision 1990–91 to 2003–04

  Police SSA £ million

  Home Office provision £ million

  Total £ million

  Percentage change in real terms

  1990–91

  12,125

  2,483

  14,608

  —

  1991–92

  12,342

  2,901

  15,243

  17.2

  1992–93

  12,671

  3,088

  15,759

  16.4

  1993–94

  12,788

  3,279

  16,067

  12.6

  1994–95

  12,909

  3,389

  16,298

  12.4

  1995–96

  3,081

  3,586

  6,667

  c. 0.5

  1996–97

  3,167

  3,654

  6,821

  -0.9

  1997–98

  3,259

  2,765

  7.024

  0.1

  1998–99

  3,310

  3,923

  7,233

  0.1

  1999–2000

  3,447

  3,992

  7,439

  0.5

  2000–01

  3,533

  4,185

  7,718

  1/7

  2001–02

  3,842

  4,653

  8,495

  7.4

  2002–03

  4,041

  4,969

  9,010

  3.5

  181W

  Government provision 1990–91 to 2003–04

  Police SSA £ million

  Home Office provision £ million

  Total £ million

  Percentage change in real terms

  2003–04

  4,205

  5,088

  9,293

  0.6

  1 Before 1995–96 Welsh SSAs were unhypothecated at county level and payments to police authorities in Wales were agreed by constituent counties. SSAs for Welsh police authorities are included in the table only from 1995–96, in which year they were £160 million.

  Notes:

  1. Home Office provision is grant/special grant, capital grant, credit approvals and central Home Office spending.

  2. Real terms figures are shown at 1999–2000 prices using GDP deflator at December 2000.

  Police Vehicles (Black Boxes)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces fit black boxes to their vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [148939]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on police forces fitting black box recorders to their vehicles is not held centrally.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judges' Lodgings
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will(a) make a statement on progress of her review of judges' lodgings and (b) publish the report when it is completed. [150001]

  Jane Kennedy
  Consultation between the Lord Chancellor and the Judiciary on the review continues.

  The Lord Chancellor intends to publish his decisions along with the report when the review is completed.

TREASURY

  Budget
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to deliver his Budget Statement. [150794]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  On Wednesday 7 March.

  Chester Street Insurance Holdings
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what steps his Department can take to safeguard payouts to sufferers from asbestos-related diseases following the collapse of Chester Street Insurance Holdings Limited; [147296]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his Department's policy following the collapse of Chester Street Insurance Holdings Limited in respect of protecting the interests of sufferers from asbestos-related diseases; [147310]

  (3) what discussions he is having with (a) Ministers and (b) the financial services industry following the collapse of Chester Street Insurance Holdings Limited; [147297]
  182W
  (4) what action he is taking to ensure that those (a) who worked for publicly owned enterprises and have an asbestos-related disease and (b) with asbestos-related diseases relating to pre-1972 exposure, do not suffer adversely from the collapse of Chester Street Insurance Holdings Limited. [148916]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answers 29 January 2001]: The Government understand the concern of those suffering from asbestos-related disease as a consequence of employment in firms whose employees' liability insurance is provided by Chester Street Insurance Holdings Limited.

  As a consequence of the insolvency of Chester Street Insurance Holdings Limited, provisional liquidators were appointed on 10 January 2001. At a meeting on 5 February a scheme of arrangement was agreed by creditors.

  The Government expect the Policyholders Protection Board to work closely with the provisional liquidators and others to ensure claims are processed promptly; and that the PPB will ensure the provisions of the Policyholders Protection Act 1975 are implemented fully.

  HM Treasury is monitoring the position by keeping in close touch with other Departments, the Policyholders Protection Board, the FSA and relevant parts of the financial services industry.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what role his Department played in the restructuring of the lion Trades Employers Association and the transfer of asbestos-related risks to Chester Street Insurance Holdings in 1989; [148914]

  (2) if he will name the regulatory bodies that have been responsible for monitoring the affairs of the Iron Trades Employers Insurance Association Limited and Chester Street Insurance Holdings Limited since 1989; and what (a) actions they have taken and (b) reports they have made to him in that time. [149363]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 8 February 2001]: The prudentia1 supervision of insurance companies was the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry until 4 January 1998. On 5 January 1998, these functions transferred to the Treasury. On 1 January 1999, the Financial Services Authority became the prudential supervisor under a contracting-out order.

  HM Treasury had no responsibility for the re-organisation of the Iron Trades Insurance Group in 1989 and, as far as I am aware, did not play any part in this.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who will represent the Government at the creditors' meeting of Chester Street Insurance Holdings Limited on 5 February to safeguard interests of sufferers from asbestos-related diseases. [148703]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 7 February 2001]: The Government are not creditors and hence were not present at the meeting on 5 February. A representative of the FSA, as prudential supervisor of Chester Street Insurance Holdings Limited, had observer status at the meeting.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue yield of(a) reducing the value below which inheritance tax is not levied by (i) £10,000 and (ii) £20,000 and (b) restricting the value of the personal allowance to (1) the basic rate and (2) 10 per cent. [146250]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The revenue yield from reducing the value above which inheritance tax would otherwise be levied can be estimated, for increases or decreases of this order of magnitude, from Table 5 of the Tax Ready Reckoner. The Tax Ready Reckoner, November 2000, is in the House of Commons Library.

  There is no personal allowance for inheritance tax but the cost of the threshold, below which no tax is paid, is given in Table 7 of the Tax Ready Reckoner.

  All-employee Share Ownership Scheme
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many companies have taken up the new all-employee share ownership scheme; and if he will make a statement. [150095]

  Mr. Timms
  The all-employee share ownership plan was introduced last year when Royal Assent was given to the Finance Bill 2000. Companies have been going live with their plans since September 2000.

  In the first six months, 262 companies have sent in plans to the Inland Revenue.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 8 February 2000,Official Report, column 681W, if items described as Government spending can simultaneously be described as Government investment. [150186]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government's main measure of public expenditure is Total Managed Expenditure (TME). TME is described in chapters 1 and 4 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis 2000–01 (Cm 4601).

  Opposition Policies (Costings)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 24 January 2001,Official Report, columns 647–48W, on opposition policies, (1) on what occasions the Treasury has initiated such costings; and if he will make a statement; [147952]

  (2) on what occasions since January 2000 the Treasury has been consulted by other departments on the costings of opposition party policies. [147953]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 24 January. The Treasury and other Departments have from time to time costed Opposition policies, and this will have involved discussions between the Treasury and other Departments. The procedure followed is consistent with the principles and practice established by previous Administrations.

CABINET OFFICE

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress her office has made in encouraging Ministers to reply to letters from hon. Members more quickly. [148767]

  Mr. Stringer
  All Departments are working hard to improve their handling of hon. Members' correspondence. We are currently collating information on the performance of Departments during the 2000 calendar year and will report back to the House in due course.

  Drugs (Young People)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on her Department's response to recent developments in drugs misuse among young people. [148774]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Government's Anti-Drugs Strategy has set a challenging target of halving the numbers of young people using illegal drugs by 2008, and we will back this by increasing spending in this area to £120 million by 2003–04.

  In south Cheshire, research from John Moores University on young people's drug use in the area is under way, which will provide a local baseline and identify gaps in provision.

  Public Sector Team
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the work of the public sector team. [148775]

  Mr. Stringer
  The public sector team was set up within the Cabinet Offices's Regulatory Impact Unit in November 1999. Its broad remit is to reduce bureaucracy and red tape in the public sector.

  In little over a year the team has, in partnership with relevant Government Departments and other stakeholders, taken action to reduce the paperwork burden on the police and head teachers. The estimated savings are 187,000 hours of police time every year, which is equivalent to 100 police officers' standard working hours—employing that many additional officers would cost around £5.5 million; and 4.5 million hours per year across the whole schools system. This equates to over 200 hours every year for a typical school.

  The team will shortly be publishing the interim outcomes of its project on reducing GP paperwork.

  Drugs Trade
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she has met Government Ministers from south American countries to co-ordinate international anti-drug policies. [148778]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The United Kingdom is active throughout Latin America in supporting the efforts that countries there are making to combat drugs and poverty.
  185W
  Last year I visited Colombia and Brazil where I discussed with the Presidents of both countries how we can help in addressing the problems of illicit drug production and trafficking in these countries.

  The UK also plays an active role in the EU/Latin America/Caribbean Action Plan on Drugs and Co-ordination and Co-operation Mechanism.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress is being made in international efforts to combat the drugs trade. [148785]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The UK is active in international forums, including the UN, G8 and EU, to strengthen the global framework for tackling illicit drugs trafficking. In the year 2000 we were the third largest donor to the United Nations International Drug Control Programme. Ministers and the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator have also been active in supporting anti-drugs efforts in some of the countries which have the most serious problems with the production or transit of illegal drugs.

  Progress is being seen in increased seizures of heroin and cocaine en-route to the UK/EU, and increased disruption of criminal groups involved in trafficking.

  Drug Use
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what new steps are under consideration in the Government's campaign to combat drug misuse. [148781]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government's future proposals for tackling drug misuse are outlined in the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator's second national plan, published last year.

  Measures include:

  Internationally:
  to support international partners by disrupting production and trafficking of illegal drugs to reduce the availability of controlled drugs entering the UK

  Nationally:
  to establish the National Treatment Agency from 1 April 2001 to ensure delivery of high quality treatment services across the country
  from spring 2001 to pilot three sites for extending drug testing across the criminal justice system to complement the existing Arrest Referral Schemes and Drug Treatment and Testing Orders.

  Locally:
  we are reorganising the Drug Action Teams (DATs) in England to align with local authority boundaries.

  The drugs strategy is underpinned by forward expenditure of up to £1 billion by 2003–04 as part of the Spending Review 2000.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the progress of the Government's anti-drugs policy. [148784]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator published his annual report for 1999–2000 on 7 November 2000.
  186W
  The report shows that we are making progress towards meeting the challenging targets we have set as part of our 10-year anti-drugs strategy. Most of our annual targets were met in full and we are on track to deliver published targets for 2002.

  On the Wirral there have been considerable improvements in the treatment services available to drug users, including a significant reduction in waiting lists for treatment. In recent months a needs assessment of the need of young people has been completed and a plan of action is being developed to meet the gaps in provision identified in the report People needing advice and other assistance because of their drug use are likely to approach the Response Service based in Birkenhead, Wirral Drug Services, which includes a specialist service for young people and/or the Wirral Solvent Misuse Project.

  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the progress of the Government's anti-drugs policy. [148792]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator published his annual report for 1999–2000 on 7 November 2000.

  The report shows that we are making progress towards meeting the challenging targets we have set as part our 10-year anti-drugs strategy. Most of our annual targets were met in full and we are on track to deliver published targets for 2002.

  Within the Cleethorpes area, a number of initiatives are in place which address the needs of young people and drug misuse. These include training programmes for professionals working with young people; advice and information offered as part of a 'Nightclub' project; and a young people's conference to address drugs issues.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the impact of the Government's national drugs strategy has been in(a) Slough and (b) other towns on the periphery of London. [148793]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  We are making good progress nationwide in all areas of the Government's anti-drugs strategy as reported in the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator's annual report for 1999–2000, published on 7 November 2000, Effective delivery of the strategy at local level is essential if we are to succeed. In support of this, we are realigning Drug Action Teams along local authority boundaries. This means that Slough now has its own DAT. This should help address local priorities such as outreach services for young misusers; and develop better links with other outer-London Boroughs, which are far more similar in terms of drug and social exclusion issues, than the majority of Berkshire.

  Commonwealth Games
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the progress on the non-sport programme for the Commonwealth games in 2002. [148783]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  There are two key non-sporting initiatives associated with the Manchester 2002 Games—the Volunteer Programme and the nationwide Spirit of Friendship Festival. Good progress is being made on both.
  187W
  The Spirit of Friendship Festival has appointed a national director, Jo Hartley, to work with all relevant agencies to deliver a successful nationwide festival of education, sport and culture.

  The Festival will embrace the modem Commonwealth's values of fairness and inclusivity and engage the nation from its start on Commonwealth Day, 11 March 2002, until 10 August 2002.

  The volunteer programme is also well under way with plans for the recruitment of 15,000 volunteers in place and recruitment generally beginning in May.

  Drug Rehabilitation Programmes
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much has been allocated for anti-drug treatment services in each of the next three years. [148794]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government recognise that treatment services can have a vital role in reducing the damaging effects of drug abuse on a person's health as well as reducing crime and anti-social behaviour.

  Through the spending review we have allocated an additional £167 million for drug treatment services over three years from 2001–02. The table gives the breakdown of spending in each of the next three years.

  Drug treatment (£ million)

  2000–01

  234

  2001–02

  328

  2002–03

  377

  2003–04

  401

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment she has made of the impact on South Ribble of her Department's policy to improve access to drug rehabilitation programmes. [148773]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Arrest Referral Programme for South Ribble has been implemented since August 2000. Between August 2000 and January 2001 a total of 230 individuals have been referred to local services under the Programme.

  Chorley and South Ribble District Drug Service offer access to rehabilitation, and the South Ribble Drug Action Group is now in the process of implementing a treatment programme. The money made available from the last spending review will increase service capacity, GP shared care and child-specific services within the area.

  People's Panel
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what policy initiatives of her Department have been tested on the people's panel; and with what result. [148786]

  Mr. Stringer
  The People's Panel is directed towards service delivery more than policy questions. But research has been used to inform various policy initiatives. Within the Cabinet Office it has contributed to the following:

  Consumer Focus for Public Services
  The fifth wave of research, published in September 2000, was carried out to support the consumer focus for public services initiative by establishing a baseline for public satisfaction and expectations of public services in different sectors.
  188W
  Policy in Deprived Areas
  The Social Exclusion Unit in the Cabinet Office commissioned a re-analysis of data from the first wave of research to examine responses from people living in deprived areas, to determine how they differed from those living in other areas. The results were also published in September 2000.

  Public service provision and ethnic minority communities:
  In June 2000, the results of a first wave of research with the recruitment of an ethnic minority booster to the Panel were published. These show what people from ethnic minority communities think of the services they receive and how their opinions differ across and between different ethnic minority groups. Future research will be used by Government to help improve services.

  Extended Hours Provision of Public Services
  Research carried out in 1999 asked which out-of-hours services people wanted access to; what sort of business they would use them for; when they would want to be able to make contact; and how. The results were published in April 2000. "Making it happen: public services at your convenience" was published in September 2000 showing how the five key services (non-emergency services in NHS hospitals, GP surgeries, social services, the Passport Agency, and local government services) identified in the research were making service hours more convenient for their customers.

  Notifying Change of Address On-line
  In January 1999, the Panel was used to assess reactions to a proposal for enabling electronic notification of change of address details to be passed to Government Departments in one transaction. Panel members joined workshops testing out the technology. The results were published in April 2000. In November 2000, a pilot change of address service was developed on the UK online citizen portal www.ukonline.gov.uk which allows people to send new address details to participating Government Departments, as well as those utility and other commercial organisations offered by the change of address providers.

  Listening to Women
  During January and February 1999, the People's Panel was used as part of the Listening to Women exercise which, among other things, has been used to inform and influence Government Departments on the needs of women as decisions have been taken to modernise public services.

  Modernising Government
  In February 1999, the People's Panel was used to find out about the experiences of citizens using public services to evaluate how well Departments and agencies work together to deliver a joined-up service, and identify suggestions for improvement. The work was commissioned as part of the research for the Modernising Government White Paper.

  Access Pages
  Research was carried out in August 1999 to help the Cabinet Office prepare a new directory that brings together information for the main Government helplines and websites. The directory was published in October 1999.

  Internet
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what her policy is regarding the provision of Government internet services in languages other than English. [148787]

  Mr. Stringer
  My policy is that Departments must fulfil their obligations under the Welsh Language Act 1993, and our "Guidelines for Government Websites" make that very clear.
  189W
  I have always made it clear to Departments that I expect them to publish, where effective, in other languages spoken in the UK.

  I am pleased to confirm that the newly revised "Guidelines to Government Websites" is clarifying this policy.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what guidance she has issued to Government Departments relating to the duties of special advisers and press officers. [148789]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The duties of special advisers are set out in the "Model Contract for Special Advisers". The duties of Government press officers are set out in "Guidance on the work of the Government Information Service" and "The GICS Handbook".

  Copies of these documents are in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what criteria determine the number of special advisers Government Departments may appoint. [148791]
  190W
  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Government's response to the Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, published in July 2000 (Cm 4807), sets out the Government's policy on the appointment of special advisers.

  Policy Presentation
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent initiatives her Department has introduced to co-ordinate the presentation of Government policy. [148790]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  My Department has several initiatives in place to co-ordinate the presentation of Government policy.

  The first is the appointment of communications advisers who work alongside policy officials on the development of cross-government initiatives. They ensure that the communication of Government policy is considered from the outset and that clear information and explanations are provided for the public.

  My Department is also responsible for the News Co-ordination Centre. The NCC has two functions. The first is to co-ordinate the Government's media handling during major crises such as last year's floods.

  It also has a role in ensuring that for major announcements proper attention is given to the regional media. This is done by means of regional announcements and ministerial visits.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

NHS: Violence Against Staff
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they plan to take in response to rising violence against National Health Service staff.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government are determined to ensure that NHS staff, who spend their lives caring for others, do not suffer from intimidation and violence. That is why the NHS zero tolerance campaign was launched in October 1999. As part of the campaign, staff working in the NHS are expected to report all incidents of violence and employers are required to implement strategies for reducing such incidents.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will be aware that four-fifths of the NHS trusts surveyed were doubtful whether the 2001 target of a reduction of 20 per cent in violent incidents would be met by this April. Two-thirds were doubtful whether the 2003 target of a reduction of 30 per cent in violent incidents would be met. What does the Department of Health plan to do to make the zero tolerance campaign more effective?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it was an interesting survey but there was confusion about the target. The baseline set is based on 2000–01 so the targets start from 1st April 2001. I believe that overall the effect of the Government's programme—it is to ensure that NHS trusts are wholly aware of the need to have proper strategies in place—is beginning to bear fruit. The survey found that there had been an increase in the number of violent incidents reported by staff over the past year. Somewhat perversely, I think that that can be seen as positive: it suggests that staff now feel better able to report such incidents. The more information we have about violent incidents the more we can focus on dealing with them.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, clearly the Government are taking the matter seriously. Is it now normal practice for those responsible for violence—I refer in particular to drunken violent hooligans late at night—to be prosecuted? Have people been prosecuted for such offences in recent months in order to gain publicity to deter further practices?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, these are matters for the police and the Crown Prosecution
238
Service. We do not have figures centrally for specific prosecutions in relation to violent attacks against NHS staff. I agree with my noble friend that it is important, as part of a deterrent effect, that the public know that if they indulge in violent attacks on staff the NHS will have proper systems in place to respond immediately, and that when it is appropriate prosecutions will take place.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is the President of the Magistrates' Association. He has made it clear that it is entirely legitimate for magistrates to respond decisively to a particular form of criminal behaviour such as assaults on NHS staff and to impose a sentence which has a deterrent component.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that not only are trusts at risk but also primary care services, and general practitioners in particular? Was the noble Lord present in the Chamber when a similar inquiry was made about violence in courts? The reply was that one should have a panic button. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said that that is all very well but someone must be available to answer the panic button. Is advice given to general practitioners about not being in a surgery alone with a patient without another member of staff being present to help?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I accept the noble Baroness's point. General practitioners, community staff and ambulance staff are vulnerable. The survey by the department in September 1998 found that, while there were three reported incidents per 1,000 staff per month in acute trusts, there were seven reported incidents in ambulance trusts, 14 in community trusts and 24 in mental health and learning disability trusts.
Panic buttons have their place. Equally, it is important that a proper training programme offers advice to all staff on how they should behave, with back-up so that staff who feel threatened can call upon other staff to help them. I believe that we are getting into a more robust situation than in the past. I recall some years ago that staff affected found that they were not receiving support from management. I believe that that has changed.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, today being St Valentine's Day, would the Minister agree that all noble Lords in this House would like to send Valentine messages to all nurses and doctors working in the National Health Service?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I think that that is a really splendid suggestion. It would do wonders for the morale of staff in the health service.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware that this problem relates not only to the National Health Service but also to the public service generally. For example, 11 per cent of those convicted of assaults on police were given

239
custodial sentences. Until custodial sentences are the rule rather than the exception for assaults on public servants, I am afraid that there will not be a deterrent.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as I intimated, I believe that there must be a deterrent effect and that members of the public who carry out violent attacks must expect the full force of the law to come down on them. We shall do everything we can to encourage NHS authorities to report such actions to the police.
There has been close liaison between some trusts and the police forces. There are some very good practice initiatives taking place, including sub-police stations being centred within NHS hospitals. I am sure that my noble friend is right: it is tragic that members of staff—I think in particular of ambulance staff who have to deal with difficult, stressful situations—now have also to pay attention to potential violence against them by members of the public. I think that that is disgraceful.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a decade or more ago, people would have found it unbelievable that attacks would be made on nurses in hospitals? The situation that he has disclosed is very disturbing. Is he aware that, as a result of Mrs Bottomley's ill-advised decision to close the accident and emergency department at Bart's, the Royal London accident department has become grossly overcrowded? That makes it difficult to manage, particularly when there is violence in the department.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree that accident and emergency departments are particularly difficult. They are often vulnerable areas of NHS hospitals. There are a number of points to make. First, the expansion in A&E services and facilities over the past year or two will have a positive effect. While there can never be any excuse for physical or verbal violence, there is no doubt that a better environment can help to calm some people down. Secondly, liaison with the police has been very helpful. One trust that I visited earlier this week has an arrangement whereby special constables are present in the A&E department on Friday and Saturday nights. That is an excellent scheme and we wish to encourage similar ones.

NHS: Euro Preparations
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree Baroness Knight of Collingtree asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether certain teaching hospitals have been instructed to spend some £250,000 each of National Health Service money in preparing for the United Kingdom's adoption of the euro.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, no NHS body has been instructed to spend any money on euro
240
preparations. They have undertaken a measure of pre-planning for possible UK entry to the single currency. That was a limited management exercise carried out from within agreed running costs. Resources have not been diverted from patient care.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, does the Minister recall that on 29th November last year, in answer to a Question from me on the subject, he claimed no fewer than six times that the amount being spent was either limited or very limited? As there is now considerable doubt about the sums being expended, will he clear up the mystery by telling the House how much is being spent? If it is taxpayers' money, surely Parliament has a right to know about it—or perhaps the money has been donated, as in the case of the Dome, by people who wish to become Labour Peers.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that was rather unworthy. The answer that I gave six times in November is unchanged. NHS trusts were asked to undertake a pre-planning exercise—that is, they were asked to look at the impact on the National Health Service if this country decided to join the euro. That was an administrative task undertaken by current staff within NHS trusts. NHS organisations spent virtually no additional money on seeking out the implications.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it would be an act of the grossest irresponsibility for an organisation as large and internationally dependent as the NHS not to make the necessary contingent planning for the possibility of the British people voting in a referendum to join the euro?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend has put the issue very well. Noble Lords frequently point out that the NHS should engage in long-term planning. The health service has simply undertaken an exercise to look at its current financial systems to see what impact a possible decision by this country to join the euro would have on it. Surely that is prudent. That foresight has not cost the National Health Service additional money.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, in the wider context of possible British membership of the euro raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, is the Minister aware that the Irish economy has seldom, if ever, been in better shape? What is the Government's view of the reprimand recently issued by the Commission and endorsed by the Council of Ministers for the recent Irish Budget?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord may be surprised to know that the Department of Health does not discuss that matter on a daily basis.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, is it not the responsibility of the NHS to prepare regardless of whether Britain goes into the euro? Access to the single European market of health services and goods will provide an

241
opportunity for savings on bureaucracy to provide money that could be used better elsewhere in the National Health Service.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we clearly want an efficient and effective National Health Service. The benefit of the pre-planning exercise is that it has looked at the status of current NHS financial systems. That has been helpful in enabling trusts to work out what changes might need to be made in the future, not just in respect of the possibility of this country going into the euro but in ensuring that we have the most up-to-date financial systems possible.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, assuming that we are generous enough to let the Minister off the second aspect of the question asked by my noble friend Lady Knight about whether anybody contributed to the exercise in pursuit of a peerage, will he be good enough to tell the House how much has been spent by the National Health Service on those preparations? I am not sure that we have heard a figure.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this is the ninth time that I shall give the same answer. This is a pre-planning exercise undertaken by existing staff in NHS trusts. No additional costs have been incurred. Noble Lords opposite ask how much money is involved. No doubt they would like me to issue a questionnaire to every single trust in the country asking staff to detail how much time each of them spent on this pre-planning exercise. Only a few weeks ago the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the Opposition spokesman for the Conservative Party, attacked the Government for making too many bureaucratic demands on the health service. No doubt noble Lords will now change their minds about that.
Earl Howe: My Lords, if, as the noble Lord said, this is a limited pre-planning exercise, why did the Director of Finance, Procurement and Information at Salisbury Healthcare NHS Trust say that the changeover plan is bringing,
"a huge amount of work and substantial costs without any known source of funds at present"?
He went on to say:
"The plans will require substantial extra work from staff at a time when we are facing disintegration through the loss of mental health services, community hospitals and community services".
Can the Minister comment on that?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that matter was raised on the previous occasion when this Question was asked in your Lordships' House. The Director of Finance at the Salisbury NHS Trust was confused about the circular that had been sent. No other trust in the country suffered that confusion. They were able to undertake the pre-planning exercise without undue bureaucracy or undue pressure. Overall, it has been a most helpful exercise in determining what steps the NHS would have to take if the country decided to enter the euro.

Millennium Dome: Legacy Bid
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the current status of Legacy's bid for the Millennium Dome.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the preferred bidder letter gave Legacy preferred bidder status until today. The Government are now considering Legacy's detailed proposals on an exclusive basis.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. Does he agree that not setting a deadline initially for the exchange of contracts when giving preferred bidder status and then setting a deadline and letting it go by, which I take to be the burden of his Answer, were irresponsible acts and unlikely to achieve value for money for the taxpayer in relation to the sale of the Dome?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, a deadline was set in the preferred bidder letter.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord say what has been the cost, on a care and maintenance basis, of maintaining the Dome since it closed at the end of last year?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the costs are well in excess of £1 million a month for maintaining the Dome. However, those costs will decrease as the numbers of staff involved reduce.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend join me in expressing pleasure at the way in which regeneration is continuing on the Greenwich peninsula, thanks, of course, to the building of the Dome in that area, and in particular in relation to the new Millennium school and the new medical centre, which are due to be opened shortly? As many people in Greenwich are obviously interested in the future of the Dome, especially those who lost their jobs when the Dome closed, can my noble and learned friend assure the House that employment is on the agenda in the negotiations which are taking place?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness in welcoming the regeneration which has taken place on the north Greenwich peninsula. A school and a medical centre have just opened. A Millennium village is in the process of being built, and I and a number of my colleagues were present when the first tenants moved into the houses that were built there. It is a very impressive development.
As regards the second part of the question, I agree with my noble friend that jobs will be import ant when deciding the future of the Millennium Dome.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, today the Minister has told the House that a deadline was

243
imposed. However, yesterday the Prime Minister said that it was a guideline, a schedule or something else. Therefore, can the Minister tell the House on what legal basis the Government have decided to pursue their sole negotiations with Legacy? Although that deadline has passed, what is now to stop the Government opening up the bidding process to a wider group of people who perhaps will be able to provide a much better deal for the public than Legacy seems able to do?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the preferred bidder letter specified precisely how long Legacy would be the preferred bidder. As one would expect in negotiations of this kind, once the deadline is reached, it is a matter for the Government to decide, in accordance with the process that they have set up, what is in the best public interest. They have freedom to manoeuvre in the matter.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend tell us what the problem is with the Legacy bid? Does a draft contract exist between the two sides? If not, what is causing the serious problem in relation to the bid? How much is involved, is a deposit required, and is there to be deferred payment? Surely my noble and learned friend should tell us something about the bid.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it would be entirely wrong for me to negotiate these questions in the House of Lords. We are in the process of seeking to sell in the best public interest an asset which the Government own. The right way to do that is by the negotiation process.

Prison Conditions
2.56 p.m.
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia asked Her Majesty's Government:
What their response is to the criticisms of prison conditions made at the weekend by HM Inspector of Prisons.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the Government acknowledge that the Prison Service faces a difficult challenge in improving conditions across the estate. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons is concerned that prisoners receive appropriate attention to tackle their offending behaviour, address their health problems and increase their levels of literacy and numeracy. The service is making progress in those areas. The challenge, as ever, is to drive up the level and consistency of performance across all prisons. The Government believe that there is ample evidence from recent HMCIP reports to suggest that the performance of other prisons can be turned round.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, will the Minister congratulate Sir David Ramsbotham on his forthright
244
comments about prison conditions? Will he accept the comments made by Martin Narey, the Director-General of the Prison Service, who stated that he was not prepared to apologise for failing prison after failing prison and that he had had enough of trying to explain the immorality of the treatment of some prisoners and the degradation of some establishments? Will he consider those comments in the light of the fact that Sir David said that consistency is the responsibility of the Minister? When can we expect Ministers to live up to their responsibilities for our prison establishments?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, of course we take careful note of Sir David Ramsbotham's reports and, in particular, of those provided for the Home Office by the inspectorate, which does an excellent job. On many occasions the noble Lord will have heard me giving great praise to the robustness of the reports. They are invaluable and we greatly value their independence.
I, too, read Martin Narey's speech to the conference the other week and I agree with its contents. It was most encouraging. It reported to the Prison Service that great progress has been made in a number of fields. The speech was a further encouragement to achieve yet more within the service.
Of course, the Government accept their responsibility for the Prison Service and did so when they came to power. Despite the many improvements across the service as a whole and in many individual establishments, there is still much to be done. However, we had to tackle a legacy. We have started to tackle it and have made major improvements. We wish to continue making those improvements. I am sure that the noble Lord will support us in that good work.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the most important aspects of the problem is to establish clear objectives for the Prison Service? Although punishment is of course important and necessary, surely the biggest challenge is rehabilitation. Is there not a cultural problem within the Prison Service on that score? Could we hear more from the Government about what is being done to enable all those serving in that service to understand the objective of rehabilitation and to identify with it?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that it will come as no great shock to the noble Lord to hear that we believe the rehabilitation of offenders to be central to the performance of the Prison Service. Of course, we expect our staff within the Prison Service to understand that, too, as they do. I believe that the service is improving its performance and some key indicators show that that is the case.
On the security side, there are far fewer escapes now than there were four years ago, the rate of positive drug testing has halved in that time and more offending behaviour programmes are in place. There has been an increase of 240 per cent in the number of such programmes since 1996–97. Last year, 60,000

245
educational certificates were achieved by prisoners, and 32,000 full qualifications have been achieved in prisons since April 2000. The number of teaching hours delivered in prisons increased by 10 per cent between 1999–2000 and the current date. There is now a major welfare-to-work programme in prisons.
All the major indicators suggest that we have good programmes in place, that we are focusing on rehabilitation and that our evidence-based approach will inevitably lead to lower recidivism rates. That is what we all want; the Prison Service is proud to have such an objective and Martin Narey is deeply committed to such an aim.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, given that education is of supreme importance in that rehabilitation process to which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred, and that Sir David Ramsbotham has this very month said that educational provision continues to be "appallingly low", especially for those in the 18 to 21 age group, what improvements does the noble Lord the Minister expect in the Prison Service, when educational provision is taken over by the DfEE at, I believe, the beginning of April?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, today we have launched a partnership between the Prison Service and the DfEE. That will build on achievements in recent years, and it will give prisoners, perhaps for the first time, the skills they need to compete in the jobs market. I have said on a number of occasions at this Dispatch Box, and I continue to maintain, that education and learning and the acquisition of skills will enable people who come out of prisons to go straight and to lead a better and more fulfilling life. Sir David Ramsbotham is right to draw attention to current deficiencies. However, I have made it plain this afternoon that we are making improvements and providing more teaching hours. I hope that all noble Lords support that.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, is it not inevitable that prison conditions will get worse while we try to put more prisoners into prisons than those prisons can accommodate? Is not the Home Secretary following the example of his predecessor, Mr Michael Howard, by going down what might be described as the American road on penal policy? Is the noble Lord aware that, as I speak, nearly 2 million people are incarcerated in the United States? That is roughly one in every 145 residents of the United States. Would it not be preferable to look for better examples in some of our fellow members of the European Community and some Commonwealth countries which can point to the fact that they have more enlightened and effective penal policies than this country has?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there is, one might say, enlightenment and enlightenment. We need to provide decent, good-quality prisons that are
246
supported by a service that has integrity and commitment to the job in hand. I and other Ministers have made it plain that we believe that we need to improve skills, training and educational opportunities. Whether we like it or not, there will always be people who, frankly, have to be in prison because of the nature of the offences that they committed. The prison population may have to increase for a short time while we begin to get more of a grip on driving crime down. Our commitment is to ensure that prisons are decent, that the opportunities that prisoners have to improve themselves are ample and that people come out of prison better citizens than they were when they went in.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, in connection with leaving prison, the Minister did not include re-offending rates in his list of major indicators. Will he say more on that?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we believe that the regimes that we are putting into place in prisons will enable people to acquire the education and training skills to which I have already referred. As a consequence, getting people into work when they come out of prison will reduce re-offending rates. Some early and emerging evidence suggests that we are having some success in that regard, which is an important gain. I suspect that the major parties are probably in agreement on that.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords. does my noble friend agree that, while there are of course some people who need to be in prison because of the nature of their offences, there are far too many non-violent offenders in prison and that there are much better ways of dealing with their offence in the community? Does he also agree that not merely is the cost of community service much lower but that recidivism is reduced? If we are going to stuff our overcrowded prisons with people who should not be there and create far too many prisoners, it is inevitable that prison conditions will continue to deteriorate, regardless of the excellent work of the Government and the prison authorities.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to the excellent work that is being done. Recidivism rates for those serving sentences in the community and in prisons are, as it happens, very similar. Our intention is to extend the range of community sentences that are available. To that end and for that purpose, we piloted through Parliament during the previous Session the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, which extends the range of community sentences that are available. The fact that the Probation Service will consequently offer improved backup, monitoring and supervision in the community means that we can increasingly rely on community-based sentences.

Capital Allowances Bill
3.5 p.m.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.

Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the first Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, and Lord Norton of Louth, set down for today shall each be limited to two-and-a-half hours.—(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Standing Order 40
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the second Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with to enable the Parliamentary Referendum Bill to be taken before the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry.—(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [H.L.]
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to whom the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [H.L.] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 and 2,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 3 and 4,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 5 to 33,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 34 to 56,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 57 to 65,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 66 to 69,

248

Schedule 6,

Clauses 70 to 99,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 100 to 120,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 121 to 138,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 139 to 141,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 142 to 148,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 149 and 150,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 151 to 154,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 155 to 157.—(Lord Carter.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Referendum Bill [H.L.]
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Asylum Seekers
3.10 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry rose to call attention to the increase in the number of asylum seekers; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: This is a timely moment for your Lordships to consider the worrying increase in the number of asylum seekers. The Home Secretary made a speech last week to the Institute of Public Policy in which he said, among much else, that he thought that the 1951 convention on refugees, which is the tablet of stone from which all discussions and negotiations have subsequently proceeded, was no longer working as its framers had intended. Last night, a headline in the Evening Standard stated:
"Scandal of Reject Asylum Seekers who Stay Here".
It continued:
"Just a dozen people deported every month against their will".
That story was picked up this morning by the Sun, which stated, in a typical headline, "Lunatic Asylum".Such headlines are not calculated to help racial understanding in this country.
Last night I took the trouble to look up Article 33 in the convention, which deals with prohibition of expulsion or return. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of what it says:
"No Contracting State shall expel or return …a refugee in any mariner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion".
That is a broad definition. Why did I look it up? Why did I initiate this debate? It was partly because for two-and-a-half years I was an immigration minister, serving under my noble friend Lord Hurd. That was a searing experience. I remember only one moment of humour, which was when the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, introduced—and I followed him—putting those seeking decision on their cases on to a ship in Harwich Harbour. That caused a certain amount of stir.
The ship was called "The Earl William". I remember that Diane Abbott regularly referred to it as "The Prison Ship" or "Prison Hulk". It was a modern, rather comfortable car ferry. I decided that I should visit it. I went with my immigration officials to Harwich. It was a lovely, sunny morning. They were a little worried about our visit. I think they thought that I might be hit on the head. As I walked up the gangplank I was delighted to hear a rousing cheer. It was only when I reached the deck, feeling rather pleased with myself, perhaps, that I realised that everyone on board was sitting in the sun watching the test match. An important English wicket had just fallen to the Pakistani bowlers. For the rest it was a hard grind.
Perhaps I may return to the convention. Your Lordships will know that the 1951 convention was originally written only for those who had been refugees before 1951. The 1967 protocol applied it to all refugees and that remains its present status. The UK was one of the first countries to sign it. We actively promoted it. I believe that 137 countries are now signatories. We must remember that it applies to refugees and displaced people all over the world. Only 20 per cent of the world's refugees are either in or will try to come to Europe.
Some of your Lordships may have listened to a television programme last night about Rwanda, in which it was mentioned that 1 million people will either be killed or will be attempting to cross the borders as a result of the civil war. Against that background one has to say that our problems pale into insignificance. That said, it is sensible to try to modernise the convention. That will not be easy. It was written for the 1930s, when people fled in front of German armies, for example, across borders. The idea was that they would apply for asylum in the next country they reached. The convention does not take account of mass travel, long-distance flight or lorries moving across Europe.
It will be hard to realise any change. It would be wrong to hold that out in any sense as a panacea to ourselves or other European countries which have genuine problems as something which will bring
250
immediate relief. I say "Europe" advisedly. This is a European problem. We are only sixth in the league of European countries in terms of asylum applications per head of domestic population. Belgium, for example, has three times our number per head of domestic population. It is a European problem not least because of the question of transit through so many countries. Kurds fleeing from either southern Turkey or northern Iraq will be likely to progress somehow to Albania. From Albania they will go to Italy, then perhaps to the Netherlands and France and then over here by lorry or Eurostar.
The principle of the "first safe country", established by the 1951 convention, that you sought and were given asylum if you established your position as a refugee in the first safe country you reached, is simply not being honoured at present. Nor does the Dublin Convention appear to have made it any better. If anything, it seems to have made the position more complicated. It is clear that asylum seekers should not be allowed to shop around in Europe for a particular country. That position must be clarified at a European Council meeting so that all European Union countries, all of which are regarded as safe havens, will meet their obligations.
That leads me to our domestic problems, which are worrying. I would be the last to think otherwise. In my last year as a Minister at the Home Office there were 7,000 refugee applicants. That number had risen from 4,000. We are told that in the past 12 months there were 76,000 applicants. The graph seems firmly upwards. In my judgment, there are two principles clearly at stake. The first is that unfounded asylum applications, to use the technical term, should be treated and dealt with as quickly as possible within the context of a reasonable and fair hearing. If the unfounded asylum seeker does not succeed, he should be returned to his country of origin as soon as possible. The second, and perhaps even overriding, principle must be to find the genuine refugees, the victims of persecution, those in terrible trouble in their own home, and offer them protection.
Obviously, the larger the number applying, the harder it will be to find the genuine person. I remember that it was difficult enough with 7,000. It must be almost impossible with 76,000. I well remember looking at the files of applicants. I remember looking at photographs of legs that had been smashed and knees that were scarred and twisted, and being told that that was evidence of torture of the applicant in his own country. As a Minister I had to make the terrible decision as to whether such scars were genuine or self-inflicted. At times, that was an enormously difficult, heart-rending job.
So, what do we do about it? Over the past year or two the Government have taken many initiatives. I am sure that in winding up the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will tell us about them, so I shall not try to do so. However, one that stands out is the starting up of a detention centre at Oakington, the old RAF camp outside Cambridge. I believe that the intention is to deal with 1,000 applications per month. A worrying point is that the costs are £800 per head per week, as

251
stated in a recent Answer in the other place. The Dutch found this to be an extremely expensive way to deal with the problem. I fear that if we go down that route entirely, we too shall find it extraordinarily expensive.
I should like to refer to one or two problems which have been mentioned to me by the Immigration Advisory Service and ask the Minister to reply. First, as the IAS point out, once an applicant is dispersed from Oakington, the IAS find it difficult to keep in contact because the National Asylum Support Service does not supply follow-up addresses. In consequence, the applicant does not turn up at the IAS local office for instructions as to what he should do. From there, he does not turn up when his appeal is being heard. If an appellant does not turn up, his application is automatically dismissed. Can the Minister tell us how many appeals have recently been dismissed because the applicants did not turn up, and what measures he proposes to take to deal with that matter?
My other concern of detail rests with the question of full asylum interviews being conducted at airports. In the old days, when someone arrived at an airport and applied for asylum, he was usually given admittance on a temporary basis for 10 days and told to turn up then with a document which explained his whole position, often known as a statement of evidence. I understand that now, because of the greater number of immigration officials at airports, which is a good thing, many full asylum interviews are being conducted the moment someone gets off the aeroplane, perhaps after a 12-hour flight.
That is not humane. It is not tolerable for someone on arrival at an airport to be put through a three-hour interview on which his or her future life may depend and in which he or she is asked to describe the murder of children at home, rape or other kind of horrible crime. There should be a delay and I hope that where there is none the Minister will agree to its introduction.
As regards statements of evidence, I understand that guidance notes in the language of the applicant are often not available. Unless a statement is completed within 10 days the application is automatically dismissed. That situation also needs examination, and flexibility is required.
The most controversial of my points is concerned with economic migrants. Demographic surveys show us the changing nature of our population. We are told that soon 25 per cent of the population will be over 65, and I declare a personal interest in that. Whichever Government win the next election, there is a case for studying the immigration rules in order to ascertain whether it would be sensible to allow some people to apply for visas to enter this country as immigrant workers. They would apply on the principle that once here they would get a job. They would be allowed to stay for perhaps three years, at the end of which they would be checked out. If they had good references and a continuing job, they would be allowed to stay. Perhaps at the end of the day they might be given indefinite leave to remain. If they did not have a job or satisfactory references, they would be returned to their
252
country of origin. I do not propose that the Government should announce a quota, but they would judge the correct figure on a variable basis.
That would have definite advantages. The negative one is that the economic migrants—those who had declared themselves as such on their visa application—could not have the protection of the 1951 convention. Even more positively, such people could add force to our economy as and where labour shortage becomes apparent, both skilled and semi-skilled. Furthermore, that approach would put out of business the crooks and the Mafia who are making a profitable living by taking savings from and ferrying across the world those whom they fool into believing that they can obtain for them a permanent place here in Britain. As we know from newspaper headlines, some die en route on the Eurostar or in lorries. However, my proposal would remove much of such business from many crooks.
I accept that the suggestion is controversial but it could be the most productive way of allowing economic migrants to apply honestly and openly for jobs in Britain and thus make it easier to distinguish the genuine refugees.
A few days ago, I listened to a Kosovar refugee talking on a BBC programme called "Taking a Stand". She described herself and those like her as both victims and survivors. They are victims, obviously, but as survivors they fought using their ingenuity to travel to a country where they could have a future. Such people are likely to have something to contribute to that country. It was often said that the growth of the USA began on Ellis Island. Refugees need to help themselves and they may well help us, too. That, together with our humanitarian instincts, should be at the forefront of our thinking as regards this difficult problem. I beg to move for Papers.
3.24 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, for initiating a debate on this topical subject in order to shed light on it. It is an honour to follow him. I am grateful for the opportunity to set the scene on what kind of people asylum seekers and refugees are. I declare an interest as a former member of the Immigration Complaints Audit Committee, so I have come across some of the background.
Home Office research in The Settlement of Refugees in Britain says that over a third have university degrees; two-thirds were in employment in their home country; and those who had not been in employment were either students or people, mainly women, caring for a home and family. Of the jobs which those in employment had held, 30 per cent were professional; 10 per cent were managers or employers; 20 per cent were skilled; and only 5 per cent unskilled. Over 90 per cent could speak at least one other language besides their own.
By any standards these are capable people, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, who can contribute to the society to which they are driven to flee. Many have

253
capabilities that are extremely useful to the UK. Among those asking for advice at the Refugee Council's training and employment section recently were 216 fully trained teachers, 120 doctors and 39 accountants. It averages £3,500 to carry out the conversion training for a refugee doctor to practise in the UK, as Redbridge and Waltham Forest Health Authority has shown, as opposed to the £200,000 that the Audit Commission estimates as the cost of a full seven-year training course to train a doctor from scratch.
Some noble Lords may have read in the Guardian Yesterday about Professor Abdul Lalzad, a refugee from Afghanistan, who is an authority on the use of solar power to desalinate water, one of many helped by the Council for Assisting Refugee Academics.
The Council for Assisting Refugee Academics has an honourable tradition originating in the persecution of Jews in Germany. I pay tribute to the contribution refugees have made to this country over not just the last two centuries but, in fact, since the origins of settlement in these islands.
It is hardly surprising that refugees tend to be an asset to the receiving country. Many are refugees because they have risked their safety in defending political freedom in an undemocratic country. Such people are likely to have democratic principles of the kind that our society values. The majority are educated young men, so they are potentially net payers into the national revenue. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister what efforts the Government are making to help such people integrate into employment in this country.
However, whatever the benefits to this country of absorbing refugees, in the end to receive the victims of torture and persecution is not an economic question but a moral one. The economic consequences happen not to be dire and disastrous, as some ill-informed newspapers would have it; and the numbers even of those claiming asylum are a very small fraction of the world total, a small proportion, pro rata, of the European total, and a small increase on previous years. But the reason why democratic countries cannot abandon the victims of tyranny is precisely because of their—our—democratic values: a commitment to universal human rights, underpinned by most of the major religious faiths and by the simple decency of many ordinary people.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, when I saw this Motion on the Order Paper I was rather nervous about the tone that might be adopted in the debate, but I was fully reassured by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, and agreed with a good deal of what he said. I should like to pick up one particular point; namely, his condemnation of the trafficking in people and his appeal to the Home Office to expend more resources to deal with that aspect of the problem. In a study by some academics at the University of North London published by the Home Office it is estimated that as many as 1,400 women may be
254
trafficked into prostitution in this country every year. When the people guilty of these frightful crimes come before the courts the sentences imposed on them are very light because the case of R v Ferrugia, decided a few years ago, provides a limit of two years' imprisonment in the absence of proof of coercion, which is almost impossible to obtain because the women concerned are generally too frightened to give evidence. I hope that the Home Office will look at the recommendations of that university study and some useful remarks by the Home Affairs Committee of another place about trafficking in people in general, although the committee did not look specifically at prostitution.
I also agree with the noble Lord in suggesting that we look at the causes of refugee flows into the United Kingdom and the conflicts in many parts of the world, such as Kosovo, East Timor, Chechnya, Sierra Leone, Guinea and Eritrea. The noble Lord added a couple of countries to my list: Rwanda and eastern Turkey, from which a large number of Kurdish refugees come to this country for asylum. The number of asylum seekers is not a dependent variable that can be influenced by government policies but an independent variable with which we must deal as we find it. That is quite clear from the report of the High Commissioner for Refugees published on the 50th anniversary of the UNHCR in which she draws attention to these major problems.
If one looks at our own figures, the originating states are all scenes of internal conflict or severe repression. In Iraq, which consistently heads the list month after month, there is a vicious dictator who executes people without trial and ethnically cleanses the marsh Arabs and the Kurdish population of the Kirkuk area. In the 12 months to June 2000 by far the largest number of applicants came from Kosovo, as one would expect. Certainly, it cannot be said that we are making it so attractive for people to come here that Britain is a magnet for asylum seekers from all over the world. They come into Europe generally and Great Britain in particular, and we must deal with the problem as we find it.
In my remaining two minutes I should like to concentrate on one extremely worrying aspect of the problem: the intention of the Home Office to cram an additional 500 asylum seekers into our already overcrowded prison system. At Question Time today my noble friend Lord Dholakia called attention to the observations of the Director-General and Chief Inspector of Prisons about the serious crisis in our prisons. Can one imagine anything more foolish and irresponsible than to cram another 500 asylum seekers into our prisons which are already finding it so difficult to cope? The Minister, Barbara Roche, has explained that this was a necessary short-term measure which would apply only until October 2001 when additional capacity will become available, we hope, in purpose-built detention centres at Yarl's Wood near Bedford, Harmondsworth and Dungavel in Scotland to accommodate almost 1,500 detainees.

255
At the end of last year there were 1,195 immigration Act detainees in prisons and detention centres, and that number had risen steadily from fewer than 1,000 in March last year. The reason for the increase given by the Minister, and the planned further rise, is to enable the UK to speed up removals from 8,000 in 1999–2000 to 12,000 in this financial year and 30,000 in the year 2000–01.
If one imagines that every detainee subject to removal will spend as long as two weeks in custody—one hopes that that is a considerable over-estimate—one calculates that 690 places will be required, whereas by October there will be twice that number. Can the Minister say whether, after the new premises are fully operational, the IND will cease to use prisons to detain asylum seekers except in emergencies, when it would be for no more than, say, 72 hours? If not, how do the Government reconcile that with their acceptance of the chief inspector's repeated criticisms of the practice?
Undoubtedly, there are problems to be addressed if we are to achieve the aims of the White Paper and have an asylum policy that is firmer, fairer and faster. I believe that the way forward is not to put up even more barriers which stop qualified refugees, as well as those who flee destitution, starvation and conflict. If the Government go down the road of amending the 1951 convention, as the Home Secretary appeared to suggest and the Select Committee in another place explicitly recommended—here I depart from the noble Lord, Lord Renton—we must beg to disagree.
The UNHCR's Three Circles consultations now being undertaken presuppose that states reaffirm their lawful commitment as signatories to the convention, while attempting to reach agreement on new phenomena that have developed since 1951, such as the militarisation of refugee camps. But to pretend that refugees do not exist by keeping them out of Europe, or making conditions as harsh as possible for those who do get here, is not honourable or humane.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, for introducing the debate and for the tone which he set. He recalled his two years at the Home Office where as a Minister he dealt with many of these matters. As a constituency MP at the time, I regularly took cases to him. He always showed great fairness, objectivity and impartiality in the way that he dealt with these matters, and that has been characterised by his speech today.
If ever there was an issue that cried out for a bipartisan approach it is this. It is always tempting to turn asylum seekers and refugees into another partisan question and suggest that one party or another is a soft touch, less competent or more callous than the others. The tone which the noble Lord set today helps us to avoid that trap. The impression that this issue is just another political punch-bag is too frequently reinforced by emotive and histrionic assertions and headlines which are sometimes used against asylum
256
seekers. We should never forget that although asylum seekers present us with a problem we host less than 1 per cent of the world's refugees and should, therefore, have some kind of perspective on this issue.
Before the previous general election I served on the Standing Committee in another place which considered what became the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. Two years later I participated in the debates in your Lordships' House on the present Government's legislation. The White Paper Fairer, Faster and Firmer correctly identified delays in processing claims as being the crux of the problem in the asylum system. At paragraph 3.3 it said:
"Delays and backlogs on this scale lie at the heart of the problem. They put unnecessary pressure on the staff who have to operate the system. They are not fair to genuine applicants who face long periods of uncertainty about the outcome of their applications".
Since the publication of the White Paper there has been a continued increase in the number of asylum seekers: 71,000 in 1999 to 76,000 last year, which compares with just 4,000 in 1988. Meanwhile, the backlog has risen from some 50,000 in 1997 to 66,000 according to an Answer provided by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, on 25th January of this year. Against those trends, I welcome the Government's decision to put more caseworkers on to processing applications. That has led to about 9,000 decisions per month compared with 7,000 new applications per month. Eventually, that will have some effect. But even those figures may be misleading, depending on the number of cases still to be released to the immigration appellate authority. That points perhaps to the need for further personnel, thus enabling cases to be turned around more rapidly. If, as the Immigration Service Union alleged yesterday, only about 12 people per month are removed against their wishes, it does not suggest that we have yet designed an appropriate processing system.
During earlier debates I suggested that vouchers and dispersal were distractions which would devour resources and energy. Vouchers require hundreds of people to administer them. Two years ago, in the debates on the previous legislation, the Minister estimated that about 300 people would be needed. Those hundreds of people could be properly examining and processing applications. Vouchers were never going to deter people from coming here, and they have not. Experience over the past 10 months shows that vouchers are a bureaucratic nightmare; one which humiliates and stigmatises asylum seekers and flatly contradicts other policies, such as those targeting child poverty and social exclusion. Of the 50 organisations surveyed for the report Token Gestures, 49 stated that the voucher scheme is creating serious difficulties.
In our debate in October 1999 (at col. 1144 of the Official Report on 20th October) I asked the Government about potential stigmatisation and discrimination of voucher users and also about the inability of people using vouchers to receive change when they redeemed their vouchers. I pointed to the inevitable consequences of not being able to shop in

257
places where people on low incomes make ends meet. Of the 50 organisations in Token Gestures, 41 now confirm that asylum seekers are not able to buy enough food, and what they are able to buy is unhealthy and unbalanced. Of the 50 organisations, 42 say that they have seen cases of asylum seekers who have lost some of the value of their vouchers through not receiving change.
Therefore, vouchers have not been a deterrent, as many of us said at the time. Indeed, asylum applications rose by 7 per cent in the year after their introduction.
Scrapping vouchers could release hundreds of people to deal with the current backlog. The knowledge that a false application will be efficiently and expeditiously processed, and ill founded applicants quickly returned, would send a far more effective signal than what has proved to be an ill conceived scheme.
But, if vouchers do not work, nor does the policy of dispersal. Sending two bus loads of refugees to Glasgow each day—1,720 per month—is not a solution. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House how many asylum seekers are refusing offers of accommodation, and what is known about their subsequent propensity to migrate back to the South East of England once they have been settled somewhere else.
As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, implied in his remarks, it would represent a far more honest approach if we allowed economic migrants to come here for short-term labour instead of donning the false clothes of asylum seekers. If they could find regulated gainful employment for short periods, then they could make a useful and honest contribution to our economy. A regulatory approach might also stop their exploitation.
To sum up, an alternative approach might involve five steps: accepting the humanitarian obligation to provide refuge for those who are genuinely at risk; allowing a fixed number of short-term workers to work here legally; abandoning vouchers and dispersal; ensuring a fair system of legal representation and expeditious handling of applications; and, finally, we must construct a more bipartisan approach, as well as fostering the welcome recognition by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, of the international dimension in addressing the reasons why people try to escape and flee from their countries of origin in the first place.
3.43 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, it was quite clear from the style and content of the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that he spoke from the heart and with a great deal of knowledge. All of us, I hope, are grateful to him for that introduction and for giving us the opportunity to express both our concern and responsibility for some of the world's uprooted people. The problem is global. I shall refer to that in a moment. But first I want to bring to your Lordships' attention the situation as it is experienced
258
in one region of the country. I hope to demonstrate in that the importance of our local communities in the whole process of absorbing asylum seekers and then refugees into our midst, perhaps in preference to the institutionalisation of them.
In the North East we have experienced the arrival of about 2,500 asylum seekers in the past year. A consortium, led by the local authorities, but with the essential partnership of many voluntary bodies, has vigorously tried to provide housing, friendship and learning opportunities for those who arrive with few possessions and their human dignity under threat. The consortium has so far worked with minimal resources, against the background of difficulties in the dispersal system and sometimes with the threat of racial attacks with limited support for its victims.
Nevertheless, the North East sees many positive opportunities to welcome asylum seekers as people who can make a contribution to the local economy, both in filling and in creating employment opportunities. They create new social and cultural initiatives to support the developing multi-cultural society of the North East and they raise awareness of the world's political and social changes.
North East charitable trusts are very active in supporting the voluntary sector. Health services are putting effort into facilitating medical professionals among the asylum seekers being able to contribute to the health needs of the region. Among them six doctors are practising and continuing their placements in local hospitals. Others are seeking to enhance their qualifications so that they may practice here. Some of the refugees have started their own businesses and are beginning to employ local people. National and local politicians are active in co-ordinating much effort by the churches, other religious groups and community associations, in order to make welcome and useful the skills which many asylum seekers bring. A new project, Genesis 2000, is researching the needs of professionally qualified refugees, not least in language learning opportunities. This research is seen as crucial to providing a long-term future for refugees and asylum seekers.
Through the Legal Services Commission, a number of solicitors in the North East have successfully met the standards set for them and are now able to offer legal advice on a comprehensive basis. I cannot stress too highly the importance of the contribution of many voluntary agencies. Tenants' associations and local churches have created drop-in centres, activity groups, language classes, reception centres and people have provided much personal hospitality in their homes for asylum seekers. These are examples from one region but I dare say that such initiatives are happening in many parts of the country. They should counteract inappropriate and alarmist attitudes which we sometimes hear.
Nevertheless, these local efforts and successes should not hide the size of the national and global problem. Local initiatives are motivated by a desire to offer shelter to uprooted people; to extend sanctuary to people in danger; to ensure protection of uprooted

259
women and girls against all forms of violence; to advocate full legal protection for uprooted children and children in areas of armed conflict; and to challenge government policies which seek to limit protection of uprooted people.
It is important that we understand, and are sympathetic to, the political, economic, social and environmental reasons for uprooting; that we listen to the stories of asylum seekers about the reasons they left their homeland and their hopes for return; and that we examine the role of governments in creating situations which uproot people.
While the debate will serve to draw attention to increasing numbers of asylum seekers, I trust that it will not encourage those who would advocate draconian measures for control. In this country, we are seeing but a small part of a huge global problem which is causing human suffering on a vast scale.
The Government should be urged to participate vigorously in the ratification and implementation of the UN convention and protocol relating to the status of refugees. They should go on and support the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and their families. We should encourage the Government to utilise the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in the help and advocacy that we afford to uprooted children. The international community should further develop mechanisms to protect refugees and those who are internally displaced, or who cannot be voluntarily repatriated.
In these ways at local, national and international levels, we need to demonstrate a civilised world when, for many people, civilisation seems to be breaking up. We can accompany people in decisions to remain, to leave or to return. We can provide services to respond to material, social and spiritual needs. We can support the initiatives of asylum seekers themselves. We can further engage in the enrichment which living in a diversity of cultures affords. Above all, we must avoid the proliferation of prejudiced, knee-jerk and alarmist reactions to a crisis for humanity and the selfish or parochial rejection of foreigners in need.
Of course, there needs to be some measure of discernment but I hope that this will not be at the expense of natural justice and respect for the dignity of fellow human beings.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Garel-Jones: My Lords, I should perhaps begin my remarks by saying to your Lordships that I have not changed my territorial designation to "early pls", as set out on the speakers' list. It is just that when I put down my name to speak I had planned to be going abroad later this afternoon—not, I hasten to say, as an asylum seeker but more as an economic migrant of the kind mentioned by my noble friend Lord Renton.
I join those who have already spoken in thanking my noble friend for the way he introduced the debate. It is right that the starting point should be the UN Convention on Human Rights. We need to have a
260
care, all of us, not to politicise these matters and certainly not to turn them into party political issues. Britain has a good record in this matter. In responding in the way they have, all political parties are responding to the best instincts of the British people. I hope I may be allowed from these Benches to recall that it was when my noble friend Lord Carr was Home Secretary that my party was the recipient, so to speak, on behalf of this country, of what may be the largest single influx of immigrants we have ever known.
The Minister of State at the Home Office, speaking in another place, was also right to say that since that time conditions have changed dramatically. My noble friend made that point in introducing the debate. International travel and the way in which conflicts now seem to be springing up in the four corners of the Earth have meant that we are now facing problems of a different dimension to those which the framers of the convention could have envisaged—criminality, the exploitation of women and the exploitation of children. It is a problem of a different dimension.
I commend two steps which the Government have taken in their approach to the problem. First, when they introduced the Immigration and Asylum Bill, I was pleased that it was considered by a Special Standing Committee in another place. My party was criticised for not being robust in that committee, but that was simply a reflection of the wish from the Conservative side of the House that the Bill be given a fair wind. Secondly, the introduction of civil penalties has been successful in deterring and in relieving a good deal of the pressure on our ports, although there are a number of matters which the Road Haulage Association would like to see refined.
However, the two cornerstones of the Immigration and Asylum Act have not been successful. First, the dispersal system—the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to it in his remarks: I shall not add to what he said—has been an instigator of racial harassment in a number of instances. It means that the people who are dispersed do not have access to the kind of services that they need and require and it frequently means that they live in extremely squalid conditions. Dispersal has not been a successful policy.
Secondly, the voucher system—the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to that as well—has been a spectacular failure. To be fair to the Government, they have, under pressure from organisations such as Oxfam, which produced a report, responded to many of the criticisms. But, suffice it to say, all 50 organisations that were contacted agreed that since the introduction of the voucher scheme there has been an increase in the number of asylum seekers experiencing problems. The report lists a whole range of problems that have been experienced by these people. Therefore, I think that it would not be unfair and, I hope, too partisan to say that the two cornerstones of that piece of legislation have not been an outstanding success. It is no good the Government saying in the other place that it is all the fault of the shambles left by the previous Conservative government. We have all

261
noticed that we have had a Labour Government now for four years and so that argument wears very thin indeed.
I turn to constructive proposals—and although I worked very closely at some stages in my life with my noble friend Lord Renton, there has been no connivance in this area. One of the proposals that I was going to put forward was that genuine economic migrants should be given a status in this country. They would have a contribution to make—rather along the lines of the guest workers in Germany. That would relieve a good deal of pressure from the system and, at a time when our age profile is changing, they would have a serious contribution to make.
I very much support the proposal made in another place by my party for secure reception centres. The principal criticism levelled against them from the Government Benches is one of cost. It is hardly for this Chancellor, who is about to embark on the biggest spending binge that we in this country have ever seen, which has been rightly criticised by the European Commission, to complain about the cost of what is a serious problem and one with which we are not dealing properly.
In conclusion, I would say that, introduced with the best intentions, the two cornerstones of the Immigration and Asylum Act have not been fairer, have not been faster and have not been firmer. I very much hope that the Government will address these problems and that they will address in particular the suggestion made by my noble friend in the spirit in which it was put forward.
3.57 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, we have the impression in this country that we are a generous nation, with a long tradition of hospitality. Like all noble Lords, I am proud of that tradition and I hope that we continue it in so far as we can. I do not believe that this Government are a "soft touch" when it comes to asylum seekers; nor do I believe that this country should open its doors to newcomers without proper scrutiny of the motives for which they come. But this impression of generosity bears closer examination.
If, for example, we measure the number of refugees per 1,000 of our population, we find that in 1999 we were 49th on the list of 150 countries with refugees. Even in terms of absolute numbers, according to the UN, we are 23rd on the list. Europe as a whole has 3.1 million refugees, and last year we ranked 10 out of 25 in terms of applicants per head. So the impression given in all the media that asylum seekers are pouring into the country and causing concern because of their increasing numbers is somewhat wide of the truth. We are not as generous as we should like to appear and sections of the press certainly confirm that impression when they play up prejudices.
Nevertheless, there is no denying that because of persecution around the world applications have gone up from places like the former Yugoslavia and Iraq. Last year the Home Office recorded 76,000 applications. Taking December alone, the main
262
groups were Iraq, Sri Lanka, Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia, Turkey and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. All these countries are abusing human rights or torturing their political opponents, or worse. For comparison, asylum seekers in Germany and the Netherlands were also principally from those countries.
One reliable witness is the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. It confirms that an unprecedented number of people sought its help last year. It received 4,957 referrals—1,500 more than in any other year. The countries included Turkey, Sri Lanka, Iran, Iraq and Kosovo. I have a list of the leading groups of asylum seekers in the UK last year: Iraqis, 7,080; Yugoslavians, 5,695. Surely no one can be in doubt that these people are genuinely seeking asylum; indeed 31 per cent of new applicants were accepted last year, and that figure is rising.
Unfortunately, however, the Government's figures have been distorted by the backlog of 66,000 and the now famous "black hole" in the statistics which falls somewhere between initial decisions and final appeals. Initial refusals made on the grounds of noncompliance, or on the fact that forms have not been filled in, are sometimes withdrawn. Similarly, initial appeal decisions may subsequently be altered at a second hearing. In both cases, the statistics are not recorded.
The Immigration Service Union rightly complained this week that too few asylum seekers are being removed. Fewer than 9,000 were expelled last year. Can the Minister say how many more officials are being recruited and how the Government can make up for the acute shortage of legal advisers? This latter point was made earlier in the debate.
While the backlog is being cleared and the statistics revised, it would be premature for us to leap to conclusions about the actual numbers. What we can be sure of, however, is that the evidence confirms that there is a much higher proportion of genuine applicants than was previously assumed. I welcome the Home Secretary's latest commitment to the principles of the convention, to the need for the UN global consultation and, above all, to agree an EU common asylum policy.
I hope that we shall have an opportunity to discuss the wider issues of migration. A moral question arises here. Are we shedding our responsibilities by passing the buck over to countries further away which do not have the means to support asylum seekers? Look at the results in Lebanon today, to take only one example. We see the failure of the UN system and the cruelty shown to second and third-generation Palestinians. I have seen the same resentment in Sudan, Thailand and elsewhere. Over the past few days, we have even seen it outside Calais.
The expanded use of resettlement procedures outside Europe is attractive only if sufficient resources are made available. Macedonia and Kosovo were rare examples. Care must be taken not to bring regular migration criteria into a process designed to help genuine, urgent cases of protection.

263
The Home Secretary mentioned an "intermediate" category of potential asylum seekers held outside the UK while their applications are processed. Perhaps the Minister could explain this idea. The latest agreement on Eurostar is one specific suggestion, but I have misgivings about a policy designed for the UK and individual states, involving offshore reception centres which could become huge permanent enclaves of stateless populations with no destination at all. At the very least, such a policy should be brought firmly within the EU common framework and widely understood by the public. There is a risk that asylum and migration will become more confused if we tighten the rules to catch would-be illegal immigrants and thereby alter the basic instruments of refugee protection.
Is it not a little premature to propose any international solutions before we have even embarked on a common asylum policy in Europe? Our attitude as Europeans should be one of the basic determining characteristics of our European identity, yet we have given it the lowest priority.
Finally, I am sorry that the Home Secretary has again brought up the concept of safe countries. We went through this during the passage of the 1996 Bill when the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had a fast-track "white list". All the specialised agencies commented on how unworkable it was because a genuine fear of persecution exists in every country.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, pointed out in his commendably thoughtful speech—the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and others made the same point—it is essential to keep a sense of proportion. Of the total number of refugees in the world, the European Union hosts less than 5 per cent, and Britain less than 1 per cent. The overwhelming majority are in the third world. Tanzania, one of the poorer countries of the world, alone hosts 413,000. Last year, Tanzania received only 46 per cent of the humanitarian aid for which the UN appealed.
The Home Secretary referred to generous international aid for Kosovo refugees in Albania and Macedonia in 1999. That may be true, but no other area of the world with refugees has received that level of aid.
Having spent most of my life outside Westminster working for humanitarian agencies, I constantly find myself despairing at our failure to focus on the conditions which lead people to migrate. In recent years, escalating violence and cruel persecution across the globe have increasingly compelled people to flee their homes, often at enormous risk to themselves and their families. The majority of refugees coming to the UK to seek asylum in recent years have come from the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Colombia, Turkey, Iraq and Iran. All of these, without exception, are countries where there has been serious conflict or where grave human rights abuses are common, or both.
264
Yes, the figures for asylum seekers are rising, but it is obvious that there are connections between those and the increases in human rights abuses and persecution. Despite the increase in the number of asylum seekers, it remains true, as has already been emphasised in this debate, that relative to our size of population, last year, Britain was still well down the list of European countries taking such seekers.
It has been suggested that asylum seekers should remain in the first country to which they flee. If that was applied across the globe, it would place an even greater burden on some of the world's poorest countries, which already host a disproportionately high number of refugees. In our own continent, it would accentuate the burden on frontline states where surely, if European co-operation is about anything, it should be about sharing in our response to humanitarian challenges.
It has also been suggested that we should consider revising the international laws and conventions covering the rights of refugees. But surely the period of the immediate run-up to a general election, with all its inevitable heat and hype, is precisely the time not to question such fundamental rights. Already there has been altogether too much emotion, sensationalism, exaggeration and prejudice. I fear that it would get worse. If changed circumstances in the world do demand a reconsideration of the rules, as laid down by great statesmen of vision in the aftermath of the Second World War, this should be done carefully, dispassionately, rationally and in the context of a determination to uphold the rights and protections of those at risk, not as part of a competition to win the prize for macho negativism.
By the same token, we should be wary of restrictions on the nations from which the European Union states are prepared to accept applications for asylum. After all, the former so-called "white list system" has been discredited. The core principle must remain that asylum seekers are assessed as individuals and not as mere national categories.
Trafficking in human misery is an evil business. Those responsible must be dealt with severely. There can be no doubt about that whatever. But we shall all be judged harshly by history if we use the existence of such wickedness as a cover for our own retreat from humanitarian commitments. Too often, economic refugees—which undoubtedly many asylum seekers really are—are spoken of with disdain. They are called "opportunist fraudsters". But in our own society here in Britain, those who, when they are faced with economic or industrial decline, "get on their bikes"—as it has been described—and go and look elsewhere for work and a secure future for their families, are regarded as model citizens. In our globalised existence, where is the dividing line in principle between the opportunist and the model citizen? We worship the free global market, but it is a free market only for the movement of capital and goods. It is not a free market for the movement of labour. This represents a gigantic distortion of free market principles and we are now faced with the consequences.

265
Migration will not go away. Global warming and climate change may yet make what we face today seem like child's play by comparison. The whole vexed question is a vivid example of how the market alone will never be an adequate tool for the management of human affairs. We urgently need to get our act together with our partners in Europe and beyond on development aid, world trade, conflict resolution, human rights and environmental policy. Persecution and conflict feed the flow, but perhaps even more important, it is rampant injustice and huge differentials between the rich of the world and the poor of the world which lie at the root of it. Strategic, lasting solutions will be found only by facing up to this. All else is temporary tinkering.
As we come up to the general election, do we want the debate to turn on how we can become an effective, caring, humanitarian nation, facing up to the challenges of human society as a whole, and of which we are inextricably a part? The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, set the tone remarkably well for such a debate in what he said today. Alternatively, do we want to accelerate the slide into becoming a neurotic, selfish, mean and xenophobic offshore island people seemingly intent on betraying our young by pretending that they can have a viable future without belonging to the world?
4.10 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for the way in which he has introduced this debate. I believe that the question of how asylum seekers are to be handled is one of the most difficult and delicate questions that can confront any government. I am not at all surprised that in a recent debate in another place the Home Secretary said that the issue caused him more trouble than any other. Surely, that statement speaks volumes. I often think that any Home Secretary must reflect on the words of Hamlet:
"The time is out of joint; O cursèd spite, That ever I was born to set it right!"
I do not believe that any party recently or currently in government has handled the issue particularly gloriously.
It is perhaps helpful to have a slightly historical perspective. Your Lordships may be astonished to learn that I cannot remember the days in the 1930s when we experienced the influx of Jewish refugees from Germany and Austria. However, my reading and general understanding leads me to believe that there was no general concern about either the number of those refugees or about the integrity and efficiency of the arrangements made for processing and resettling them in our society.
In the more recent case of the Ugandan refugees, to which reference has already been made, I do not think that there was a general lack of confidence in the arrangements, although in some quarters some concern—mercifully overcome—was expressed about numbers. In both those instances, the arrival and resettlement of those refugees, supported in the main by the public, immeasurably redounded to the advantage
266
of our country and totally conformed with our national reputation for hospitality in such circumstances.
In the case of asylum seekers from a much wider sector of the world—the problem that we currently face—the contrast is very stark. Today there is a very widespread perception that the system, if not out of control, closely borders upon being out of control, and that to an increasing and alarming extent it is influenced, if not dominated, by criminal racketeers. I use the word "perception" in the context that anyone with experience of Northern Ireland might expect. In Northern Ireland one is taught, if one has not already learned it, that perception is almost as important as fact when people's fears are aroused.
Without duplicating what has ably been said by many noble Lords—especially by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, most of whose speech I warmly adopt—I should like to make the point that any society must have restrictive criteria governing the influx of people into its society—those who claim asylum, those who claim to work here. To avoid the kind of alarming and damaging perceptions that I have endeavoured to describe in this particularly delicate field, whatever system any government put in place has to be seen to work. The present system is not working. It is not working in relation to the control that the Government are able to exercise; it is not working in relation to contact with people whose applications have failed; and, considering the other side of the coin, it is not working with regard to the conditions to which people within our shores are subjected in those circumstances.
Reference was made by my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry to what was said yesterday on a BBC radio programme by representatives of the union for immigration officers. That report seemed to indicate that those representatives spoke almost with despair of the failure to ensure the departure from this country of those who do not meet the criteria I believe that they also spoke about the criminal influences to which I have already referred.
In August last year The Times published a report of a Home Office official suggesting that there are living and working in this country hundreds of thousands of people with whom the Home Office has lost touch. I do not know how much reliability can be placed on that report. However, in his reply, I hope that the Minister will be able to say to what extent the Home Office is in touch with those whose applications have failed and what steps are being taken to ensure that a higher proportion leave this country when their applications, having been adjudicated upon, finally fail. Perhaps the Minister will also confirm that more than two-thirds of applicants fall into that category.
I turn briefly to the other side of the coin. It is a national disgrace that we still impose the voucher system on asylum seekers. Not only is the remedy that they receive extremely mean, but the abominable system by which they can use their vouchers to buy only essentials, from which they cannot obtain change if the sum does not add up, almost beggars description.

267
I truly question whether, under the European Convention on Human Rights, it is lawful to deprive people of their money in that way.
In conclusion—I had hoped to deal with the question of housing, in respect of which many adverse comments have been made—I urge the Minister to consider the proposition that the rules we impose are not being seen to work; that blatant breaches of them and their obvious ineffectiveness fuel the most damaging perceptions, not least in those parts of the country where reception takes place; and that we neglect at our peril the urgent need to ensure that public support is regained.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before turning to the question of numbers, I should first like to mention some ways in which the asylum system could be made more user-friendly. When consulted, all the NGOs said that the voucher system is so fundamentally flawed that it cannot be reformed. Will the Minister say when the Government intend to respond to that consultation? Meanwhile, will he confirm that change will always be given when vouchers are presented as payment? In that regard, I could not agree more with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew.
I turn, secondly, to the matter of long-distance travel to interviews, which I raised at Question Time in this House on 25th January. At that time the Minister was unable to reply positively to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, who very reasonably suggested that interviewers should visit applicants, not vice versa. Has further consideration been given to this point? Can I expect a favourable reply to my subsequent letter to Mrs Roche at the Home Office?
Thirdly, I deal with the perennial question of detention. When will the automatic bail provisions of the 1999 Act be brought into effect? In my view, they are long overdue. I believe that if full use were made of the good offices of NGOs and churches, detention for reasons other than deportation could be greatly reduced. As has been mentioned, it is a disgrace that parts of our already overcrowded prisons should be occupied by asylum seekers who have committed no offence in this country.
My fourth point concerns appeals. Will the Minister say how many appeals are dismissed in the absence of applicants? When that happens, are applicants always represented? Is there a lack of natural justice, which may increase the number of cases presented for judicial review? I should be grateful if the Minister would provide figures relating to those points.
Fifthly, I deal with the question of deportation. The present and previous governments must share the blame for failing to deport asylum seekers who have exhausted all procedures without getting any form of leave to remain. Why do we have the elaborate procedures if those whose applications fail can remain?
Will the Home Office consult the Department for Education and Employment to see whether any of our current shortages of teachers, doctors, police officers
268
and computer operators—here I follow on from the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker—could be directly relieved by asylum seekers? At a less skilled level, it is quite possible that government offices here in London—and even the Palace of Westminster—might not get cleaned if it were not for the presence of many failed asylum seekers. These may play an important part—I suspect that they do—in the labour market at a time of low unemployment and low inflation.
I return now to a point that I have previously raised. Many thousands of people have leave to remain, but they are not British citizens and often do not have any valid passport should they wish to travel. I therefore ask whether they can please be treated at least as well as those who are technically stateless. Will they be provided with travel documents acceptable, for a start, throughout the European Union, and, if possible, more widely?
I conclude by mentioning numbers. The recent large number of applicants has little to do with welfare benefits. It has much to do with the widespread use of English as a second language, with Commonwealth links and with the existence of settled communities in Britain of people who have, over the years, come here from overseas. In addition, this country has a reputation as a fair and just society. I trust that neither the tabloid press nor Her Majesty's Government will take away from this good reputation by adopting unnecessary, macho postures.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, one of the problems of being number 11 on the list of speakers in a debate such as this is that many of the points I was going to make have been made by previous speakers. I decided that I would jot down three points to contribute to your Lordships' debate. The first point has been completely covered by a number of speakers—particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich—and the second point has been covered, almost word for word, by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who spoke much more eloquently than I would have been able to.
I am therefore left with my third point, which I make with a deep sense of anger—although, in the wonderful spirit in which this debate has been conducted, I shall attempt to turn that anger into sorrow.
A Motion was carried in the other place on 1st February when the Home Secretary moved that the House,
"reaffirms the obligations of the United Kingdom under the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to provide asylum for those fleeing from a well-founded fear of persecution".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/2/02; col. 477.]
In my view, this country at the moment just about complies with its international obligations. What really concerns me is that it is the intention of the Government to stop complying with those obligations in a number of ways in future.
If we look beyond these noble and decorated portals to what is happening outside the House, we shall find, particularly in parts of the national press, that there is

269
a very dangerous Dutch auction taking place between the two main parties in this country over the question of asylum. It is no coincidence that there is a general election on the horizon.
Everyone says that they want to honour the obligations set out in the Home Secretary's Motion; and everyone talks about doing the right thing by genuine refugees. The problem is, however, that the powers that be are turning the screw on asylum seekers who reach this country and ratcheting up the political hysteria. Hardly a day goes by without some new story in the press—whether splashed in the tabloids or reported in a more responsible way—about new tough measures to deal with the problem. I ask the House to consider the effect that this has on asylum seekers who have come here because they were enduring intolerable conditions at home and believed that this country was a fair and just place for them.
Almost all the legal means of getting into Britain from these countries have been stopped. People cannot get visas. When people started coming across in lorries and then on the trains, that was stopped. All kinds of modern technology are now being used, possibly rightly, to stop people coming across in the backs of lorries.
It is clear that there is now a developing new trade in small boats. If people want to cross the Mediterranean or the Adriatic to get into the European Union, most of them cross in small boats. It is very dangerous; there are a lot of deaths and many people suffer injuries. There is now an increasing traffic in small boats across the Channel and the North Sea and, in my view, it will not be long before we hear horrific stories about people being drowned.
These measures were found not to be working and so we have a new policy of sending these people back. Perhaps the Prime Minister will stand on the quay at Dover to turn people away; to put them back on the boat and return them straight to France.
At the same time, we had the suggestion from the Home Secretary that people should not come to this country but should go to the nearest safe country next door. But many of those countries are not safe and, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, many of them are being destablised and are taking a far greater share of the burden than they can possibly handle given their circumstances.
I have a friend seeking asylum here who I believe has been tortured. I shall not go into details because his case is still being examined. He escaped to this country having spent almost four weeks in the back of one of these lorries—almost four weeks—and yet people say that he is here for an easy life because we are a soft option. His friend merely escaped out of Iran into Turkey. He was chased by Iranian security forces into Turkey and captured in Turkey; he was taken back to Iran and has now disappeared.
Finally, we are told, the answer is to deport lots of people. If the system had been working better, we would not have got into this situation.
270
I am ashamed of the fact that political debate in this country is dominated so much at the moment by this issue. It is a question of humanity, human rights, our international obligations—and it is about individual people, who, in many, many genuine cases, have come here to escape from suffering. The noble Lord quoted from "Hamlet"; I shall give a different quotation from "Hamlet":
"It is not, nor it cannot come to good".
What is happening in this country is a disgrace that involves the national media and national politicians. I urge all politicians to stop ratcheting up this issue; to take it off the burner; and to go away and fight the general election on more honourable issues.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, like all noble Lords who have spoken, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has delivered a high-minded speech, with much of which I sympathise. But scarcely any of those speeches—except for that of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden—considered the effect upon our own people of being so generous in accepting so many people from abroad. That is a matter which we have a duty also to consider.
Never in our long history have we had such a large invasion of genuine and bogus asylum seekers as we have had in the past few years. In the past year there has been an increase of 76,000, which is almost the size of a new constituency. My noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry was right to raise this matter.
Perhaps I may dare to do what my noble and learned friend, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, started to do, which was to put the matter into its historical and indeed geographical perspective, especially as regards England. I do so because, 20 years before my noble friend, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, did so, from October 1959 for 3½ years I was responsible at the Home Office for controlling the immigration of foreigners, as it was called then. We had no control over the immigration of British subjects from the Commonwealth because they were entitled to come here. They came in enormous numbers. About 150,000 each year were coming here. They came as refugees, but for economic reasons.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that the migration was based partly on the settlement for the independence of Commonwealth countries? Commonwealth citizens were given rights as British subjects, which they exercised.
Lord Renton: My Lords, that is history. Perhaps I may move to the present. We had to introduce the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 which limited the right of Commonwealth citizens to settle here. The Labour Party voted against it on more than 40 occasions and threatened to repeal it when they came to power. However, the Labour Government did not repeal it but strengthened it, and quite rightly so.
According to the 1961 census, which was then the relevant figure, the population of the United Kingdom was 51,284,000. Thirty years later, according to the

271
1991 census, the figure was 54,192,000, which is an increase of nearly 3 million in 30 years, which was not too bad. But now the figure is nearly 60 million, which is an increase of about 6 million in 10 years. That is a very big burden for the people of our country to bear.
Of course, England is much more heavily populated than other parts of the United Kingdom. Therefore it is in England more than elsewhere that immigrants have caused unemployment, housing congestion, hospital, health and education problems. They contribute towards urban congestion in our large towns and cities.
Although the number of asylum seekers has greatly increased in the past few years, it is fair to point out that the problem had already become serious when the present Government came to power in 1997. It is now worse. We must give the Home Secretary, Mr Straw, the fullest support in such attempts as he has been able to make so far to deal with the problem. I need not repeat the arguments which have already been used about the need to strengthen controls in various ways. As I say, I believe that they should be strengthened, which is what the great mass of our native people expect the Government to do.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, when I arrived in England as an asylum seeker about 35 years ago it was with an overwhelming sense of relief and gratitude to be in a free and tolerant country where human rights were respected and those fleeing from persecution were welcomed. When I was granted British citizenship five years' later I felt immeasurable pride to be a citizen of such a country. But today, when I read the newspapers demonising immigrants and recklessly stirring up hatred of them, with many politicians competing with each other in proposing ever more draconian measures to prevent immigrants entering this land, I hardly recognise this country as one of which, above all others, I had aspired to become a citizen. Having now listened to the speeches in your Lordships' House today, I am greatly encouraged that I made the right decision.
It is almost inconceivable that, on the one hand, the Government are set on depriving poor countries of the nurses, teachers, information technology specialists and other professionals, which these poor countries so desperately need, and on the other hand, the Government are erecting almost insuperable barriers for many political refugees and economic migrants. Surely, that does not accord with the principles of justice and fairness for which this country once had a fine reputation.
The starting point for an examination of the issues must surely be the reasons for some of these barriers. Are they myths or realities? Some noble Lords who have spoken today have exposed some of them as myths. I chair Oxfam. It has produced a briefing paper examining the major arguments used by the media for their attacks on immigrants. If I had the time I could take noble Lords through it. It covers issues such as
272
Britain being a soft touch, taking more than its share of refugees. It also deals with council taxes being increased to fund asylum seekers. It either rebuts many of these myths, putting them in the dustbin, or places them in their correct context. Having read and studied them all, one really wonders what is the media's motive in raising the issues in the way that they do and ignoring the impact that their actions have on refugees both in and outside this country.
In practice, the Government have erected barriers to the admission of all immigrants. There are two distinct categories of immigrants; one is asylum seekers who are entitled to entry and the other is economic migrants who, as a rule, are not so entitled. To the extent that the barriers created discourage or deprive genuine asylum seekers from entry, the Government must surely be in breach of their obligations under the United Nations Convention on Refugees to which they have subscribed.
There are positive steps that the Government could take to assist genuine asylum seekers. Perhaps they already exist and the Minister may refer to them in his reply. Surely, it would be possible to fast-track the applications of asylum seekers who have a strong case and to avoid sending them to detention centres.
Turning to the second category, economic migrants, there is a powerful case for a coherent policy which would enable an appropriate number of them into the United Kingdom each year. The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, has made the case far more eloquently than I could. I would add one caveat. It cannot be right to cherry-pick and limit entry into the UK in order to allow in only professionals which the country needs. Surely, it must be the case that if we are to deprive poor countries of the skilled resources which they desperately need, we must be willing to accept as future citizens an appropriate number of less skilled, and even unskilled, immigrants.
I make one final point regarding refugees seeking political asylum being restricted more or less to the countries closest to where they are being persecuted. The argument raised by the United Kingdom Government seems somewhat self-serving. Because Britain is an island bordered by the European Union, the number of asylum seekers who would enter Britain as the "first safe country" would be very small.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing this subject to your Lordships' attention, and for his well-balanced remarks in opening the debate. There is little doubt that serious problems exist in our immigration and asylum policy and it is alarming to hear from the Immigration Service Union that the asylum system is nearly out of control and that there is no satisfactory system for returning bogus asylum seekers.
However, I wish to be clear from the start that I really do believe in giving asylum to those who are found to be genuine asylum cases. The problem is that there are too many bogus asylum seekers and far too

273
many illegal immigrants. It is to these people that my remarks apply, not to the genuine cases. I support the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Renton.
There has been a staggering increase in asylum applications in the United Kingdom. Applications rose from 26,000 in 1990 to just over 76,000 last year. This country now ranks second after Germany for the total number of entrants. This begs the question as to why so many asylum seekers and illegal immigrants attempt to come to the United Kingdom and how we can stem the flow to ensure that genuine asylum seekers are dealt with in an efficient and speedy manner.
Some of the reasons why asylum seekers come to this country have been given by the Home Affairs Commons Select Committee. There is scope for them to live here without any official documentation; there is a generous interpretation of asylum law. An excessively slow decision-making process allows them to live here for years while their cases are reviewed. Benefits are readily available, and there is a good chance of a job. There is a hopelessly inefficient system for removing them if and when they are told to go, and they have access to public services such as health, education and housing. In fact, it has been said that the UK is known as a "soft touch".
Another reason that makes it easier for asylum seekers to come to the United Kingdom is that, once they have crossed into one European country, there are no border controls until they attempt to cross the Channel to come here. There is no doubt that the majority of applicants have been in a democratic country—frequently referred to as a "safe country"—before reaching the United Kingdom. But more alarming is the fact that two-thirds of all asylum applicants are already inside the country.
Under the outdated 1951 UN convention, we are still obliged to consider requests for asylum. The convention clearly needs revising. However, it would be a huge and time-consuming task. The Government do not believe that this would be the most efficient way to progress. However, under the convention it seems open to a country to return an asylum seeker to a safe country through which he or she has travelled. The convention protects them from prosecution for illegal entry only if they have come directly from their country of origin. Illegal entry from a safe country is not protected. Clearly and logically, the requirement is for asylum applications to be made in the first EU country reached. Any subsequent country to which the applicant travels should have the right to insist that the application for asylum be made in the previous country.
It is clear that some other countries operate their border policy in a different way to that of the United Kingdom. But we are fortunate still to have border controls. We had the good sense not to sign up to the Schengen agreement; otherwise, the flood gates would really be open. We are fortunate that Britain is an island, with identified ports of entry, be they by rail, sea or air.
274
It is interesting to note how other countries deal with this problem. Perhaps we should take a leaf out of their book. Illegal immigrants entering Germany from the Czech Republic and Poland are returned to those countries immediately without the issue of asylum being raised, as it is deemed that they have come from a safe country and so have no need to seek asylum in Germany.
It is clear that our measures to deter and detect illegal entry into the UK are not effective. It beggars belief that the Home Office is not aware of the number of failed asylum seekers who leave of their own accord and, consequently, it does not know how many failed asylum seekers remain as illegal immigrants. There is no system for monitoring departure and, because the Government do not know whether visitors, students and failed asylum seekers have left the country, they cannot tell how many people have remained beyond the time permitted. This in itself must make the UK very attractive to illegal immigrants and bogus asylum seekers. It is important to note that the Home Affairs Select Committee has recorded the Home Office as being dilatory in enforcing the removal of people whose asylum claims have been refused and those who have gained illegal entry into the UK. This in itself has attracted more people to this country.
In conclusion, how can some of these factors be counteracted in the immediate future? We should search all lorries while in transit on ferries. A card should be issued for entitlement to benefits. That would have the effect of helping to deter and detect illegal immigrants; it would certainly help to address benefit fraud. Employers should face substantial fines if they are found to be employing and exploiting illegal immigrants. We should provide the necessary resources and up-to-date technology to ensure that the Immigration Service can do its job efficiently and properly. Finally, we should ensure that asylum applications are made in the first EU country reached.
4.46 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, for providing us with the opportunity to debate this matter. I should like to join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, in concentrating on the public perception of asylum seekers.
In November last year, a group of young asylum seekers addressed the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Children. Among them were two Kosovan young men, one of whom was head boy at his new school, a young Eritrean man, a young woman from Afghanistan and a young Nigerian woman. The last of these was incensed. She could not tell schoolmates she was an asylum seeker. She felt that, if they knew, they would shun her. Several of the young people expressed their gratitude at being given refuge in Britain. However, the mood of the meeting was one of outrage at the portrayal of asylum seekers.
It is wholely unacceptable that children who have experienced persecution in one country should face further aggression where they should expect

275
protection. Your Lordships are doubtless aware of the hardships experienced by refugees. These have been highlighted in this debate. Their tales of liquidation, destruction and family loss are familiar to Members of this House, if not so much to members of the general public.
Perhaps I may give my own illustration. Last spring, I became acquainted with a young Somali man who had spent three weeks sleeping on the streets of King's Cross before finding a bed at Centrepoint's shelter in Soho. His village had been razed and his parents had been killed. He did not know what had become of his brothers. A foreign traveller offered to help him leave the country. He entered Britain, somehow missing the normal authorities and was taken into the home of a Somali woman. Eventually, she was no longer prepared to house him. As he had missed the normal immigration procedure when he first entered Britain, he was not eligible for benefit. So he found shelter in an arcade in King's Cross. He appeared to me to be a gentle and well brought-up young man of intelligence, exhausted after his ordeal.
I am sure that your Lordships will agree with me that in our anxiety to control the flow of economic migrants we should not wish to, albeit inadvertently, perpetuate the hardship of refugees in this country. A small number of asylum seekers have been placed in detention camps. Most are not allowed to work in their first six months here and are given vouchers to buy their food and other essentials. The Government may or may not be justified in such measures. However, the consequence of these measures is that asylum seekers are made to seem like criminals, outcasts and layabouts. The effect is to degrade asylum seekers in their own eyes and in the eyes of the public—as Mustapha, a contributor to the Prince's Trust research into the needs of disadvantaged young people put it to me this morning.
I am encouraged by the news from the Refugee Council that local authority consortia in the dispersal areas are making good progress in their health, education, housing and media plans for asylum seekers. Can the Minister assure the House that those media plans will be well resourced and robust? Can the Minister say what else is being done to ensure that the public are aware of the circumstances of refugees? The warm reception of Kosovars in 1999 demonstrates that if politicians and the media communicate those circumstances the public can be overwhelmingly sympathetic. What steps are being taken to make all students aware of why people become refugees? I recognise that this is an issue for which the Government are castigated perhaps more by their own Back-Benchers than by the Opposition.
The fact that the Home Office is beginning to reduce the backlog of asylum applications is most welcome. The fact that removals and voluntary departures of asylum seekers increased by 8 per cent last year is some encouragement although it must be qualified by the comments that other noble Lords have made this afternoon. If the Government were to achieve their goal of a four month turn around for asylum seekers,
276
that would dramatically improve the way asylum seekers are perceived by the public. However, currently, many of the British public appear fearful at what they see as rising numbers of asylum seekers. There is a possibility of their assuaging that fear by attacking asylum seekers or supporting attacks in the media. The current situation is grave.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, for initiating the debate. The noble Lord was at one time a Member of Parliament for mid-Sussex where I live. Of course he did not expect me to vote for him, but I have listened to him with great care. His contribution today is an example of how we can debate such issues without giving rise to saloon bar politics.
Immigration and asylum issues are fairly emotive. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Greaves highlighted what could happen if such issues are raised in an emotive way during a general election campaign. In the past we have seen such issues exploited. I suspect that with the proximity of the general election in a couple of months, the same pattern may again emerge. My appeal to politicians is to take great care in the way such issues are debated. I hope that they will follow the example of the noble Lords, Lord Renton of Mount Harry and Lord Garel-Jones, and others in the way they debated the issue. I was disappointed at the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I listened to him with great care. In one clean swipe he has destroyed my hope of ever being classified as a native person of this country. However, I shall, of course, forgive him for that.
Rational debate is part of our political process but that carries with it a responsibility to ensure that it has no damaging effect on those who need our protection. There is evidence that emotive debates have resulted in violence and harassment, as has been repeatedly pointed out today. It would be a shame if, in the country to which asylum seekers have turned for protection from persecution, they were to find themselves victims of harassment based on xenophobia.
Britain has a rich history based on a nation of migrants. They have made a unique contribution to the prosperity of our nation. In arts, science, technology and politics they have made important contributions. Let us consider the last major intake of refugees in the 70s. The noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, mentioned that. In that case a Conservative government accepted over 28,000 Ugandan Asians. No one would dispute the fact that they have made a great contribution to our economy. We are indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, who was Home Secretary at that time, for the way he handled that issue. To this day many east African Asians worship him for the action he took. It was a courageous political decision and a lesson for successive Home Secretaries to follow.
We are now seeing major political parties competing with each other in their readiness to curtail the arrival of newcomers. Of course, every country has a right to

277
determine its immigration policy and must take into account the national interest. With the increasing development of a global economy, the pressure to migrate is immense. There is no doubt that the distinction between economic migrants and those in fear of persecution is often blurred.
Equally, western nations require the skills now available in many parts of the world. The drop in the birth rate signals a dilemma for countries such as Germany and Britain. In a declining working population, who will pay for welfare and pensions? It is here that we need to balance the rhetoric with reality. We shall have to look at immigration and the arrival of newcomers as an ongoing process. No longer can we slam the door in the face of those who can make a substantial contribution to the prosperity of our nation.
However tight the controls, we know that they do not always work. The Runnymede Trust report on the future of multi-ethnic Britain states in relation to the control mechanism:
"There are three problems with this approach. First the sense of panic the issue instils and the subjectivity with which it is discussed lead to bad law, giving rise to challenges both in the UK courts and among international human rights bodies.
Second, it prevents or obstructs an objective and forward looking examination of the need for, and benefits of, immigration.
Third, it undermines Britain's development as a cohesive but diverse society, for it implies or indicates that politicians are not genuinely committed to addressing all forms of racism".
Those are hard words but politicians have themselves to blame for the present situation. The way we have dealt with asylum issues must bring shame to those who are responsible for the legislative framework we have established. What is the reality: three major Acts of Parliament over six years and press campaigns that smack of xenophobia?
The situation facing us today is of our own making. The previous administration happily allowed cutbacks in immigration staff to a level which seriously affected the ability to handle the backlog of applications. The present Government did little to recruit additional staff until the backlog reached crisis point. That situation should never have been allowed to happen and the Government should bear full responsibility for it. As my honourable friend Jackie Ballard said in the other place,
"If people in other countries know of a backlog of applications in the United Kingdom, how long it takes to process the applications and the inadequacy of the system to monitor the departure of failed asylum seekers then that in itself is a pull factor that draws them here".
We need to separate economic migrants from those who are genuinely in fear of their lives or who are persecuted in their homeland. What we have done over a period of time is to close all doors so that there is no way in which a genuine asylum seeker can enter the country legally. That is why we see massive exploitation of human cargo and why we see people suffocate in container vans. Those who are responsible for such exploitation are never brought to justice. All of us must condemn such practices.
278
Let us consider those who arrive on our shores. Have they broken any laws? The law provides for them to claim asylum, which many do. It is the system and the weakness in the decision-making process that create the backlog. If the Government cannot reach a decision on time, they must accept the blame. To make asylum seekers scapegoats is unacceptable.
In May 1997, the average intake per month was 2,590. In December 2000, it was 5,820. The total in that year was 76,040. Today the figure stands at 71,160 or thereabouts—a slowly declining number. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, pointed out, in terms of asylum applications, the UK ranks 10th out of 25 in Europe. As has been said, this year we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the refugee convention relating to the status of refugees. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes a right to seek political asylum. The convention on refugees gave that right legal expression. We have a long history of offering refuge to those who flee persecution. We must maintain our obligations. It is still a reality that the vast majority of refugees remain in the developing world. Many of those countries do not receive sufficient international aid to cope with that influx. We have seen the rise in violence, war and persecution in many parts of the world which has contributed 'to the growing number of asylum seekers.
The Government were ill advised when they made earlier pronouncements about bogus asylum seekers and beggars only to retreat when public opinion condemned such volatile expressions. We support the proposals for common EU asylum procedures, but we are concerned that refugees seeking asylum should remain in the first country to which they flee.
The proposal is flawed. It would place an even greater responsibility on some of the world's poorest countries which already host an unfair proportion of the world's refugees. Of course we need to distinguish between illegal immigration and asylum seekers. We need to separate economic migrants from those who are victims of persecution. We need to co-operate with other EU countries to fight organised crimes relating to trafficking in human cargoes.
But we must never lose sight of the contribution that refugees have made to this country. They have brought economic benefits to this country. Those communities have gone through all the disadvantages and yet come up with success stories. We should welcome them. In generations to come, we shall value their contribution because that will determine the prosperity of our nation.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, all noble Lords appreciate the initiative of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry in securing the debate and his introduction of it. The result has been a calm and constructive debate about what we all agree is an extremely difficult and potentially emotive subject. We can also agree that it is both an economic and moral question, as the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, said. We have long accepted our obligations to genuine refugees.

279
However, there was also considerable concern during the debate, as there is outside the House, that the Government's policy is not working satisfactorily. It is working neither efficiently nor humanely. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 was supposed to deter unfounded applications. Statistics demonstrate that it has not done so. The dispersal and support system was supposed to spread asylum applicants across the country to be looked after. That is not succeeding.
The statistics are clear. The number of applications was 76,000. That does not include dependants. The figure is 100,000 including dependants. Of those applications, half or so are eventually refused but, according to the Home Office, only about 9,000 actually leave. The union tell us that about 12 a month are removed forcibly. About 1,200 a year leave with financial assistance; and others leave voluntarily. The Government's new system is not deterring applications. Neither does it prevent those who are not refugees from staying more or less permanently
Those figures demonstrate that it is not solely a question of perception. People need the reassurance that there is a fair but efficient system which looks after people who come as potential refugees. If they have that reassurance everything else becomes much easier. When the dispersal and voucher arrangements were being discussed during the Bill, there was a great deal of scepticism and foreboding throughout the House. Many of those warnings have proved right.
A most interesting Answer to a Written Question by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on 6th February stated that there are 534 staff employed by the National Asylum Support Service of whom 523 work in head office and one in each of 11 regions. So whoever else has been dispersed, it is not the support system. Its motto seems to be, "Go where we say", not, "Come with us". That issue may need to be considered.
Reference has been made about the review of the voucher system. On 27th November the Home Office asked for responses by 22nd December. If the Home Office could respond to those submissions with the same speed with which they expected other organisations to submit their view on this difficult subject, we should have had the result of the voucher review in mid-January, even allowing for Christmas; I do not tie the Home Office down to a precise number of days. When shall we see the results of the voucher review?
Several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry, referred to the need for guest workers. We need some immigrants for economic reasons which I understand. But a separate system of work permits addresses that question. It works reasonably smoothly and allows temporary and often permanent immigration into this country in the national interest. That is the system which should be addressed with regard to that question; it is not the subject of today's debate.
280
The underlying, long-term problem which is the subject of today's debate is clear. We live in a crowded island. We have debates on the shortage of housing and land, in particular in the South East, the Midlands, the west of England, the London area, and so on. I think that we have been tolerant of foreigners throughout most of our history. Many Members of your Lordships' House—we have heard from the noble Lord who spoke recently—are descended from immigrants and many holders of ancient peerages have a lot of overseas blood. We have a long tradition of accepting refugees. There is no doubt that we have benefited from that.
Despite some of the newspaper headlines, I believe that there remains in this country a great reservoir of caring towards those who come to our country in this way. It was illustrated magnificently in the debate, notably by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham who spoke about what was being done to look after refugees in the North East. Over many years, we have accepted economic migrants and sympathise with their reasons for coming.
However, the world is much smaller. Travel is much easier than it used to be. Information travels more easily. More people know about the conditions in other countries. Reference has also been made to the fact that there is fighting in many parts of the world. Civil war and repression give rise to huge movements of refugees. I believe that we cannot take all who would like to come. We have an obligation but we need a humane and efficient policy to deal with it if we are to reassure our people. I am sorry to say that I do not think that the present system is working humanely or efficiently.
This country has made a considerable contribution to development aid and conflict resolution. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, spoke about them. They play a huge part. But criminal gangs have given rise to increased problems with asylum seekers. I hope that the Minister will find a minute or two to tell us more about what is being done to combat criminal gangs, because we all hate that phenomenon and want it to be dealt with as severely as possible. In particular, we want an assurance that the organisers of the gangs who profit from the practice are at least in danger of being locked up.
The debate has also raised other questions. My noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to appeals dismissed in the absence of the applicant. That is a result of dispersal and of the difficulties in making contact with legal representatives in time.
There has also been confusion in the past few days about the costs of current asylum policy. The Minister in the Commons, Mrs Roche, said that the cost was £600 million, but the Home Office letter to No. 10 Downing Street in the Sunday Times said that it was £834 million this year. There seems to be some confusion. It would be helpful if that was cleared up.
The Home Secretary has started talking about revising the 1951 convention and about EU co-operation. That is useful, but it is for the long term.

281
The daily problems need to be dealt with. That is why my right honourable friend Ann Widdecombe has suggested secure reception centres for asylum seekers. That is a humane contribution to the problem, not an inhumane one. We can look after people better in reception centres, where interpreters, social workers, lawyers, medical services and immigration officials can attend to them. Of course, the change cannot be made overnight, but it can be given priority, particularly as the Ministry of Defence is shedding barracks and camps. This seems a good time to start. We have done it in the past in special cases, and it must be at least part of the future of this very difficult subject.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I join in the general congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, for initiating the debate. More than that, this afternoon he has begun to lead us in a more constructive direction in the character and content of the debate. In one sense, his speech might be seen as a fightback from the liberal wing of the Conservative Party. I read it that way. His plea for decency and fact to lead this important debate should be welcomed throughout the House. I was pleased that noble Lords welcomed the way in which his speech was delivered. I found much to agree with in the content of the noble Lord's speech but—then, I found much to agree with in the content of many of the contributions to this stimulating debate, which I hope that people will take careful note of.
The issue of asylum is frequently the subject of public and media discussion, as many noble Lords have said. However, its complexities are rarely well understood. The front page of this morning's Sun newspaper gave an ample example of that. An abuse of statistics is an understated way to describe that front page. It ignored the facts. Last year—it is important to say this for the record—there were more than 9,000 removals of asylum seekers, not the 12 that the front page tended to suggest. That exceeded a previous record of 7,600 in 1999. That compares with 4,840 in 1996. There were also more than 28,000 non-asylum removals last year. The number of cases in which there has to be an escort to a point of destination is 30 per month. I do not understand where the statistics that the Sun decided to alight on came from, but they are misleading. Such misleading statistics and facts have been all too common throughout the debate on a subject that should be dealt with dispassionately, decently and with integrity, because it is a sensitive subject.
At the risk of adding to the welter of statistics that have already been bandied around your Lordships' House this afternoon, it is right to try to put the asylum pressures in context. The total number of applications last year was 76,000. That was an increase of nearly 7 per cent compared with 1999, but it was smaller than the increases in the preceding two years. There was no increase in the period from April to December 2000 compared with the similar period in 1999.
282
As many noble Lords have said, it is vital to recognise the European and international context of the figures. The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, made that point. In comparison with the zero increase here that I have mentioned, other European countries have had increases: the numbers for Sweden increased by 53 per cent, for Denmark by 42 per cent, for Ireland by 18 per cent, for Belgium by 16 per cent, for France by 14 per cent and for the Netherlands by 6 per cent. The figure for the EU, excluding Italy, was 1 per cent. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, said, we remain in the middle of the European league for the number of applications received per head of population.
The number of asylum seekers applying in the United Kingdom, as well as in other European countries, is largely a result of political instability in other parts of the world. It can be little accident that the top four countries are Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Somalia. In contrast, we have successfully reduced numbers from countries to which removal is more straightforward. From April to December last year, applications from eastern Europe were at 3,295—almost half the number for the same period in the preceding year.
Asylum is a complex issue for any Government. Many noble Lords have made that sensible point. There are no easy solutions or quick fixes. We are committed by the convention to provide genuine refugees with protection from persecution. We shall do so with pride. However, there can be no doubt that asylum is being used by traffickers, who profit by exploiting illegal immigration. We must take firm action at national and international level to deal with that criminal activity. We must also take action at international level to deal with some of the factors that create asylum pressures for the United Kingdom and Europe as a whole. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, who made that point, arguing for conflict resolution and aid as possible means of solving some of the problems.
On the domestic front, we have embarked on the most comprehensive programme of reform for decades. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, was right to call for investment. We have invested. In contrast with the under-investment in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate under the previous Government, we are investing to create a modern and efficient system. We have recruited more than 3,000 extra staff, including about 500 asylum decision-makers. As a result, a record 110,000 initial decisions were made last year. I pay tribute to the hard work of all IND staff, which has contributed to the tremendous achievement that those figures represent. The backlog of initial asylum applications has fallen by a third, to 66,000, as at the end of last year.
Faster decisions do not mean lower-quality decisions. We have invested heavily in providing high-quality training to our case workers, who also have support from a team ofbarristers working alongside them. As a result, adjudicators upheld decisions in eight out of 10 appeals last year.

283
The Immigration and Nationality Directorate and the Lord Chancellor's Department are working together to deliver a faster appeal system. The Lord Chancellor has trebled the courtroom capacity, doubled the number of interpreters and appointed an extra 150 adjudicators. The average time that it takes to hear an appeal has halved over the past 12 months. Almost two thirds of appeals are dealt with in four months.
For those who are allowed to stay at the end of the process, we are working to ensure speedy and effective integration into society. My noble friend Lady Whitaker made a plea for that, and that is exactly what we are doing. Over the centuries, refugees have enriched our society. Last year, we launched a national strategy to co-ordinate the efforts of central and local government and the voluntary sector to ensure that we achieve that integration.
Again, I want to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in complimenting the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, on the work that he undertook when he faced similar problems in the early 1970s. I believe that his work provided an example and a beacon which future governments must live up to. We certainly intend to play our part in doing exactly that.
In the interests of genuine refugees, we must also face up to the need to remove those who make unfounded claims. That is perhaps more straightforward in relation to some countries than it is to others, but it is always extremely resource-intensive. We are providing substantial additional resources to support asylum removals.
Next year we intend to return 30,000 failed asylum seekers. That is a bold claim and it will certainly be a tough target for us to meet. We are recruiting additional immigration staff and expanding detention capacity. The development of three sites which will provide 1,700 extra beds is under way. With the International Organization for Migration, we are developing a voluntary return programme. However, no one should underestimate the difficulties of that task. In the case of many countries, achieving the return of unfounded applicants is extremely difficult. Those difficulties are shared by all European countries.
In parallel with the additional resources, the 1999 Act represents the most comprehensive overhaul of immigration legislation for three decades. Two key provisions were rolled out from April last year. The new National Asylum Support Service began on 3rd April. I would argue that it has established a coherent, national system of support to replace the shambles created by the legislation of the previous government. That left local authorities in London and the South East with an intolerable burden. The new scheme has been phased in very carefully.
I believe that those who, for example, criticise the dispersal arrangements must remember that it was pressure from many Conservative authorities which led to the introduction of that scheme by our Government. Those authorities have welcomed that
284
approach. I accept that, as with any new system, there will be operational difficulties and pressures. However, the system is working better than many people predicted. As it beds down, the distribution of responsibility for supporting asylum seekers will be much better and fairer.
During the course of the debate this afternoon we heard praise indeed for the extension of the civil penalty scheme, which deals with those who bring in to this country clandestine entrants by road, through the Channel Tunnel, by ferry, and so on. As we made clear, the purpose of that measure was to encourage hauliers and others to improve security and thus prevent their vehicles being used and abused by the facilitators who organise clandestine and illegal entry for their own profit.
We are now seeing the benefits of the scheme. The civil penalty has created strong commercial pressures on hauliers and ferry operators to introduce better security systems. In early December, P&O Stena Line introduced carbon dioxide checks on vehicles which use their ferries at Calais. As a result, so far almost 1,400 persons have been found and handed over to the French authorities. Compared with the four weeks before the checks were introduced, in the four weeks from 6th December there was a 41 per cent reduction in undocumented passengers and clandestines dealt with at Dover.
Other measures in the 1999 Act are also helping. Wider powers to fingerprint applications are helping us to tackle fraud and abuse by deterring multiple applications. In December, a new electronic fingerprint system was introduced at the Asylum Screening Unit in Croydon. It will be extended to the major ports soon. More than 100 fingerprint matches have already been identified from new applicants at Croydon. Thirty-two applicants have been arrested. Of those, 11 have been charged with various offences, including making false statements and obtaining leave to remain by deception. Four have been convicted, with two receiving sentences of imprisonment for three months. We are also now extending civil penalties to freight trains.
The Act has been implemented in a planned, phased way. We are yet to see the full effect of its provisions and of other measures that we have introduced. In particular, we have still to see the full effect of faster decision-making and appeals, extending the civil penalty to rail freight, and increased removals. However, there are good signs that our strategies are having an impact on unfounded claims from Eastern Europe.
I want to turn to the need for effective international action—
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. If he is passing from his rosy account of the 1999 Act, is it only by inadvertence that he has, I believe, failed to mention the disgraceful voucher system and the statutory theft of asylum seekers' money which it perpetrates? Will he deal with that matter because I did raise it?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I was hoping to come to that in my later comments. However, the

285
noble and learned Lord has raised the issue. Of course, we recognise that problems exist in relation to the voucher system and, for that reason, we set up the review. We are satisfied that it is consistent with our obligations under the Human Rights Act. The review is considering evidence and allegations that have been made about the voucher scheme—for example, that it is stigmatising and humiliating. Obviously, if problems exist, we shall seek to tackle them. Undoubtedly the review will be thorough. We are most grateful for the contributions made by Members of your Lordships' House and others and by organisations which, quite rightly, represent the interests of refugees and refugee communities.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making that point. I am most grateful to him. Can he tell us what is being done in relation to the matter of change, which several of us asked about?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, undoubtedly that is one issue on which the review will pass an opinion. I shall not pre-judge the outcome of the review. It would be quite wrong for me to do so, and I am sure that the noble Lord would not expect that.
In a debate in this House on 1st March last year on the subject of asylum, I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who said:
"It is for consideration whether we should now consult other countries, especially Germany, which has absorbed even more immigrants, as to whether the Geneva Convention should be modified".—[Official Report, 1/3/00; col. 579.]
Perhaps I may re-emphasise that we are committed to meeting our obligations under that convention. However, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has begun a debate within the EU and beyond about how we can develop a more rational and effective international protection regime—one that enables us to devote less time and effort to dealing with unfounded claims for asylum. As several noble Lords, and notably the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, said, the convention was conceived in different times. There is an urgent need to develop an international protection regime which is better suited to this new and different age. I am glad to say that that is being recognised by the UNHCR.
In the meantime, we must work closely with our partners in Europe to develop practical solutions. We are working closely with the French Government. Security at Calais has been tightened. We have agreed on the introduction of juxtaposed controls for Eurostar passengers. Juxtaposed controls will enable UK officers to operate our immigration control at stations in France which serve the Eurostar.
In addition, at the Franco-British Summit last Friday in Cahors, we reached agreement to extend those controls to all passengers using Eurostar, whether they intend to travel to the UK or only to Calais. That is a significant improvement in our security, given that in January alone 458 inadequately documented passengers arrived here, having boarded the Eurostar with a ticket for Calais.
286
The French Government intend to have those measures ready for implementation by June this year. I believe that that demonstrates their understanding of the great concern which the abuse of this route causes to the United Kingdom Government and our citizens. We have also agreed to work together closely in developing a replacement to the Dublin Convention in a way that operates more effectively than the current convention, which does nothing to discourage asylum shopping.
We are also working with other countries to tackle the organised criminals who control the traffic of human beings, particularly through the Balkans. We are extending the immigration liaison officer network in the western Balkans and other countries. Officers will be sent to Zagreb, Budapest, Vienna and Rome as soon as possible. We are working with the Italian Government and other EU member states to provide hands-on assistance, advice and training to help the authorities in that part of the Balkans.
As a follow-up to the discussions at the informal Justice and Home Affairs Council on 9th February, the United Kingdom hosted a meeting of officials on 12th February to take that work further forward. In accordance with the conclusions of the Nice European Council, we are looking for early agreement on measures to impose tough penalties on traffickers across the EU.
We have a comprehensive strategy to deal with asylum. We are investing substantial additional resources. We are streamlining procedures to deal fairly but more quickly with asylum claims. We are putting in place new measures, such as the civil penalty and new fingerprinting systems, to tackle illegal immigration and to deal with those who abuse the system. Those are tough measures. During the passage of the Immigration and Asylum Act, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said,
"indeed, it is tougher in some important respects than the approach of the previous government".—[Official Report, 29/6/99; col. 183.]
We are also taking action at the international level to deal with asylum pressures, which affect the whole of Europe.
Only a few minutes remain in this debate, and I am aware that many questions were raised on which I have not touched. The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, asked how many appeals were dismissed because appellants could not turn up at an appeal hearing. Statistics on appeal outcomes are the responsibility of the Immigration Appellate Authority. Although about 80 per cent of appeals are dismissed, I understand that figures for those dismissed because the appellant did not attend are not available.
The noble Lord said that interviewing asylum seekers immediately on arrival was unfair. It is our objective, as it was of the previous government, of whom the noble Lord was a member, to interview asylum seekers as soon as possible after they make their claim. That is part of our effort to speed up the process, and it is an effective approach.

287
The noble Lord also questioned the arrangements for statement of evidence forms to be returned. We will soon ensure that guidance about the completion of those forms is available in the 60 languages that are most commonly spoken by asylum seekers. We believe that the time limit for completing the forms, which represents about one quarter of the two-month period for making the initial decision, is fair. About three quarters of applicants complete the form on time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, asked about the measures that we are taking to integrate graduates and skilled workers. We are committed to ensuring that refugees should have every opportunity to rebuild their lives in the community for their benefit and that of their families. Last November, I believe, we launched the full and equal citizens initiative, which examines the ways in which government and the wider community can do more to help with integration.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about the number of asylum seekers who did not want accommodation but did want vouchers. As of 29th January, 33,300 applications for support had been received, and 9,100 were for subsistence support vouchers only.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether the Immigration and Nationality Directorate would cease to use prisons for the detention of asylum seekers. Some 500 prison places are provided for detention of asylum seekers. That is only a temporary arrangement, which will last for roughly 12 months. It is not desirable for that part of the prison system to be used in that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked when we would announce the conclusions of our consultation process. I have dealt with that point. There have been many useful representations. Earlier this year, we said that they would be drawn together and that is still our intention. I shall of course ensure that the correspondence to which the noble Lord referred is chased up. It is important for Members of your Lordships' House to have a timely response to the important questions that they ask.
The noble Lord also asked whether case workers could go to asylum applicants to interview, rather than vice versa. That matter was raised in the noble Lord's correspondence. Without pre-empting that matter, I doubt whether such an arrangement would in all events be practicable. The conduct of an interview requires suitable premises and often an interpretation facility. It is essential to use our operational capacity to best effect. However, we are increasing capacity in Liverpool and Leeds to enable additional interviewing in the regions.
I have tried to answer as many questions as I could during the debate.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I asked a question to which the noble Lord did not respond; namely, about the costs of the process. The suggestion
288
was that it was £600 million, but a letter from the Home Office in The Sunday Times said that it was £834 million.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I willingly confess that I struggled to find the figures in my briefing notes. I shall endeavour to correspond with the noble Lord—I always do, and find it very amenable. He will be provided with those figures.
This has been a useful, valuable and stimulating discussion. We have moved the debate on. The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, is to be congratulated on that achievement this afternoon. We have had a civilised debate—such debates should be conducted in that way—and the noble Lord will help us along that important path.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, this has been a moving debate on an important subject and I thank all those on all sides of your Lordships' House who took part in it. The debate has been singularly free of political cant, as several noble Lords said, and it explored several issues that are of continuing importance in this context.
Several noble Lords referred to the failure of the voucher system. In response to the winding-up speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I have to say that the matter will not rest there. Those who are in receipt of a voucher may find that deeply unsatisfactory, for all of the reasons that were mentioned. It is no good to be told, "It will all be sorted out one day". Recipients need to know when that will be done. Those noble Lords who raised the matter will doubtless return to that matter.
I suspect that the same is true of the question of dispersal, which is of great importance. My point about the long interviews conducted at airports of people who had just arrived after a difficult 12-hour journey from another part of the world needs further investigation, as does the time for filling in statement of evidence forms. We also need to ensure that notes are available in the right language for those who fill in those forms.
The debate has moved this difficult issue forward. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and my noble friend Lord Garel-Jones for supporting my suggestion that we should find a place in the immigration statistics and rules for details about economic migrants. Such migrants might, in due course, be able to come to this country for some years as guest workers.
Finally, I was struck by the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. He referred to charities in the North East that helped refugees and illegal immigrants, and said that that demonstrated a civilised world to those who had lost touch with civilisation. I hope that our debate this afternoon will be seen by the outside world as a step in the same direction. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Parliament and Government
5.38 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth rose to draw attention to the case for strengthening the role of Parliament in calling government to account; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted to raise this matter this afternoon. The Motion raises a topic that is crucial to the health of our political system.
I have previously argued in the House that the constitution that evolved at the end of the 19th century, which has been termed the Westminster model of government, has served this country well. The system of government that emerged was not perfect, but it has attributes that in combination render it preferable to the other systems that are on offer.
A core, but not the only, attribute of the Westminster model is that of accountability. We have one body, the party in government, that is responsible for public policy. That body is chosen through elect ions to the House of Commons. It is answerable to electors in a general election. If the voters do not like what the party in government has done, they can sweep it out. Between elections, that body is answerable to the electors through Parliament. Parliament is the authoritative institution—the only one—that between elections can call government to account.
Parliament is thus central to our body politic. It is not itself a body of government. The government must govern. But government are elected through Parliament and their political authority rests on that fact. Undermine Parliament and in the long term we undermine the authority of government. Undermine the authority of government and ultimately we undermine the effectiveness of government. Consent and effectiveness are the basic underpinnings of political stability. To maintain both, we need a Parliament that can call government to account. In short, good government needs an effective Parliament.
Calling government to account constitutes, therefore, an essential role of Parliament. It is not the only one that it fulfils. Calling government to account encompasses a number of tasks. It includes ensuring that the measures and actions of government are subject to scrutiny on behalf of citizens and that the government answer for their actions. It includes ensuring a structured and effective opposition; that the voices of citizens, individually and collectively, are heard by government and that, where necessary, a redress of grievance is achieved.
Parliament fulfils well many of its tasks. However, when it comes to calling government to account, my argument—the basis of this debate—is that it is not as effective as it should be. Parliament can and should be more effective in calling government to account.
In July 1999 I was invited by the Leader of the Opposition, William Hague, to chair a commission to strengthen Parliament. The membership included my
290
noble friends Lord Waldegrave and Lord Forsyth. The commission operated independently of the Conservative Party, taking evidence from people drawn from all parties and from none. Various Members of your Lordships' House gave evidence. The commission reported in July last year.
The commission was clear as to the purpose of parliamentary reform. Reform can be carried out for a number of purposes. It may be carried out t o enable the government to get their business more expeditiously. It may be carried out for the convenience of Members. It may be carried out to get rid of archaic and unnecessary procedures. It may he carried out to strengthen Parliament in calling government to account.
Recent changes have been unfocused, having been carried out for different purposes and invariably subsumed under the heading "modernisation'', a term that covers everything and therefore means nothing. We were clear as to the purpose of reform. We wanted to strengthen Parliament in calling government to account. That must have priority. That was the focus of our report.
In undertaking our analysis we proceeded on the basis of four well-founded assumptions. The first was that there was no "golden age" of Parliament. We focused on what we believed the relationship between Parliament and government should be, and not on some romanticised perception of what it used to be. The second assumption was that changes in powers, structures and procedures are not by themselves sufficient to strengthen Parliament as a scrutinising body.
Introducing new powers and procedures will help Parliament only if Members are prepared to use them. There has to be a change in parliamentary culture if behaviour is to change and Members are to make effective use of the tools at their disposal. The third assumption was that procedures are none the less important. Procedure is an important constraint on government. The fourth assumption was that Parliament is not, in its relationship with the executive, a monolithic entity. Parliament is the sum of many parts. There are not just two Chambers; there are different configurations within each Chamber. To strengthen Parliament one has to look at the several parts and undertake changes that are specific to those parts.
We also recognised that to some degree recommendations for change require the support of government. That entails government recognising that they too will be the beneficiaries of an effective Parliament. A government, confident in the rightness of their policies, should welcome questioning and scrutiny. Effective reform, though, requires also the support and sustenance of Members. Changes to procedure have, in effect, to be the property of each House. Members not only have to want change; they also have to be willing to sustain it. That is not something that parliamentarians can look to others to do. They have to do it themselves.
In our commission inquiry we looked at the reasons why Parliament was not as effective as it should be in calling government to account. We identified several developments that, in combination, have undermined Parliament as an effective body of scrutiny and influence.
Government has grown and the volume of public business is now enormous. Bills are not only longer than they used to be, but also more complex. Political parties are essential to our political system, but the partisanship that is now apparent, at least in the other place, militates against an effective dialogue between the parties. Parliament, primarily the other place, is increasingly denuded of people with experience and expertise that enables Members to question government effectively. Power within the political system is fragmenting, with some passing upwards to the institutions of the European Union, some flowing to the centre—that is, Downing Street—and some to the courts. Parliament is also threatened by what we term depoliticisation; that is, by decision-making power being hived off to a range of unelected bodies and, more corrosively, by the growth of direct-action pressure groups. Such groups believe that they have a monopoly of wisdom and are not prepared to engage in reasoned debate. They undermine the basis of a deliberative—that is, a parliamentary political process. In all those developments, Parliament is getting left behind as the media rush to cover what they believe to be the real centre of power and of political action.
What emerges from that is that there is no single explanation for the present imbalance in the relationship between Parliament and the executive and that the problem that confronts us is a serious one. The scale of the problem requires a serious and radical response. Changes are needed that are substantial and, in some cases, innovative.
In our report we went for what we termed a "big bang" approach. By that we meant not one single, over-arching reform, but rather a number of substantial and, we believe, achievable reforms that could be implemented in the lifetime of a Parliament. The combined effect of the changes, we believe, would be to strengthen Parliament enormously in fulfilling its roles in calling government to account.
In the time available, perhaps I may briefly mention the headings under which we proposed reform. We made recommendations directed at strengthening the other place in respect of the Chamber, committees, the Opposition, parliamentary parties and the individual Member of Parliament. We made especially extensive recommendations for strengthening Select Committees and for strengthening the individual Member, not least through the introduction of incentives for parliamentary scrutiny. We made recommendations to strengthen your Lordships' House, primarily in respect of committee work. We believed that reinforcing this House in its committee work would enable it to play to its undoubted strengths. We recommended referring Bills for Select Committee scrutiny prior to the normal Committee
292
stage on the Floor of the House. We also favoured making more use of sessional committees for post-legislative scrutiny.
We made recommendations for strengthening Parliament in undertaking legislative scrutiny. We wanted to see more effective scrutiny of primary, delegated and European legislation and we offered proposals in respect of each. We were keen to see steps taken, for example, to prevent the so-called "gold plating" of European directives.
We made recommendations to strengthen Parliament in undertaking financial scrutiny. Our recommendations under that heading were commended not only by my noble friend Lord Saatchi but also by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who I am delighted to see in his place, during the debate at Second Reading of the Finance Bill last July.
Furthermore, we made recommendations to limit government. Government are too large, pervasive and unconstrained in their conduct of public business. We wanted to constrain government in order to strengthen Parliament. We recommended, among other changes, a reduction in the number of Ministers and parliamentary private secretaries and a fixed parliamentary year. We believe that that would serve as an important discipline in relation to government.
We recommended changes to deal with constitutional change. These included a reform of the process for dealing with Bills relating exclusively to English, or English and Welsh matters.
We also recommended changes to provide for greater access to Parliament. We wanted to strengthen the link between citizen and Parliament. We therefore favoured harnessing new technology to the benefit of Parliament, the creation of a petitions committee, as well as opening up the institution much more to the media.
Those changes, we believed, would, in combination, help to transform the relationship between Parliament and government, ensuring that the relationship is what we want it to be. In the longer term, we suggested reviewing the size of the House of Commons and even considering whether or not Bills should be sent to Committee prior to being considered on the Floor of the House.
The proposals we put forward are extensive, quantitatively and qualitatively, and ambitions. But they are none the less achievable—or rather, they are achievable if the political will is there to achieve them. For Parliament to be strengthened in calling government to account, parliamentarians have to want to call government to account. They have to want to fulfil that core fundamental task of Parliament. It is not a task that can be hived off to others.
When the Commission to Strengthen Parliament was appointed, one political correspondent asked how we could ensure that our recommendations were implemented. My reply was that we, as a commission, could not ensure that they were implemented; we could only make recommendations. The ultimate responsibility for change rests, as it must, with Members of the two Houses. This is not an issue which

293
can be resolved by anyone else. Members of the two Houses of Parliament are responsible for calling government to account. It is responsibility that cannot and must not be shirked. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to thank the noble Lord for introducing this important and interesting debate. I shall concentrate my remarks on your Lordships' House but I must say a few words about its relationship with the other place.
I begin by reminding your Lordships that our skills are different from Members in the other place. On average, we are older. I have no hesitation in saying that we are far more expert, but we are mostly part-time and have other jobs. Indeed, it is a paradox that although we are part-time and unpaid, we seem to have more willingness and capacity to examine Bills in detail than do Members of the House of Commons. That has always puzzled me.
The essential point, which we must not ignore, is that we are not elected. It may be that in due course there will be some elected Peers but I retain my doubts about that and do not see it as adding to the legitimacy of your Lordships' House. However, I believe that the 1999 Act made us much more legitimate, gave us the potential to strengthen our role in the process of accountability, and enabled us to be more effective.
Scrutiny and accountability go hand in hand. Our role is to question, to look for logical flaws in legislation and to ask whether any particular piece of legislation effectively does what it is supposed to do. We may well also query the purposes of a Bill or an order but in my judgment purpose is a matter for the executive and for the other place. The role of the executive is to listen and to demonstrate that it is doing so. Its response to sensible questions must be sensible answers. Its response to reasoned argument must be reasoned argument
However, accountability does not mean that the executive is run by, let alone replaced by, the legislature. A fortiori, it does not mean that the executive should be run by or replaced by your Lordships' House. I believe, as I hope we all do, that in the final analysis the executive, based on a democratically elected majority in the House of Commons, must get its own way. That does not imply that they are right but they have the absolute right to be wrong—just as we have the absolute right to say, "We told you so".
That leads to what I believe is a weakness in our existing system. I refer to what I call "retrospective scrutiny". We set up committees to examine matters as they go along. Your Lordships' House specialises in committees which typically examine general topics rather than specific decisions. Rightly, we certainly do not shadow individual government departments; we leave that to the other place. But we have a role which I do not see us playing as well as we ought. We should ask more often, "What is the evidence to show that a particular Act of Parliament or a specific executive
294
action has achieved what it set out to do?" Related to that matter is a question which the great philosopher, Karl Popper, taught us in his great work, The Urban Society: we must always look for the unforeseen side effects of actions, especially those which are adverse.
The subject arouses political sensitivities. No government like exposure such as, "You [the Government] said this would happen but it has not"; or, "You said that this would do good and by your own criteria it has done harm". But I am convinced that parliamentary democracy requires precisely that form of exposure. Perhaps I may go into my normal mode of tartness and say that I am extremely interested in the fact that the Opposition are most keen on such accountability. During my years here when they were in government they showed not the slightest interest in accountability or scrutiny of any form. They were very keen on their massive majority.
However, that does not mean that their new view is wrong and it does not mean that I would advise my right honourable and noble friends to take that view. I believe that accountability is most important and that governments should be taking the lead in seeing that we have it. But I can never resist the kind of acid comment in which I specialise.
Furthermore, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Norton, closely because I believe that accountability is a matter for Parliament rather than for committees of inquiry and investigations by senior lawyers, so beloved of recent governments of all kinds.
Finally, I believe that slowly and surely we in your Lordships' House are making progress. We are using Committee stages much more for careful scrutiny and we are postponing most votes until subsequent stages. That is a good thing. We are also groping, albeit rather slowly, towards a more suitable way of scrutinising statutory instruments and I should like to see more of that. And we have some new committees. In my own field, with any luck and any day now, we shall have our economics affairs committee. Having achieved that, I believe that we could strengthen our scrutiny powers with one or two other committees. I should like to see one on social affairs and another on the arts generally. There are other areas in which we can make a contribution.
In conclusion, I make another "economics" point. Several noble Lords from all sides of the House agree that in terms of accountability we can, without offending the Parliament Acts, find a way to become more involved in a constructive analysis of tax reform.
6 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, your Lordships will have noticed that there has been a plethora of short debates on constitutional and allied matters in the past few weeks. I do not believe that we should make any apology for that. It is a thoroughly good thing. One reason is that the usual suspects are trotted out in the process. For me, it means that more than once I have had the pleasure of following the noble Lord, Lord Peston, with whom on this subject in matters of substance I am more frequently in agreement than

295
disagreement. We should do well to follow the noble Lord's advice on retrospective scrutiny, particularly in the Constitution Committee whose first meeting took place this afternoon. The debate is also very good for all the reasons so eloquently put forward this afternoon by my noble friend Lord Norton, to whom we are once again indebted.
I merely observe that there are at least two pieces of common ground that appear to unite most participants in our debates on these matters. First, there has been almost—I emphasise that word—universal consensus that Parliament, particularly vis à vis its relationship with the executive, is weaker than it was and that that is bad in every respect. Secondly, there is almost complete consensus on another matter that my noble friend rightly emphasised which perhaps flows from the first; namely, if Parliament is to be strengthened your Lordships' House should have a part to play in it.
Perhaps rather impertinently, it may be that I have bored your Lordships endlessly with my contention that the central purpose of a properly reformed upper House is to make sure that another place does its job better than it does now. It is self-evident that a more powerful—because it is more authoritative—and influential upper House would increase its standing, of course at the expense of another place. That standing cannot be increased from anywhere else. Paradoxically, by using its greater influence it can become a more effective check on another place, and, in so doing, the lower House will become more effective and in consequence its own standing will increase.
Beyond those two emerging pieces of consensus, in most parts of your Lordships' House there is very little agreement as to the means by which those basic contentions can be put into effect. Those who have taken part in these debates are well aware that my list includes a large number of matters, most of which are extremely carefully set out in the commission's report to which my noble friend alluded. I believe that a proper stage 2 reform of your Lordships' House, which is rather more carefully thought out than the Government's apparent, but unspoken, adherence to what has come to be known in the trade as "Wakeham B", is a much better way to deal with it, particularly if we proceed by means of an attempt to build consensus among parties which are already riven on the subject of reform.
We would also be wise to think of a trigger mechanism for post-legislative referendums on big and, by their nature, irreversible issues along the lines frequently proposed by my noble friends Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Dean of Harptree. I also suspect that there is now emerging a convention that the Government accept the strictures of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. Again, I pay tribute to this Government's performance in that respect.
There are a number of other proposals about the way in which the other place should reform its procedures which perhaps it is impertinent of me to
296
suggest, and certainly there is no time to do that this evening. Above all, both the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and my noble friend Lord Norton are absolutely right to say that endless commissions have sat on the question of how Parliament should reform itself. I refer not only to my noble friend's commission but also to the Hansard Society's commission under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Newton. In the end, Parliament alone can reform itself. In order to ensure that it performs its job properly, all it must do is exercise its will to do so. If it wants to do it, it will; if it does not, it will not. In the end the muscles that it possesses will atrophy.
In view of the consensus to which I have alluded, noble Lords might have thought that there would be no impediment to doing just that. However, the important exception to that consensus is Her Majesty's Government. With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, this debate provides her with an opportunity to say this afternoon that she joins that consensus. I hope that she will answer the unspoken question raised by all speakers so far: whether the noble Baroness and her colleagues believe that Parliament needs to be strengthened vis à vis the executive. If not, why not? If she does believe it, what are the Government's proposals to ensure that something is done about it?
6.6 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, in thinking about the contribution that I might usefully make to the important debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, it occurred to me that, rather than just agree with him or the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I should introduce one or two comparative observations. Earlier speakers, notably the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said that Parliament had become weaker or was not as effective as it should be. I am bound to say that if I compare my knowledge of this Parliament with the parliaments of other European countries, Westminster is still vastly preferable to other systems on offer.
Some time ago I had the opportunity to talk to the Prime Minister of a major European country. He is no longer in office; otherwise, I would not tell the story. We were admiring aspects of the palatial mansion in which he resided and worked. I pointed out that it had one disadvantage; namely, that it was rather far away from the parliament. He replied that he went to the parliament once or twice a year and if he wanted to see members of parliament he asked them to visit him. In another parliament which I know quite well, where there is some semblance of Prime Minister's and Ministers' Question Time—it has been adapted rather than adopted—questions are asked at eight o'clock on the morning and answered by very junior Ministers. I do not believe that any Cabinet Minister has ever answered a question in that other parliament. I make what may appear to be a facetious point but for me it is a serious one. Those questions are answered from a location that is way above where Members of Parliament sit. Indeed, the Government Front Bench

297
would have to answer from the Throne, if not a more elevated position, to copy the practice to be found in other places.
When I escort foreign visitors around Westminster, often they are struck by the fact that, first, government and opposition are so close that they can see each other directly, and, secondly, they are on the same level. I could go on but I shall not do so. However, in this country Parliament has more opportunity to hold government to account than any of the larger countries of Europe. It is for that reason that I agree wholeheartedly with the demand of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, that it is for Parliament to make sure that the opportunities that it has are fully used and extended.
Sticking to comparisons for a moment, there is one striking exception to the point that I made. It is the Budget. We all enjoy the wonderful scene of the Chancellor of the Exchequer outside No. 11 holding up the red box, the contents of which have only just become known to quite a few members of the Cabinet. He then springs his surprises on Parliament. After that, and on the one hand, the Resolution is passed before Back-Benchers have a chance to have their essentially desultory debate about it and, on the other hand, the price of petrol at the pumps goes up within a matter of hours. Indeed, one of my first traumatic memories of this country was friends telling me, when I became engaged almost 50 years ago, "You had better buy the ring before the Budget because the Chancellor may put up the luxury tax", or whatever it was called at the time.
That is an interesting weakness of Parliament in holding government to account. If there is one point that disappointed me about the Norton committee report, it was the mildness of the recommendations on the way in which Parliament should deal with the Budget. Perhaps the committee was unduly impressed by the important evidence given to it by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, who will, I am delighted to see, speak in the debate.
Perhaps I may add as a footnote that I think it is part of the strength that we have, although not exercised enough, that we can actually debate the Finance Bill and the Budget in this House. We can even make amendments. Finance Bills do not come under the Parliament Act, so we could. Perhaps this is one area in which we could go further than we have done.
My time is up. I would have gone on to say a little about committees. I shall confine myself to making one point. I believe that our committees have had a good start. I have been a member of the European Union Committee and of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, is chairing the Constitution Committee. Yesterday, I was very sorry to hear that we cannot yet find the instruments for looking at treaties. That seems to me one important issue where government have to be held to account. However, I conclude as I began; basically, I am firmly convinced that our Parliament is still preferable to other systems on offer in Europe.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I certainly do not differ from what the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, has just said about the value, quality and importance of our Parliament. Nor do I differ from him and other noble Lords who have spoken in extending my thanks to my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth for introducing the debate and for the formidable quality of his commission's report. I do not differ on the emphasis that has been laid on the need for both Houses of Parliament to be ready to assert themselves if the changes that are necessary are to be made.
However, I have to utter a warning note. A s our constitution is at present constructed, the relationship between governments and their legislative supporters somehow give governments a formidable power to prevent Parliament achieving the necessary result.
One needs to look at that in relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. He was rather mocking those on this side of the House for suddenly being on the side of reform as we are in opposition. That is a characteristic of the system. One finds that oppositions are always anxious to achieve reforms of this kind. The result when oppositions become governments differ from time to time. When the present Government came into power, most of their changes seem to have been to scatter and diffuse the powers of the executive to other places in ways that noble Lords have described—I make no criticism of that, I note it as a fact—but not to give greater power to Parliament to oversee the executive. That is what the debate is about.
I would say that the arrival of the Thatcher administration in 1979 was different in that respect, at least for a time. Governments tend to develop habits after a time. One of the achievements of the Thatcher administration was the introduction of an effective Select Committee system in the House of Commons. It is one of the most important advances made in asserting parliamentary control in both Houses. A further step needs to be taken in the other place—the power to compose Select Committees should be removed from the administration and placed in the hands of the legislature. That is the administration to which the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, referred with such courtesy and tact.
It is quite right that the powers of the administration over our budgetary and fiscal arrangements are grotesquely untarnished by parliamentary intervention. I have to confess that there is no moment when I have ever felt more powerful than when standing at the Dispatch Box making my Budget speech and saying: "These increases will take effect at the pumps at 6 p.m. tonight". Never does one come closer to having a semi-divine status than when one says that.
A particular illustration of that is relevant to my main point. Parliament needs to acquire much greater control over legislation as such, and, above all, over fiscal legislation. The volume of fiscal legislation is intolerable. That makes the quality of it intolerable.

299
That is one of the features to which our Tax Law Rewrite Project is addressing itself. I am grateful to this House for supporting it on our first Bill.
But merely rewriting the existing law is not enough. We have to find ways of stopping the torrent at its source. So far on the Tax Law Rewrite Project we have produced one Bill of about 300 pages. That is after three or four years' work. Last year, the Chancellor produced one Finance Bill of more than 600 pages. Our task is like that of painting Brighton Pier with some character called the Chancellor anxious to see it arrive at the French coast. That is not a tolerable way of proceeding. The mischief in this respect lies with the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. It was first enacted in 1913 in response to Lloyd George's understandable attempt to prevent this House stopping the Budget altogether. But it was designed for a very narrow purpose. It was designed simply so that, whatever the argument about structural or tax reform, the basic taxes and the basic changes in rates could in fact be enacted by an automatic and self-imposed guillotine.
Somehow the habit has developed whereby Chancellors have been allowed to introduce Finance Bills, the whole of which become subject to that automatic privilege. Mr Andrew Tyrie, an honourable Member in the other House, said that Finance Bills have thus become "unstoppable juggernauts". We need in some way to amend the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act so that it applies only for its originally intended purpose—for the continuance of income tax and the imposition or alteration of any duties necessary for adjusting the revenue.
The remaining technical measures should be separated off into a separate taxes management Bill. My noble friend Lord Norton recommends that in his report. I was advocating that even before I became Chancellor of the Exchequer. Somehow I never got around to doing it—while I was in that office.
We have to make a change of that kind. We need to address also the futile hopelessness of the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill in the other House, which noble Lords know very well achieves almost nothing.
This is the final point I have time to make. It is rather a sad reflection that this House makes more effective amendments to legislation than the other place because its Standing Committee system, for reasons traced by my noble friend Lord Norton, has become a sham. If this House were allowed to take part in the amendment of Finance Bills they would be substantially better. We have made one advance by establishing the Joint Committee of both Houses currently considering the Tax Law Rewrite Bill. We need to develop that procedure and put in place a more powerful organisation for making proposals not just on tax law rewriting but on tax policy simplification to be achieved under greater parliamentary control.
I do not have time to make any other points. But if we achieve what I have said in the past few minutes we shall be doing a great deal better than I did when in government.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, Parliament, says my noble friend's report on the strengthening of Parliament, is the crucial link between the citizen and government and its actions should be at the very centre of the nation's affairs. But there are some very uncomfortable facts to be faced.
The media, apart from the gossip columnists, pay scant attention to Parliament, not out of malice but because they do not think that Parliament is the place where things happen; and, generally speaking, they are right. Government policy is announced at press conferences rather than in the House of Commons; White Papers, like yesterday's White Paper on competitiveness, are leaked to the media before they are formally published; and the Prime Minister reveals his thoughts in chat shows rather than on the Floor of the House of Commons. In fact, the Prime Minister rarely goes near the place, just like the European premier to whom the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, referred. Perhaps he is preparing himself for a role in Europe.
The uncomfortable facts have to be faced. He spoke in only three debates in his first two years as premier; in 1998, he voted in exactly 14 Divisions out of 328; and the public, seeing on their televisions that the Chamber is empty for most of the week, probably think that, as the Prime Minister does not go there, no one else goes there either. The public did not just see an empty Chamber at the time of the fuel protests last October; they saw a locked Chamber; a place firmly shut; lights out. At a time of crisis, the representatives of the people were not there to express the nation's concerns.
Mr Tony Benn, who is one of our great parliamentarians, clearly does not think that Parliament is where things happen. Not so long ago he was moved in some exasperation to say that the Commons was dying on its feet. Mr Tam Dalyell spoke in like vein. He said:
"The Commons is atrophying. In 36 years I have never known membership of the Commons to be so marginalised".
He went on to describe how on 16th December 1998 he was struggling to try to force a Division on Iraq and being prevented from doing so by the Government. Mr Blair was not in the House of Commons telling people what was happening in the skies above Iraq; he was announcing government policy in Downing Street. Mr Robin Oakley, who is as knowledgeable about parliamentary affairs as most, said recently in the House Magazine:
"The Executive cares little for Parliament … unless the Government begins to respect the Commons more, will anyone else begin to do so?"
It is a sad fact that the Government's response to all the concerns expressed has not been to introduce measures to meet those concerns; on the contrary, they have introduced the time-tabling of all Bills and an end to votes after 10 p.m. to make life easier for Members, but also to make life very much easier for government.
It is a depressing scene, but comfort can be found in the fact that others are looking at ways of strengthening Parliament. I believe that the report

301
produced by my noble friend Lord Norton is a treasure store of ideas. His ideas for Prime Minister's Question Time are admirable. Two Prime Minister's Question Times a week would mean that Thursday would once again become a proper parliamentary day. Tabling four or five Questions on specific subjects would make Prime Minister's Question Time far more useful than it now is. In fact it would be a very good idea if the questioning of other Ministers proceeded in a similar way.
No one watching Parliament on television can fail to be struck by the poor attendance in the Chamber. If Members do not feel that what is going on is of any real interest, why should the public? Of course, attendance has been declining for some time and there are a number of reasons for it. The setting up of the Select Committees had an effect on attendance in the Chamber, but no one is suggesting that that worthwhile change should be reversed. The provision of offices and secretaries has had some effect on attendance in the Chamber. Real efforts have to be made to lure Members back to the Chamber by making the parliamentary agenda more meaningful, attractive and stimulating.
It would certainly help if the ministerial code was amended to require Ministers to make the most important announcements to Parliament rather than elsewhere. It would also help if there were more short debates on matters of current concern and on Select Committee reports, with speeches time limited. And there is surely an overwhelming case for relaxing the criteria to allow the Speaker to grant more emergency debates at the start of business.
Altogether, more important things have to be found for Members to do. It really is worth looking seriously into the idea of providing a career structure for Members who do not particularly want, or perhaps are not qualified, to climb the ministerial ladder. The paying of Select Committee chairmen would cost a little, but, as my noble friend said, the cost could be offset by a reduction in burgeoning government. The number of Ministers has gone up and up—and not only under this administration. The number of PPSs has gone up; tying them to the Government without paying them and preventing them from doing worthwhile work in the way of scrutinising government.
At the end of the day we have to ensure that all Members of Parliament realise that they have a worthwhile role to perform questioning government and that that, is just as important a role as serving in government.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for giving us the opportunity once again to debate Dunning's famous Motion. I shall address my brief remarks to my experience in the House of Commons rather more than to that in your Lordships' House.
As the House may know, I was a Whip for some 12 years, and subsequent to that, Speaker of the House of Commons. The Speaker is the traditional guardian
302
of the rights and privileges of Parliament. It is the Speaker's duty to give Back-Benchers an opportunity to question the Government and to hold them to account. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said about Standing Order 20 debates, as they used to be called. I recollect that I was not all that popular when he was the Chief Whip in granting so many of them. They are an opportunity for Back-Benchers, rather than Front-Benchers, to lead a debate.
In my time as a Whip it was our responsibility to ensure that the views of Back-Benchers were made known to the Front Bench—both in government and, mostly in my time, in opposition. Increasingly, the Whips today in the other place have far too much influence and power in being able to impose the wishes of the government of the day on their Back-Benchers. In my day, the position was very much the reverse. I have recounted to your Lordships on other occasions the words attributed to Prime Minister Campbell-Bannerman, "I am their leader. I think I must follow them". That was certainly the truth in my experience as a Whip. It was no use leaders leading their troops in the wrong direction. They had to take account of what Members were prepared to take.
The noble Lords, Lord Waddington and Lord Norton, have drawn attention to the empty Commons Chamber. I agree. I am appalled when I turn on the television or occasionally pay a visit down there to find how few Members are in the Chamber. These days, the Chamber is full only for Prime Minister's Questions. Sadly, in my judgment, that gladiatorial contest which takes place once a week brings no credit to the other place, however popular it may be on television in the United States of America.
Originally, I had my doubts about departmental committees for the reason that I judged that they would tend to encourage Members to spend more time serving on committees and less time on the Floor of the House of Commons. So it has turned out because, as noble Lords will know—in particular those who have served in the other place—the Speaker can call a Member to speak in a major debate only around four times a year. If the choice is between speaking in a debate or participating in a Select Committee, there is no choice: the Member must go to the Select Committee. I am therefore in favour of the committees. It is an area where government certainly are held to account.
Is there a solution to the problem of how to bring Members back into the Chamber? I believe that there may be one, which I shall mention rather more in hope than in anticipation. This morning I checked once again with the Postmaster as regards the volume of post received into the Palace of Westminster. He told me that the Palace receives, on average, around 50,000 letters a day. That is a vast postbag. Much of it is generated as a result of the now well established practice of holding constituency surgeries at the weekend. Noble Lords who have served in the other place will know that at least two-thirds of the problems

303
brought before Members in their constituencies concern local government. Those problems have nothing to do with Parliament.
If some way could be found of returning to local government the powers that have been taken from it over recent years while at the same time making it more accountable by allowing local authorities to raise more of their own revenue than is the case at present, we would go some way towards redressing the balance. At a stroke it would free up Back-Bench Members of Parliament to spend more time on the Floor of the House rather than working in their offices answering vast numbers of letters.
In our defence, I should say that there is no country in the world where the electorate is more personally represented than is the case here, but too many problems are dealt with in Parliament rather than by local politicians.
My time is nearly up. As I have said, I should like to see the powers of the Whips decreased. Like the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, I am deeply concerned about the extraordinary decision to wrap up votes on a Wednesday afternoon. I spoke recently to an old friend from the government side of the House of Commons about this matter. He told me that he, too, was concerned about it, but that it had, "Done a power of good for my Division record". We all know that Parliament is not a family-friendly place. The work is there and has to be done. To a large extent, that work is done here in your Lordships' House, but not to the extent that it should be in the other place.
I understand also that a guillotine has been introduced for debates on Second Reading. The other day, the guillotine fell on a debate on Northern Ireland, which meant that David Trimble was unable to speak at all. I would submit that that is not Parliament as it should be, but is rather more akin to a dictatorship.
I conclude simply by repeating what I said earlier: the influence of government has increased, is increasing and certainly should be diminished.
6.34 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, along with other speakers, I should like to start by thanking my noble friend Lord Norton for his extraordinarily important report on the constitution. It is valuable not only for its detailed and well thought-through analysis of the difficulties we face today, but also for the detailed and well thought-through solutions that are offered.
There are a number of points that I wish to make. I hope very much that, when they come to consider these matters, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and other members of the Government will consider seriously all the points that have been raised in this debate. We have seen a great deal of constitutional change over the past four years. Unhappily, very little of it has been effected on a cross-party basis. Constitutional issues are extremely important. I believe that such changes work much better when a measure of agreement is secured, not only as regards the problems which ought to be
304
sorted out, but also about their solutions. This afternoon's debate is valuable because a great measure of cross-party concern has been expressed about the role of Parliament.
In that connection, before the debate began, I read through the extremely interesting report of the Liaison Committee of the House of Commons entitled Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive published last year. The report contained a great many recommendations which were considered by the Government, nearly all of which were turned down. In its final report back to the Government, the committee stated that:
"We believe that in its Reply the Government has missed an opportunity of reforms which would have been greatly to its credit".
It went on to say that,
"any real modernisation of Parliament must provide better accountability and tougher scrutiny of the Government of the day".
Those words reflect exactly the sentiments which are being expressed this afternoon and are a measure of cross-party recognition in both Houses and throughout Parliament.
Chapter 2 of my noble friend's report examines what he calls the "decline of Parliament" and looks at pressure groups. I think that nothing is more alarming than the effect of organisations such as some of those involved with animal rights. It also considers more powerful political parties, the concentration of power in Downing Street, along with a number of other issues. As one reads the report, one is aware of the effects of these matters not only on Parliament, but also the effects outside. We can see today two very disturbing elements.
The first element is that young people, in particular those attending university, appear to find politics to be a complete turn-off. When I ceased to be Chancellor of Greenwich University, I was astonished when a senior academic said to me: "It is amazing. There is really no debate about politics at all". When I consider the amount of time spent in my youth on political argument, I am astonished that it now seems to be by-passed.
The second element is the recent extremely low polls at elections. Not only was the turn-out for the European parliamentary elections disgraceful—perhaps due in part to the extremely complicated electoral system—but also that for local government. Furthermore, many are predicting a low poll for the forthcoming general election. This too reflects a lack of understanding and knowledge of or interest in what Parliament does. I believe this to be a profoundly serious development.
I have never been a Member of the House of Commons, so I hesitate to embark on any comments on reform of that House, save for one which I shall come to shortly. However, so far as concerns the House of Lords, I think that, whatever happens in the future, the powers of the House of Lords must not be diminished. This is an important point on which I hope that we can all agree. I know that there has been

305
debate—the noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to the matter—about changing around the business taken on Wednesdays and Thursdays. Some of us see the danger of introducing a three-day Parliament. Furthermore, there is a danger—again hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord Peston—that we shall not have votes during the Committee stage of Bills. Although such changes may be seen as only small, in fact they can have a profound effect.
For those reasons, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Norton has suggested playing to the strengths of the House of Lords. I am delighted about the establishment of the Constitution Committee, along with one to examine economic affairs. I would personally support other general committees of that kind, which would be valuable and would make good use of the expertise that this House is able to offer. These are valuable suggestions and we need to look at them closely.
On a personal note, I should like to point out that I much regret the workings of the Parliament Act over the issue of the age of consent. That issue was a matter of conscience and never completed its parliamentary procedures because the Parliament Act was applied. I did not think that that was helpful.
Finally, I should like to make a brief comment on the role of Parliament and how it might be strengthened. One of these great questions is the effect of devolution. I have for the first time detected many people in England beginning to talk about the English dimension; that is just bubbling along. I do not believe that the West Lothian question can be left on one side. I believe that it needs to be addressed before it becomes really serious. It is a matter for the decision of Parliament, particularly another place—for Members of the House of Commons representing English and Welsh constituencies. It also affects us in this House. I believe that there is agreement that we wish to see a United Kingdom. We should not do anything to encourage the break up of that union because of a feeling that one part of the country is not being represented as fully and fairly as it should be.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, it seems to me that there are in our constitution four checks and balances particularly relevant to this debate. First, all governments, if they can get away with it, are authoritarian. They are more likely to get away with it if they have substantial majorities in another place. Secondly, Parliament is not the government. It is the job of Parliament to control the government, not to attempt to be the government. Thirdly, the government are entitled to get their business after due debate, as long as they can command a majority. Fourthly, the House of Commons—in reality, the government—can override your Lordships' House by the use of the Parliament Act, thus ensuring the primacy of the elected House.
One of the most important characteristics of your Lordships' House is its independence. The Back Bench element of your Lordships' House is of vital
306
importance. Of course, there is also dependence among the political parties because the party battle is not so intense. Unhappily, that has disappeared from another place during our lifetime.
In 1964, when I was first elected to another place, knights of the shires sat on the Tory Benches. They did not want office. On the whole, they were loyal to their party. However, if they felt that their party was wrong, they said so by voting to that effect. Exactly the same occurred on the Labour Benches. There were people on the Labour Benches who worked in industry and in trade unions. They did not want to take office either. For the most part, they were loyal to their party. However, if they disagreed, they, too, voted to that effect. Alas, that has disappeared. Now most MPs want to be Ministers. Although there is nothing wrong with that ambition, it weakens the independence of the individuals concerned and greatly strengthens the power of the Whips.
I therefore suggest that it is very important to maintain and strengthen the independent elements of your Lordships' House. I do not believe that we need new powers. We need more effectively to use our existing powers.
One of the main functions of your Lordships' House is the revision of legislation. I am very glad that we debate all stages of most Bills on the Floor of the House. There is no selection of amendments, although not all are moved. There is no guillotine or curtailment of debate. If they wish, all noble Lords can speak, although in practice those who specialise in the subject of the debate make the greatest contribution to it. I believe that that is essential to prevent our procedures for examining Bills being diluted, which is sometimes suggested in certain quarters. That is all the more important as the so-called modernisation in the House of Commons during this Parliament has weakened the power of that House and strengthened the power of the Government.
I am delighted that, to their credit, the present Government are introducing an increasing number of draft Bills. That is good progress. It greatly assists in relation to the scrutiny of Bills before they become set in concrete. It allows for discussion to take place, both in Parliament and outside, which means that more minds are applied to the draft of a Bill before it is tabled. That, in turn, results in better legislation. I hope, too, that that example will be followed in the case of the more important statutory instruments. It would greatly assist the House to see those in draft form.
Another strong element of your Lordships' House is the Select Committees. Those committees produce high quality reports, which can and do influence government policy. I am delighted that we now have two new Select Committees—the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I hope will help to prevent clashes between the courts and Parliament, and the Constitution Committee, of which my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth is chairman and to which I referred in my Unstarred Question on Monday. In view of the constitutional revolution that we have

307
experienced in this Parliament, there is no doubt that the latter will have much work to do. We therefore have a formidable range of committees with great knowledge and experience. The real question is whether the Government will listen to them.
My final point concerns statutory instruments. I am very glad that during this Parliament the House has asserted its right to vote down statutory instruments. They are now of great importance in our personal and business lives. It is important that, when appropriate, that right should be exercised. It is not a question of veto. It is a question of telling the government of the day, "We think that your statutory instrument is wrong. Will you reconsider it?" If, having done so, they decide that they are right, they can again table it for debate. However, one hopes that, if convinced by your Lordships' arguments, they will table amended statutory instruments.
In conclusion, I suggest that we have adequate powers and a wealth of knowledge and experience with which to call government to account. But those powers will be rendered null and void unless the government of the day are prepared to show due respect for Parliament.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I venture to suggest that, in considering the question of the executive becoming more accountable, we are concerned not only with the legislation that it introduces to Parliament, whether by way of a Bill or otherwise; we are also concerned with the Government's actions abroad, particularly in Europe. Some kind of control should be exercised over what the Government agree to in Brussels, or elsewhere, on behalf of this country and Parliament. In that respect, we are at present singularly deficient. That is partly due to a decline of political interest in what happens in the European Community. I can remember the time when debates were held in the other place on the European budget, to which we contribute £2.5 billion per year. Those have now fallen into disuse.
It is assumed that the Select Committees of this House, especially those concerned with EC matters, and the Standing Committee on European matters in another place, provide a partial safeguard for the ordinary Member of Parliament. I venture to remind your Lordships that the various Select Committees are responsible to their own Houses. They are not in any way responsible to the Government, nor are the Government in any way responsible for them. The decision whether or not to follow a Select Committee's recommendation is a matter entirely for the Government.
The Select Committees—and I single out for special mention the Select Committees of your Lordships' House—are responsible for informing your Lordships after due inquiry. Some of their inquiries are very extensive and most of them result in very good reports, which are highly informative to the House. But, of course, the Government are not bound to follow their recommendations.
308
The recommendations usually take the form—do they not?—of, "The Committee recommends this report for debate"; or, alternatively, "It is recommended for attention and information". Surely we ought to be able to take some action to enable Members of Parliament to have some influence on the actions of the executive. I put it no higher than that at the moment.
We get no reports whatever on the activities of the representatives of Her Majesty's Government in Europe, except by way of an occasional presidential communiqué, which is drafted by the president and which, very often, does not bear much relationship to what occurred. We have seen the documents ourselves. We have to do something about this situation.
This is an important problem. Its extent can be gathered by examining the proceedings of the European Scrutiny Select Committee in the House of Commons. The number of documents considered by that Select Committee on which further information is required from the Government numbered no fewer than 98 on 8th February, of which 33 questions go back to the year 1994. The Government have not even bothered to reply to those questions. As far as concerns documents not yet considered by the Committee, they number no fewer than 149. I do not know whether any of your Lordships have been along the path that I have very often trodden during my time here of examining Community documents, but to suggest that anyone could even read that number of documents in the time allowed is stretching one's belief to a point of incredulity.
The same thing applies to the Select Committee on the European Union in the House of Lords. It will be noted that many items are referred to the Select Committee itself or to its sub-committees, of which there are six—A to E. Those items receive good consideration and the reports are normally very adequate. However, on 16th and 23rd January, no fewer than 53 communications from the EC were considered and passed by the chairman of the Select Committee.
We have to devise a way in which Parliament can be adequately informed as to exactly what is being done and what is projected to be done in our name. I make no arguments about it merits or demerits, but we should know what is being done. It is up to us to see that we know. As one who has been in Parliament since 1945—with odd absences every now and again—I sincerely congratulate the noble Lord who introduced the debate on his speech. As a democrat, it made me, for once, both cheerful and proud.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Patten: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and particularly to what he said about the necessity for better scrutiny of matters European in this House. I used to listen to him speaking forthrightly about these matters in another place when we were both there.
I have listened to a number of important contributions, some of which I shall attempt to debate in my speech in the short time that I am allowed.

309
However, at this stage, I cannot let pass without comment the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, in which he claimed that Whips these days have got far too much power and are far too much in control of matters. As a member of the entry of 1979, I remember that there was nothing more terrifying than a summons to go to see the Deputy Chief Whip, and the threats of condign and savage punishments that would rain down on us. I remember them well—and, yes, they may well find a place in any memoirs that are written of that period.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth on what he has done. In that respect, I can do no better than echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. Compliments fly as thick and fast in this House as insults fly thick and fast in another place. One should be as restrained in compliments as one should be in insults, but I think that I see the mantle of m y noble friend Lord Blake beginning to slip elegantly around the constitutional shoulders of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. We should be grateful to him for what he is doing on behalf of the whole House because so much is being done in a bipartisan spirit.
That is enough of compliments, except to mention one other point. I have a personal reason for being indebted to my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. Some years ago I looked for, and was lucky enough to have, a special adviser par excellence, Mr Clifford Grantham—-why should not these people's praises be sung; why should they be wholly unsung?—who came from my noble friend's excellent stable at Hull University.
The first of the two or three detailed points that I wish to make—unlike the necessarily broad-brush points made by my noble friends, by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and by other noble Lords opposite—is that I believe that special advisers are necessary in government. They are not a necessary evil; they are necessary. I know that there are noble Lords on both sides of the Chamber who have been special advisers the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for example, on the government Benches, and my noble friend Lord Taylor of Warwick on our Benches—and who have performed the task of advising at the interface between the Minister and the private office or the Civil Service about what 'the Minister feels and what the Minister does. They have helped with the drafting of White Papers and, yes, from time to time, they have actually talked to the press on behalf of their Minister. I believe that that is all perfectly proper.
However, the situation in regard to special advisers has got absolutely, completely and utterly out of control. There are far too many of these sub-teenage apprentice spin doctors in government now. They do nothing for the body politic and bring discredit on the Whitehall system. We need a cap on their numbers and a cap on the expenditure on special advisers who play such a notable part—so my friends in the press tell me—in the internecine warfare that characterises so much of Whitehall these days.
310
I suggest to your Lordships that there should be a committee of both Houses of Parliament to carry out a very important role; that is, to look, first, at the numbers of special advisers and their expense; and, in a one-off exercise, to do exactly the same in relation to the numbers of Ministers who serve in the Government. It is my belief that there are far too many Ministers, particularly at the Parliamentary Under-Secretary level. I sometimes question the very purpose of some ministries. I do not know—and never have known—what the Department of Trade and Industry actually does, let alone the number of Ministers who inhabit it. On the other hand, there are some very busy and important ministries which need all the ministerial help they can get. I think that probably the numbers in the Home Office and the Treasury are about right.
Both Houses of Parliament should step hack, in as bipartisan way as we can manage, and look at the number of special advisers and the number of government Ministers. Like an NHS consultant. each government Minister leads to a trail of public expenditure running into millions of pounds—not only for private offices and cars, but for the whole apparatus of government. Both this House and the other place have a number of such people of all parties who could carry out that task. We have a cabal of ex-Cabinet Secretaries in this House who could help to advise on the correct size of government and thereafter filter any applications for increases in the numbers of special advisers and, much more importantly, of Ministers, because I believe we have far too many.
In conclusion, I follow exactly the point which my noble friend Lady Young raised about the English question. I believe that all of us in this Chamber and in the other place are looking at a locomotive coming rapidly down the track towards us. There is not just the English question as set out by my noble friend Lady Young but, for example, the question of what is to happen to Bills that refer to and concern only England but on which those from another country, from Scotland, whom I greatly respect, can vote and substantially influence what happens in that legislation affecting only England. I believe that people in this country will find that unfair. Fairness is critical to a democracy run on the basis of consent. This and the other place will have to get to grips quickly with this matter in the new Parliament otherwise we shall find ourselves in fearful trouble.
7 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth has rendered signal service in moving this debate and for the manner in which he did so. It has produced a variety of speeches and with none of them could I find any point with which I disagreed. It is really a remarkable occasion because of the diversity of the contributions. I agree with my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth that there must be substantive and innovative reform. Government has become so extraordinarily complex. Members of both Houses are overburdened with primary and secondary legislation, European legislation, the law on human rights and with

311
mountains of correspondence. The concept that Members of another place discharge their function as representatives of the people must remain of general application, but it has suffered a sea change since the days of Burke.
How can the role of parliament be strengthened to call the government to account on behalf of the people? It is on their behalf that this question arises. As my noble friend Lord Cranborne put it, how can we close what is presently an unclosed circle between Parliament and the electorate? In that single sentence perhaps all is said.
It may be that our powers are adequate as my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree said. But should not each House conduct an urgent re-appraisal of its procedures to ensure adequate scrutiny by a Select Committee before debate and to ensure time for meaningful debate? Should not Parliament, on Bills whose provisions substantially affect the constitution, be able to resolve, if it so wishes, that a referendum should be called to settle the form of question and the general conduct of the referendum?
As my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth knows, I do not for one moment accept that a referendum called by Parliament can in any way undermine it. There are circumstances in which there is no other reasonable way to close the unclosed circle.
Should not a new practical working relationship be established between the two Houses by a new convention which reflects the new balance of authority between the Houses on the re-appraisal of the mandate doctrine? That should be by consensus. As I said before on one occasion, it should be carried out in the spirit of the Cranborne/Addison doctrine. That would strengthen the role of Parliament and would, indeed, tend to close the unclosed circle.
The weaker the power of another place under its procedures to control the executive, the greater the burden that rests on your Lordships' House in the due discharge of our functions exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts. I believe it was my noble friend Lady Young who said that the power of this House must not be diminished. I agree without reservation that Parliament alone can reform itself and must do so. I hope that that is a proposition which attracts the agreement of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. Only by self-denying ordinance should resort be had to the Parliament Acts, the rejection of government Bills and the exercise of your Lordships' right to insist. That should be devised by consensus and assuredly not by amendment to the Parliament Acts, or imposed statutory reform such as being expressly rejected by the commission.
Until some new convention has been established the strengthening of the role of Parliament to call the government to account shall remain in limbo. It is a matter which requires the urgent attention of both Houses. I hope that it will be possible to devise some way in which that may be achieved by consensus.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, as others have said, the ability of Parliament to hold governments to account is a function of our own authority, confidence and will. I shall speak briefly about where we obtain those characteristics. Other speakers, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Young, have touched on that. Our ability depends on the degree to which the public give us their confidence and the authority to do that which we need to do. John Pym, the great parliamentarian of the 1640s, summed up the relationship between the public and Parliament in the vivid phrase regarding the vigour and cheerfulness of allegiance which ordinary citizens have towards their Parliament.
As has been pointed out, there is little vigour and cheerfulness of allegiance to Parliament now. I would like briefly to look at why that might be. I entirely concur with the anecdote given by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, as regards her position as a university chancellor. I was recently involved in interviewing 36 brilliant young graduates whom I believe most of us would describe as the crème de la crème. One of the questions I asked each of them was whether they were interested in politics. The answer was infinitely depressing. Most said that they were. In answer to the question as to what they were interested in and whether they were involved in politics, in two out of three cases they said that in truth they had no engagement with politics either directly or indirectly. One bright young woman from a north-western comprehensive school who went to Nottingham University and gained a First in law, said that it was an interesting question but that when she looked back at her time at university she had not had a single conversation about politics in her three years there. I asked whether she meant that she did not go to a lecture on politics or hear a politician speak. She said that she had never had a discussion about politics. I asked if she had not had such a discussion in a bar, in a club, in her hall of residence or anywhere. She replied, "Nowhere". That may be an extreme case, but I suggest that it is not and that the state of affairs is worse than we would like to admit.
One comment I shall be bold enough to make, after only two and a half years in this place, is that there is a temptation for us to lead a somewhat cloistered existence. Those outside these walls might say that we are somewhat deaf to the concerns and interests of the public. I believe that we could, and should, reach out to the public a great deal more than we do.
For example, it is a source of wonderment to me that we have only three or four servants of the House who are responsible for public relations, education and the press when any small to medium-sized business would have at least that number trying to sell its wares. I find inadequate the attitude that "people can find information on the website and read the broadsheets". I urge Members of this House and those who have responsibility for these affairs to take a proactive view in terms of trying to interest the public, particularly younger members, and to be imaginative in finding ways of letting them know about our debates and our

313
concerns; and to invite them to get in touch with us, however inconvenient that may be in terms of the postal load. Unless we do that, we shall get nowhere.
Other speakers referred to the complexity and volume of legislation. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that a formal impact assessment of legislation which directly affects the public should take place two or three years downstream from the time it conies into force. I think we should get a real shock at the gulf that exists between the intentions of the legislature and the achievement on the ground. I should be ruthless about repealing legislation that was not doing the work consigned to it.
We all k now about the complexity of legislation. But the number of noble Lords attending debates at Committee stage and at subsequent stages of complex Bills is tiny. I do not say that as a form of criticism; it is an observation. If we, as sophisticated legislators, are unable—as I believe is truthfully the case—to grapple with so much legislation, what hope is there for the public?
We must bear in mind that the public need to identify with what we do. They need to have a sense of ownership of us and of the work we do. It is easy to use those words but very difficult in the modern age to make a reality of them. The fact that we are not doing so is manifest in the grotesquely inadequate turn-outs at elections. The turn-out in the under-25 age group is frightening: it has been calculated that only 15 per cent of under-25s voted in the European elections—the very group that should be most engaged, stimulated and excited by Europe.
Having made those remarks, I shall hold my peace, except to make one further, and rather different, point. Secondary legislation is being pumped through this House in unbelievable volumes: 3,000 instruments a year. It is a sheer Alice in Wonderland pretence for us to be content with the scrutiny that we give that legislation, given that the only opportunity we have to amend it is to throw out the whole instrument. Our inability to amend statutory instruments needs careful and urgent reconsideration.
7.14 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was right about Oppositions liking to call governments to account more than governments like them to do. I note that five-and-a-half speakers in this debate are non-Conservatives—I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, as the "half", as he is, at least for once, a conservative Whip.
Gone are the days when Pitt could lose the first Reform Bill—a government measure—by one vote and not resign. Gone are the days when Gladstone could walk to the House of Commons, make a speech and chuck out Disraeli's government, because the House of Commons would listen to him. Surely we must realise that the House of Commons is the place where the government get their power. The House of Commons has the power—the only power—to tax. The House of Lords, in a fit of cowardice in 1348, I believe, said, "No, no, we do not want to offend our
314
tenants. They ought to do it down there-. That is where power comes from. It has been very distressing how this Government have appeared to treat the House of Commons with a certain amount of disdain.
That has happened not only under this Government; it has been a trend for some time. It is illustrated by the dreadful "creep" questions that are asked at Question Time: "Isn't my right honourable friend the Prime Minister the greatest political genius since Marcus Aurelius?"—"Rah, rah, rah", go Members on one side. "Isn't Michael Howard the greatest law-giver since Justinian" "Rah, rah, rah" go the other side. "Doesn't Robin Cook make Talleyrand look like a club-footed ape in foreign affairs?"—"Rah, rah, rah", go the Government. It is this form of ghastly creep question that brings the House of Commons into disrepute.
During the passage of the House of Lords Bill, we teased the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, by "banging on" about "Tony's cronies". It was peculiarly effective, and slightly unfair. It is to the credit of a large number of new Members on the Labour Benches in this House that they are not Tony's cronies. If I wanted to make a "crony" attack, it would be against the Liberals—who are like Lloyd George's poodles. When they are told, they vote like soldier rats—which is immensely amusing. There are certainly signs that there are independent-minded people on the Labour Benches who are quite happy to argue with the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. That is both good for her soul and good for Parliament.
It is essential that the Government should bear in mind my other criticism. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, talked about wanting, to do something before he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and wanting to do something after he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, but forgetting to do it while he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is perfectly understandable. Ministers are busy people. However, I hope that when my noble friend Lord Strathclyde winds up for this side, he will say that in the probable, possible, or impossible—use which adjective you like—event of a Conservative government coming to power after the next election, they will give an undertaking that they really will give power back to Parliament and take account of what Parliament says.
We have got into a certain habit: when a piece of legislation goes through—for example, on the Scunthorpe by-pass—no matter which government is in office, if anyone on the government side says that they have got the Scunthorpe by-pass order wrong, the Whips then squeak that the whole of the government's authority is going to collapse because the government are paying no attention to that Back-Bencher. If the government do pay attention to that Back-Bencher, the media refer to them as being split and say that they are weak. We saw that when Harold Wilson was Prime Minister, when some of the Labour Left were kicking up rough; and we saw it under the previous government, when some of the Tory Euro-sceptics were kicking up rough. Any Back-Bencher who shows disrespect for the government is accused of rocking the boat, and the government are accused of being weak.

315
I believe that to be the duty of all Back-Benchers, if possible, because I am by nature a disrespecting soul. The media then say that the Government are over-arrogant in not paying attention to their Back-Benchers. They cannot have it both ways.
A further point was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. It has been worked out that 80 per cent of our laws are now passed in Brussels. Not only are they passed in Brussels; they are also gold-plated here. Ministers say, "We could not get the piece of legislation that we wanted through in the ordinary amount of time, but we shall tack it on to a European statutory instrument and it will go through under the European Communities Act". That is a bad habit, and we ought not to let it continue.
I accept that, as Arthur Bryant says, at the time of the Napoleonic Wars foreign countries found it odd that English liberties—let us remember that the House of Commons is the fountain of our liberties—were guaranteed by gentlemen making speeches to themselves in an odd-shaped Chamber.
I have not had time to talk about the horrendous possibility at the next election of a Tory England, a Labour UK, a Labour Minister of education and health and devolved powers which are unique to England being imposed by a Labour UK on Scotsmen and on Welshmen. That is a serious matter. We sit in a Parliament that has continued at least since the reign of Edward I. It is a wonderful organisation. It has saved the liberties of the world so many times. It invented modern taxation and representative government. It invented the freedoms that we all hold dear. For Heaven's sake, let us all make sure that it works. I have spoken for a minute too long.
7.21 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, during the course of this debate, which has in itself been an example of Parliament holding government to account, there has been a universal acceptance of the concept that a strong Parliament benefits all. It benefits the country and it even benefits the Government, although in the short term it can make life difficult.
I am quite sure that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will not say that she believes in a weak Parliament. None the less, I believe that we have to look at the evidence of what the Government have done and the actions they have taken as regards Parliament since they took office. Encroachments on the authority and standing of Parliament have ranged from outright legislative change, through amendments to procedures, to the actions of Ministers in making announcements, as we have heard, and, indeed, their observations concerning the role of the legislature, particularly this House, especially when this House takes a contrary view to that of the Government.
I do not believe that any noble Lord who has spoken this evening has suggested that the House of Commons is now an effective forum for the detailed scrutiny of legislation. Indeed, your Lordships' House has shown itself as the place which is relied upon to provide that
316
role. One example of that was the passage of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill last year. On the face of it that was a modest measure, but when the detail was considered it was discovered to be a dangerous piece of legislation. Before the Bill went to the House of Commons for scrutiny, Ministers in another place thought that it was wonderful. When it emerged from scrutiny in another place, largely unchanged, they still thought that it was wonderful. However, when the Bill came to this House it was extensively rewritten by your Lordships. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, felt that the Bill emerged from this House considerably better than when it arrived here. This House performed a real service, not only to those who were to be regulated by the Bill but also in preventing serious embarrassment to the Government.
It is universally accepted that constitutional change should, wherever possible, be undertaken on the basis of consensus. Yet, with the reform of your Lordships' House, the opposite approach was taken. I suggest that that measure was driven through in as confrontational a manner as possible which gave the Government a fight when they could have had a constructive debate. To do that without informing Parliament, and via Parliament the country, of the eventual measures which would take the place of the previous arrangements must be considered a considerable arrogance.
The Government have had their will and have imposed constitutional change, particularly with regard to this House. But what has happened to the Jay doctrine of a more legitimate House? Before major issues have even been debated here we have been told what the consequences of our rejecting a major piece of government legislation would be. We have, in effect, been threatened with the use of the Parliament Act. When this House has taken a contrary view to that of the Government, Ministers have fallen over themselves to attack this House in the media as being unrepresentative and, indeed, to state what is factual; namely, that the House is unelected. Why will they not recognise that this Administration put through a Bill to create this House in its present form? Any criticisms of the legitimacy of this House fall squarely upon their own shoulders.
The Parliament Act is the ultimate nuclear sanction. It should be used only in the most dire circumstances. However, it has already been used and we have been given clear indications that the Government see it more as a standard tool of government than as something to be reserved for the most dire circumstances.
Another illustration of the Government's cavalier attitude towards parliamentary procedures is to be found within the Regulatory Reform Bill which your Lordships are currently considering. As your Lordships know, that Bill will allow primary legislation to be amended by order in the widest of circumstances. We have been assured by Ministers that there will be considerable restraints on the use of those powers. However, that is not to be found within

317
the Bill. The restraints lie in ministerial assurances which we know cannot be binding on successor governments.
Without even going into the problems which Scottish and Welsh devolution have thrown up, it is clear that Parliament has been considerably weakened, although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, that in comparison with many other legislatures it is still strong. With the current Administration's declared intention to pursue further political integration within the European Union, Parliament is certainly heading in a dangerous direction.
I note that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr William Hague, welcomed forcefully my noble friend's thorough report. He accepted certain specific proposals immediately and committed to providing consideration of all of the others as a matter of priority. All eyes will now be on the Government to see whether they share our determination to see Parliament strengthened.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, brings great independence of mind and originality to this House. We always look forward to any debate that he initiates. This debate has not fallen short in that respect. I am grateful for what he said about a report with which I was not previously familiar and to which I should perhaps pay attention.
However, I end the debate feeling not a little depressed. I agree with my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf that both Houses of Parliament should be given high marks in terms of the comparative performance of democratic institutions. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, that good government needs an effective Parliament. But where I part company with him—although I am not sure whether I part company with many noble Lords, or at least with what they feel in their hearts—is in a genuine belief that Parliament will be strengthened, certainly within my lifetime. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said that confident government should welcome a strengthened Parliament. I cannot disagree with that. It is a worthy sentiment. But the reality, as I think we all know, is that confident governments have done little indeed to strengthen Parliament. I say that of governments of all political colours.
If I think that I detect a tone with which I most agree it would be that of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. I look back over 20 years in the other place and over 10 as a Minister. I must not misrepresent him but I believe that beneath his remarks there was the thought that for all that the parties have tried over the years and for all the debates in this House and elsewhere there has been an incremental movement towards Parliament being less able than at one time to exercise control over the executive. I remember reading a book by Herbert Morrison entitled Government and Parliament nearly 50 years ago. It was the first insider's view of how the system worked. In his book, he said that oppositions
318
can be right and governments can be wrong. He referred to what he called the delicate balance of power between the Cabinet and the House of Commons. But Herbert Morrison was a great, tough party manager and when he had to find a way of demonstrating the alternatives he referred to democratic strengths on the one hand and wobble and weakness on the other. He came out in favour of democratic strength.
We all want democratic strength. But I do not believe that the choice is quite as vivid as that. We can retain effective government while at the same time giving Parliament a better opportunity to play its part. There has been an erosion in the role of Parliament over many years. My remarks today are not critical of this Government but are made through an awareness that it is endemic that governments want to get on with the job and do not much like the trouble that Parliament occasionally believes right.
I believed in this Government's good intentions in 1997. They have honoured their constitutional commitments in respect of Scotland, Wales and London and a number of important respects. But there is no evidence that they are less executive-minded than their predecessors. Other noble Lords have referred to the Prime Minister's one day a week Questions. They have referred to the fact that the Commons is now a three-day-a-week Chamber. There is iron discipline. We all know the historic reasons for it. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, I believe that it has gone too far. What I most regret, and did not believe would occur in quite this way, is that the House has become more gladiatorial and adversarial than it was. I had assumed that under this Government they might move in a different direction. However, the truth is that except in minor ways governments are, on the whole, unwilling to surrender power and only if Parliament actually takes it back with the voters behind it shall we see any meaningful change.
In a lecture given by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, in June of last year he referred to the good track record of the Lords in committee work. I agree with the sentiments expressed today to that effect. But the committee work of this House does not call Government to account. Although we may not like it, I find it difficult to point to one major government change of direction which has been the result of our own committee work. That does not mean that governments are indifferent to our non-controversial recommendations. They take account of them. They may make changes. But on major issues of policy that is not so.
With regard to Select Committees of another place, I pay tribute not only to the Conservative government of 1979 when the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, was responsible for the setting up of departmental committees, but also to the late Willie Whitelaw, when in 1970–71 the estimates committee was succeeded by the expenditure committee which had six semi-autonomous sub-committees. I was the chairman of one of them. Although in those days chairmen were often successful in getting unanimous reports from the committees, irrespective of party, I much regret that in recent years committees have been in the habit of

319
producing minority reports and dividing on party lines. Their reports, therefore, have been ignored frequently by government or government have outwitted them while seeming to pay lip service to what they have done. I do not believe that there is nearly as much comfort as we might like in the Select Committee system, certainly of another place.
It is true that we now have a more pluralist, political system. I make two remarks about that. First, there is much to be said for it. I do not object to the role of pressure groups and to any campaigning organisations making their views known. I do not object to the development of Green Papers, which allows a wider debate, or the extent to which we have begun to have pre-legislative discussions. Even if I did, I believe that it is an irreversible change. I agree with Peter Riddell that Parliament should remain the core of the system. But Parliament will remain the core of a more pluralist system if it becomes more pluralist itself.
On this occasion I shall not embark on the case for proportional representation. The House might begin to show a degree of boredom. But I put it seriously to the House that, setting aside the traditional arguments about fairness, there is much to be said for proportional representation in so far as it would produce a more pluralist House of Commons; and a more pluralist House of Commons would be more likely to be a restraint on the executive than present Parliaments have been.
I turn to the role of this House in calling governments to account. Perhaps I may make one final remark about the position of my party in recent and future discussions. The formal position of my party has been and remains that we prefer a predominantly elected House. But we are open to argument, and the composition of this House should be part of the terms of reference of the Joint Committee when it is set up. This is particularly so because the Joint Committee would be concerned equally with our exercise of powers and our relationship with the House of Commons and the two cannot be separated.
I also believe that in so far as it proves possible—I put it no higher than that—there is everything to be said for seeking to move towards a consensus even if it takes somewhat more time. Since last summer my party has had amiable but rather fruitless discussions with the Government on these matters. I make no complaint. I am glad that the Government have accepted our proposal that there should be no further discussion and no appointment of the Joint Committee until we have a new Parliament. That will be the time to pick up the matter again; and it will be in time for legislation in the second Session of a new Parliament.
There is one outstanding question. I hope that the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal may feel able to give a satisfactory reply. The noble Baroness will recall the debate on 24th January initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. On that occasion we discussed the doctrine of the mandate, the role of the election manifesto and the Salisbury convention. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able
320
to say that the Labour Party will not include in its manifesto any details of the next stage of Lords reform which would effectively exclude meaningful discussion, compromise and the search for agreement afterwards. If that sentiment were to be endorsed, we could see your Lordships' House playing an increasing role in ensuring that our governments, of whatever colour, are properly accountable.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this has been an excellent debate and I thank my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth for initiating it. My noble friend has come to be associated very much with this theme and it gives me great pleasure to respond to him.
Let me state unequivocally that we on this side of the House want a stronger Parliament. Perhaps I may answer head on the question of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. When we return to office we shall take immediate steps to increase the ability of Parliament to scrutinise the executive. My right honourable friend William Hague has made that utterly clear in another place; and I gladly do so here.
Perhaps once it could have been said that the Conservative Party was somewhat immobile on the constitution. But if the Conservative Party were ever guilty of immobilism—and let us remember there would be neither Law Lords, life Peers, nor women Peers in this House if it had not been for reforms by Conservative governments—then that is certainly not true today.
By commissioning the distinguished reports of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern and my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, William Hague has pointed the way to a raft of reforms that would truly strengthen Parliament. It is the Conservative Party that wants a Joint Committee of both Houses to find a way towards genuine reform of your Lordships' House, so allowing Parliament's voice be heard. The Government have set their teeth against cross-party talks. It is the Conservative Party that has opened its mind to new thinking on the Parliament Acts and the Salisbury doctrine, while the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, grits his teeth, like Lord Eldon of old, and says that nothing has changed and nothing must change.
It is the Conservative Party that initiated debates on the principle and fought for the fair referendum rules, as originally proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Neill, while the Government used the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to fiddle the rules to suit the executive. It is the Conservative Party that yesterday in another place called for an end to the appointment of Select Committee chairmen by party Whips, while the Leader of the House, Mrs Beckett, set her teeth so firmly against that Back-Bench freedom that the Liberal Democrat spokesman said that the stand she had taken in an attempt to control the House displayed the worst centralism.
It is the Conservative Party leader who has pledged himself to two 20-minute Question Times a week, while the Prime Minister has the worst voting record

321
of any Prime Minister, has initiated fewer debates than any Prime Minister and chose as his first act in office a cut in Prime Minister's Question Time to once a week. Finally, it is the Conservative Party that asks the English question and dares to provide an answer, while the Government, in the memorable phrase of the Lord Chancellor, say that it is a question better not asked.
Our party is not afraid of a stronger Parliament. As my noble friend Lord Cranborne argued, we believe that a stronger Parliament makes for a more authoritative and respected government. As my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth said today, strong governments need strong Parliaments.
I wonder how the Government will respond tonight. Will we be told that Ministers recoil in horror when Mr Alastair Campbell says that a policy would be better leaked to the Guardian than announced in Parliament; that Mr Blair has a secret plan to restore Prime Minister's Questions to two days a week so that he can be better held to account; or that the Foreign Secretary is telephoning his counterparts in Europe to tell them that he will surrender no further powers from Westminster to Brussels? I should be surprised to hear any of that and I hardly think that we shall receive those answers.
Hansard could not show it, but the anguished face of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, spoke volumes last week. Asked to give one example of a way in which this Government had strengthened Parliament, he finally hit on the limp answer that they had expelled hereditary Peers. What a historic victory for parliamentary freedom that was. No doubt in centuries to come the Blair Bill will be spoken of in the same breath as the tales of Simon de Montfort, John Pym and the authors of the Bill of Rights. Perhaps that is how the Government genuinely believe it to be, but I do not. No doubt, as he clutched for a straw, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, had in mind the famous promise of a stronger Parliament set out in what is now widely recognised as the Jay doctrine—the pledge that the new House will be more legitimate and able to speak with more authority and that its decisions will carry more weight.
If only it were so. We tried. We tried to show the same touching faith in the noble Baroness' words as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has shown and as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, showed this afternoon. The new House has tried to build its authority and assert its freedom and has tried to make its voice heard even more. But do the Government listen any more now than they did before? Sadly, they do not. Were cross-party objections to the restriction of jury trial heeded? Sadly, they were not. They were simply swatted aside.
So I offer the Falconer challenge this evening. Can the noble Baroness give us even three instances of the Government agreeing to think again after a defeat in your Lordships' House? Even on non-manifesto issues, the Parliament Acts have been brandished with all the instinctive caution and hesitation with which a member of the French riot police reaches for his truncheon.
322
When I am asked whether this Government have strengthened Parliament, the words that ring in my ears are those of the noble Baroness that your Lordships' House is a "subordinate" House. My fear is that not only is this House seen as subordinate to another place, but that Parliament as a whole is seen as subordinate to the will of the executive. I venture to say that no government since the 1650s have done more to weaken the Westminster Parliament than this one.
In the eyes of No. 10, Parliament is there to do what it is told. As my noble friend Lord Waddington said, the Prime Minister does not respect Parliament; he does not listen to Parliament; and he does not go to Parliament. In his view, when it comes to taking the decisions that shape people's lives, anything is better than Parliament. Devolved bodies are better, regional offices are better, unelected judges, whether domestic or European, are better, and, God forbid, even focus groups are better. He prefers anyone and anything to the Westminster Parliament. Against the track record of this Government, I would take a deal of convincing that they saw Parliament for a split second as the first place to make announcements or to reconcile differences of opinion among the people of this country.
Let me illustrate that by reference to one event this week. We heard two days ago that the Government have abandoned their manifesto pledge—-a pledge repeated by the Leader of the House last summer and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, last week—to set up a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider reform of your Lordships' House. Where did we hear that announcement, which is of such direct concern to the future of this House? It was not in a Statement to the House, but in a private briefing given to Mr Patrick Wintour of the Guardian. Has there been a Statement to the House since? Was there a willingness to answer the Private Notice Question that I asked on the issue? Sadly not.
No Government that believed in a strong Parliament would refuse to trust Parliament to discuss Parliament's own future. It may be a small issue in the great scheme of things, but am I alone in thinking that it matters? I think that I can answer my own question, having sat through the debate. It matters. These things are important. Private briefing is no substitute for coming to Parliament and holding oneself to account.
That is why I very much thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for coming to answer the debate this evening. It is also why, in thanking once again my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth for giving us the opportunity to have the debate, I urge the noble Baroness to use the first minutes of her reply, before she moves on to her substantive speech, to explain to the House the exact position on a Joint Committee, how she plans to build cross-party consensus and how the Government now intend to consult Parliament on future reform.
7.48 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton of

323
Louth, for his customary authoritative and, if I may say so, very clear introduction to the debate. I found it particularly helpful to hear him highlight again the main points of his report produced last summer, which adds enormously to all our discussions on the issue. As I was not present for the debate earlier this week and it has not been mentioned this evening, I congratulate him also on his new position as chairman of the Constitution Committee. The debate on that committee earlier this week showed that there are many relevant and serious issues for it to consider. Some of them were touched on today. We all look forward very much to the noble Lord's involvement in that and his leadership of a discussion that will inform many of our debates.
I think that I can call this an enjoyable debate, although I can say with my hand on my heart that I have not heard anything very new. No doubt noble Lords will say the same about my contribution this evening, and I shall simply respond by saying that that demonstrates the consistency of the Government's position on many of these issues. But then, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, would say, I am one of the usual suspects in that respect. As various noble Lords have pointed out, this is our fifth debate on the general issue of the constitution and Parliament since Christmas.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, demonstrates with enormous vigour his new-found enthusiasm for constitutional reform—something which, I must say, was not apparent during the many years in which I was in opposition in this House. The noble Lord was in government when that enthusiasm seemed to be somewhat muted.
I am always fascinated by the fact that, although Members of this House, and particularly noble Lords on the Conservative Benches, are enthusiastic when in opposition about regularly discussing what I believe one could rightly call the theory and mechanisms of executive and parliamentary powers, they show less interest in holding government to account by debating the practical policies of the government. Those are matters which, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, rightly said, are of great interest to the population beyond the Westminster village.
Although in the past few weeks we have had five debates on these broad issues of accountability, we have had none since the Queen's Speech before Christmas on employment, the National Health Service or schools, except in response to government Statements. I suggest that those are the practical policies on which this Government—indeed, any government—should certainly be held to account. Perhaps noble Lords opposite take the view that on these policies the Government's record is not to be criticised.
However, the fact is that with regard to the general constitutional issue, as my noble and learned friends Lord Williams of Mostyn and Lord Falconer have both said in reply to similar debates in the past month, the Government respect profoundly the right of Parliament to criticise and hold them to account. As
324
the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said in a very eloquent address on this matter in which I agreed with his points if not necessarily with his conclusions, the ability to command the support of the House of Commons is and must remain the sole source of the Government's legitimacy between elections.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, that where we have introduced reforms, such as in relation to devolution and the Human Rights Act, which, I suggest, have taken government closer to the people or given the people rights which they can exercise directly against the Government, those have not diminished but rather have strengthened parliamentary practice. We do not apologise for that; nor do we believe that they amount to shaking the balance of power.
A constant consideration in our programme of constitutional reform has been the wish to preserve the position of the Westminster Parliament. That is why, for example, we have very much supported and developed a system of devolution as against any suggestion of federalism. Indeed, that is why, following the implementation of the Human Rights Act, the courts may only make a declaration of incompatibility against primary legislation and not remotely set it aside.
I believe that all those changes have strengthened the reality of today's parliamentary democracy in which the Westminster Parliament remains supreme. As I have already said, within Parliament the elected House is in turn supreme and will always remain so. In a debate on 19th January, my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General described that as the respectful balance between the two Houses. I believe that that is the settled position and that at least it answers the rhetorical point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne.
I hope that I shall not irritate my noble friend Lord Peston if I say that in my view he put the Government's position very succinctly—I know that that is not something which he always intends but I believe that on this occasion he has certainly helped. We respect the right of this House to question the Government, to probe their legislation and their activities, and to ask the other place to think again. We are convinced that, in order to make Parliament effective as a whole, both Houses of Parliament need to work together and to work as closely as possible in scrutinising the Government and holding it in general to account.
We continue to believe that the best form of Parliament for the United Kingdom is a bicameral one in which the second Chamber has a distinctive contribution to make. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that that distinctive contribution is based on the authoritative contributions made by virtue of the quality of the Members of that House.
I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, that, for example, your Lordships' Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee is now immensely authoritative, precisely because of the authority of its contributions. That is not simply because it is a committee of your Lordships' House, but because of

325
the nature, function and particular recommendations that it makes. I believe that we all agree that it fulfils a particular function in the legislative process and fulfils it very well. We have already referred to the potential role of the Constitution Committee. I hope that over time it may achieve a similar status.
There have been some suggestions, perhaps best exemplified by what the noble Lords, Lord Rodgers and Lord Strathclyde, said, that one of the objectives of reform of your Lordships' House has been to produce a body which, in a sense, is important and easy for the Government to control, as, at the moment, they control another place because of the size of the Government's parliamentary majority. However, I believe that that does not stand up to examination.
As I have said on numerous occasions since the House of Lords Act was passed and since we debated the House of Lords report by the Royal Commission under the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, we want to create a House which can deliver on parliamentary scrutiny and on revising the legislative function, which complements the other place but which does not, ultimately, defy it or try to supersede it. I believe that that is an example of what we have said consistently. It was said again this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree. It is one of the reasons why we have argued consistently for the value of the significant, non-party element in any further reform, and why, equally consistently, we have said that we do not believe that any political party should have a majority in your Lordships' House.
It always seems to me to defy common sense, as well as any kind of parliamentary calculation, that a House in which the government of the day have no majority can be described as one which they control and press through executive power. To that extent, I believe that this House will always have the strength of its own position.
I am sure that your Lordships acknowledge—indeed, this point was made by several speakers—that ultimately it is the other place where the Government must stand or fall and that the Government are entitled to get their legislation passed. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has made that point on several public occasions and it was reinforced tonight by the noble Lord. Lord Dean of Harptree.
After reading the report of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and hearing him speak on this matter in several forums, in general I believe that he shares the vision of the proper balance between the two Houses and of where true accountability lies—in the House of Commons. Therefore, I do not believe that he wants to extend the powers of this House at the expense of those of another place. He may well want to extend the powers of this House in addition to those of another place, but that is a different matter.
However, after listening to some of the contributions this evening and to the debate in general, I am not sure that that is true of everyone who spoke. I detected an element of the view that the other place can no longer be trusted to do its job properly and that, therefore, additional functions should perhaps fall to
326
this House. Although in debate and, indeed, in conversation we are sometimes critical of the activities of another place, it is important that we should not believe our own propaganda about its work. We should respect the work carried out by the Select Committees. Since the advent of the Westminster Hall system, which I am sure your Lordships have witnessed, Select Committee reports have been debated in much greater number than ever before. I can assure noble Lords that the Government take seriously both the reports and the debates which have been extended through that additional scrutiny system.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, made some trenchant criticisms of the quality of the work that is sometimes carried out by the Finance Standing Committee. However, I believe that in general noble Lords would agree that Standing Committees on Bills, where MPs have a chance to become expert on a subject and to devote a considerable amount of time to consideration of an issue, can be properly described as an effective method of scrutiny. I believe that your Lordships will agree that we often benefit—or perhaps the word is "suffer"—from that scrutiny when government amendments are moved in this House in response to issues which have been raised in the other place through that system.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, in particular, together with the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, made some detailed criticisms of changes in the way in which procedure operated in the other place. Perhaps noble Lords will forgive me, but I am not sure whether it would be proper for the Government to comment in detail on some of those points.
However, I shall refer to two points which were raised because they were mentioned by several noble Lords. One is the question relating to the Prime Minister and his accountability. That question, which has been raised and, I should have thought, has been answered substantially on several occasions, suggests that somehow having one 30-minute session at Question Time reduces the accountability of the Question period. It seems odd to suggest that two 15-minute periods of Questions is better than one 30-minute period. For example, when Mr Major was Prime Minister, he missed more Question Times simply because he was drawn into other parts of government business to a greater extent than the present Prime Minister has been. It is easier for my right honourable friend effectively to organise his diary to attend Question Time for one 30-minute session each week.
The figures show that Mr Major missed 49 out of 399 Question Times over a Parliament because of the demands of other government business. That is an average of 12.3 per cent. My right honourable friend has missed only six out of 118 Question Times, an average of 5.1 per cent. I am not sure how important those statistics are, but they are relevant to the broad criticism that the present Prime Minister has reduced his accountability by reducing the time that is available

327
at Question Time. Another statistic, which may or may not be important, shows that during the previous Parliament Mr John Major made 28 Statements, but the present Prime Minister has made 32. The reiteration of the mantra that the Prime Minister pays no attention to Parliament should be defeated by these arcane but none the less relevant statistics.
I enjoyed the exchange between the noble Lords, Lord Patten and Lord Weatherill, about the relative discipline of the Whipping system under previous administrations. Noble Lords also discussed whether the other place is increasingly dominated by the Whips. I was interested in the comment only two nights ago by the deputy Leader of the other place, Mr Paddy Tipping, who pointed out an obviously salient truth about the operation of the other place. He said that there had to be two-way traffic between Back-Benchers and the Whips. He also said that, to be blunt, any Whips' Office that forgets the nature of this relationship is in for a terrible shock.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, touched on the question of our powers over secondary legislation. The suggestion was that during this Parliament the transitionary nature of this House meant that it should be more acceptable for this House to challenge and vote against secondary legislation. I am not sure why a transitionary House should have that effect. Many of the proposals that have been advanced in that context bear consideration, including super-affirmative instruments and the many other points raised in the report by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, by the Royal Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and by the Procedure Committee in another place. Many of those proposals bear proper examination, but none of them leads to the conclusion that it is sensible for the House routinely to deny government an instrument that they need to be able to govern. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, the same points apply in that regard as apply with regard to primary legislation.
I was interested in the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Rodgers and Lord Strathclyde, about the importance of bipartisan co-operation and consensus in relation to further reforms and further constitutional changes that the Government may envisage. I was somewhat surprised by the argument of the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen. He seemed to assert that any criticism of the nature of the transitionary House, especially with regard to the points that I made about the ability to vote down secondary legislation, boomeranged on the Government because we alone created this House in a single-handed and rather arrogant stroke. If the noble Viscount looks back—I am glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, are in their places to attest to this—he will see that the House of Lords Act 1999, which produced the present transitionary House, was created by cross-party consensus on the way to move forward. It was the result of the sort of collaboration that the noble Viscount appeared to deny had taken place.
328
On the present position of the Joint Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, rather jumped the gun. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, all that happened this week was that Mr Robin Cook and Mr Robert Maclennan, as the joint leaders, as it were, of the Liberal Democrats and the Government in relation to the discussions on the Joint Committee, agreed not to have further talks. There was no formal abandonment of the Joint Committee proposal and there were no developments that would have needed a substantive and formal procedure. As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said, it is true—this was confirmed by my right honourable friend Mr Robin Cook—that the Government and the Liberal Democrats agreed that they have taken their discussions on reform of the second Chamber as far as they presently go. That much is fairly clear.
The Government do not feel that they have to answer any accusations about dragging their feet over seeking to find consensus. We have been struggling—I believe that that is the right word—since last summer to find a way in which to have a sensible bipartisan or tripartisan suggestion about how the Joint Committee could consider further the Royal Commission report on further reform of your Lordships' Chamber. We have made it clear that we are not in favour of any Joint Committee considering composition, although that would be a matter for your Lordships and Parliament to discuss when legislation was produced. All Members of both Houses would have an opportunity to contribute to the many debates that there would be on that matter. Looking back at the debates on the more simplified version of the original House of Lords Act 1999 suggests that those further debates would be very lengthy.
In conclusion, I reiterate the fact that the Government are not remotely afraid of parliamentary scrutiny. We are quite happy to be held to account by Parliament, particularly by the other place and on the specifics of our practical policies. We have introduced a number of changes to the way in which the other place operates, which are designed to make it work more effectively and efficiently. It is wrong to assume, as some noble Lords who spoke in this debate seem to have done, that the intention is to reduce parliamentary scrutiny. Time does not necessarily equal effectiveness. I do not like the word "presenteeism", but it is used in industry to describe that function by which people are present in their place of work but not necessarily performing a particular function—the virtue is simply to be there. Presenteeism can afflict Parliament, as it may afflict other walks of life.
The Government are clear about the fact that the House of Commons must be the primary source of accountability, and that it will become even better equipped to deliver that accountability. The role of your Lordships' House will always be to complement that process. We look to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, to take the lead in our efforts to be imaginative when devising methods to improve that function.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all those who participated in this debate. I suspect that I have about 30 seconds to make my remarks so I shall be very brief.
We have had an excellent debate, which was marked by the substantial number of speakers and by the quality of their speeches. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, who said that we have a system that is absolutely preferable to others. We need to defend it and strengthen it. I welcome the recommendations that noble Lords made in this
330
debate about strengthening Parliament. Some excellent proposals and significant statements were made and important questions were asked.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that oppositions tend to favour the strengthening of Parliament. I stress that I have been calling for a strengthening of Parliament for the past 20 years. That leads me to my final point. My Motion calls for Papers. Plenty of papers are available; I have contributed to the amount of paperwork. I do not want more papers; I want parliamentarians to read the papers that exist and to act on them. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at nine minutes past eight o'clock.

  Educational Projects in Museums and Galleries: DfEE Funding
  Educational Projects in Museums and Galleries: DfEE Funding
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Inland Bathing Waters
  Inland Bathing Waters
  A406: Litter Clearance
  A406: Litter Clearance
  Greater London: Cycle Accidents
  Greater London: Cycle Accidents
  Asylum Seekers
  Asylum Seekers
  Depleted Uranium: Screening Programme
  Depleted Uranium: Screening Programme
  BBC Producers' Guidelines on Political Impartiality
  BBC Producers' Guidelines on Political Impartiality
  English Heritage: Archaeology Budget
  English Heritage: Archaeology Budget
  Independent Football Commission
  Independent Football Commission
  Winter Fuel Payments
  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr Panicos Tsiakourmas
  Mr Panicos Tsiakourmas
  Harare: Press Freedom
  Harare: Press Freedom
  Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group: Mandate
  Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group: Mandate
  Magistrates' Courts
  Magistrates' Courts
  Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy: Methods of Identification
  Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy: Methods of Identification
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission